An Energy Policy Should Contemplate Externalities
MarcoPolo writes: …Worse still, attempts to include all sorts of dubious “externalities ” looks like a desperate attempt to cover up old lies and maintain old myths. It may preach well to the already converted, but increases mistrust among the already doubtful, and provides excellent ammunition for skeptics.
That’s a fringe viewpoint if there ever were one. There are more people who believe in the Easter Bunny than people who believe that burning fossil fuels is benign to our health and environment.
Well, I don’t know about the Easter Bunny, but all the growth of the industrial era, including all sanitation and medical technology is the result of the discovery of cheap energy obtained by burning fossil fuel.
Again, it depends how you pose the question :
1) ” Do you believe burning gasoline in vehicles are good for your health ?” The emphatic will be NO.
2) ” do you believe Ambulances, Fire Engines and Emergency Vehicles, save lives” the answer will be YES.
People have become conditioned to think that the burning of fossil fuels is harmful to health.
To a certain extent, that’s true. But any proper analysis can’t just contain the negatives, that’s not analysis, that’s propaganda.
Proper debate, or analysis, shouldn’t admit only commonly held prejudices, or belief. It should also seek to arrive at informed deductions.
The crux of the issue in 1) and 2) here is a false equivalent, the weight of which is wholly dependent on whether one is of the opinion that emergency vehicles must necessarily continue to burn fossil energy (either within their engines, or at the power generation point that charges their batteries).
Further, at issue is whether we continue to allow the damages and abuses wrought by the fossil energy industry to remain uncounted, unaddressed and undiminished, when clear and proven alternatives exist. It’s especially foolhardy to do so out of a sense of devotional reverence toward the beneficial progress and technological developments that have thus far been assisted and maintained by readily available fossil energy.
The fact that oil (as one source of prehistoric sunlight energy) has been instrumental in aspects of our civilization that we view as favorable does not mean that we must continue to use oil for these purposes when proven effective and efficient alternatives exist. An assertion to the contrary is the result of a logical fallacy.
Cameron, your statement ;-
” Emergency vehicles must necessarily continue to burn fossil energy (either within their engines, or at the power generation point that charges their batteries). ”
Pretty well sums up the utopian nature of your thinking ! There is no “battery powered” Fire Engine weighing between 15 and 30 tonnes, traveling between 30 and 200 miles, at high speed, operating powerful searchlights, and pumping 1000’s of gallons of water, while running a lot of extra generating capacity !
There is no such EV technology available ! It doesn’t exist.
” when proven effective and efficient alternatives exist. An assertion to the contrary is the result of a logical fallacy. ”
That’ the whole problem with your assertions, they are based, at the best on highly speculative future advances, or as in this case, fantasy.
But, there’s a simple resolution to my doubting your position. Tell me the manufacturer of an EV fire engine of that capacity, or explain how to build one, and I will immediately apologize.
I’m sure that as a fair-minded person, if you can’t substantiate your assertion, you will be gracious enough to concede your error, and retract your observation.
Even an ambulance is beyond the capacity of battery technology. A fully equipped Ambulance weigh around 5 tonnes, needs to travel quite long distances, at high speeds. These vehicles need to operate a lot of energy intensive life-saving equipment, far beyond the capacity of the equivalent of four Tesla model S battery packs ! (the cost would be phenomenal) .
But, hey…if you have the technical solution to these problems,…I’ll not only apologize, I’ll fund the commercialization !
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/bmws-electric-truck-goes-into-service-in-munich.html
You state, “Proper debate, or analysis, shouldn’t admit only commonly held prejudices, or belief. It should also seek to arrive at informed deductions.”
It’s quite interesting that in your 1) and 2) above you have presented existing challenges (taking certain classes of emergency vehicles off prehistoric carbon fuel) as reasoning why the you believe the answer should be ‘Yes’ to the question “Do you believe burning gasoline in vehicles are [is] good for your health?”
The clear implication in your false equivalency is that if all vehicles cannot be developed to move off of internal combustion, then there should be no major push to quickly go as far as we practically can in that direction.
Cameron,
You live a little world of your own ideology, don’t you ?
Over the last 18 years i have been the majority shareholder and director of a modestly successful company manufacturing, renting, leasing and servicing specialist Electric vehicles. For the last in the UK 4 years I have owned and driven a Liberty Electric Range Rover. I was an early adopter of Hybrid technology. I have been modestly influential in the UK and Australia in introducing EV technology to the fleet market.
Sadly, I was an early shareholder in Vectrix, but happily I was an early shareholder in Tesla !
My current investment in advanced battery technology, is not insubstantial.
In the UK , I built my own biomass-reactor, and a small distribution grid. In Australia, I was an early adopter of Solar and a substantial investor in the Australian Solar industry . (luckily, I sold out before the leftist Labour/Green government destroyed the local industry)
Oh, as a hobby in future retirement , I have acquired over the years 24 EV’s of various ages and rarities. Some date back to the 19th century. My latest acquisition is a unique early EV that could travel on tyres or rail, had a sleeping compartment, and had been lost in a jungle for more than 80 years. ( restoration should prove a challenge).
I have restored my great-grandfather’s enormous vehicle built in 1903. The vehicle could operate on virtually any fuel, and could travel over 40 miles using an enormous bank of lead acid batteries. ( a very early hybrid :). The vehicle could also run on rail tracks.
Now, you were saying about EV’s……?
But none of this means that I can do with the fossil fueled fire brigade, ambulance, etc . So, despite my passion for EV technology, I’m not going to sit around wallowing in hypocrisy, loudly condemning those producing the the technology I rely upon.
Please see: http://2greenenergy.com/2015/09/03/thank-goodness-lots-of-people-are-pushing-for-a-better-world/.