What cars do you consider to be tacky/ cringe?

[Anonymous]

Why does anyone care what another drives; isn’t it just a continuation of mean spirited behavior carried over from the Middle School thread? You have too much free time to even think that something is”cringe”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

You know electrics still require energy to charge right? And unless you have a crap ton of solar panels you are charging your car with electricity produced from non renewable sources. And bigger cars still need more energy, electric or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

You know electrics still require energy to charge right? And unless you have a crap ton of solar panels you are charging your car with electricity produced from non renewable sources. And bigger cars still need more energy, electric or not.

PP here. Yes, I understand. See my response from earlier in which I indicate that we need a significant change of lifestyle in order to bring our aggregate energy consumption in-line with long-run energy production from renewable sources. David MacKay -- a British physicist -- has an excellent book on this topic:

<url>
https://www.withouthotair.com/
</url>

[Anonymous]

All the super expensive ones. It's just garish over consumerism and bragging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

[Anonymous]

Literally all SUVs unless your family size and/or job justifies it. I live in the middle of the city and it’s so gross to me how many people here buy vehicles that are so much larger than what they need. A family of 2 or 3 does not need an SUV. Especially not when you live in spitting distance of the metro, four bus lines, light rail, a bunch of bike shares, and can walk to the grocery store in under 5 minutes.

If you must get a car in this situation, just get a sedan or hatch back! You do not need a giant SUV and choosing to get one is tacky AF to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jeeps are the most cringe car in the world. I regularly fight the urge to slash the tires and top every time I see one in a parking lot. I just want to punch their owners in the face.

I honestly doubt I’d be able to even notice any new scratches you’d put on it, since both sides are basically covered in years’ worth of scratches from brush on the trail. Some dents from rocks, too.

But if I had the good fortune to actually catch you in the act of doing it, it would be a life changing experience for you. One you’d have a daily reminder of for the rest of your life. So you should probably knock that sh!t off.

DP. Ooooh, a keyboard warrior

Nope, actual warrior. Reshaping someone’s nose in a parking lot is pretty tame compared to the things I’ve done in service to this country.

Ooooh, we're so impressed.... not.

Toxic male soldier rage has entered the room. Good times!

DP

I can understand giving someone a beat down if you caught them vandalizing your car because they didn’t like it. That’s just wrong on such a personal level. It’s a violation. If you do that to someone and you get your a$$ kicked for it then you earned it. If I’m ever seated on a jury for something like that they will be acquitted. You just don’t mess with people’s property. It’s fundamentally wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

WE DON'T CARE

There are plenty of people who feel quite differently, so I'm not sure who the "WE" is.

Do you doubt the science behind global warming? Or perhaps you just don't care what happens to the planet that you are passing onward to your kids and grandkids?

I can tell you EXACTLY who part of the “WE” is:

Wealthy climate activists, mouthy celebrities, and the very same politicians telling us that our SUV’s are killing the planet - but who all ride around in Suburbans and Escalades. Usually for trips to their 10ksqft+ homes or to airports where they board private jets for frivolous travel.

That’s who the “WE” is.

I lost all respect for Al Gore when he did his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which featured multiple scenes of him riding around in a big, gas guzzling Town Car limousine while pontificating about C02.

Until the wealthy, the climate hucksters and the politicians start living lifestyles that resemble mine, I can’t take anything they say seriously. They just need to either STFU or live what they preach.

[Anonymous]

Nope, actual warrior. Reshaping someone’s nose in a parking lot is pretty tame compared to the things I’ve done in service to this country.

OK, I'm curious -- what impressive acts of manhood have you done "in the service to this country"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing.

Just read the book. I can tell you have read a couple of pages and that is it. The book is not long. You could already have made some progress with it in the time you have spent here on DCUM misstating the author's ideas.

The issue boils down to land area per capita, and the competing demands placed upon that land. When you add up all of our present energy and food needs, and the available land per capita, and the maximum potential energy per square meter provided by wind, solar and tides, you fall well short of the mark. The author concludes as follows:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

While the author's focus is on the UK and Europe, the same conclusions apply to the USA -- in fact, our situation is even worse because our present energy usage per capita is twice that of the UK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge SUVs like the Chevy Suburban. Even if you have a bunch of kids, the size of this SUV is excessive and the gas mileage is horrible --15 mpg!!

I don't understand how so many educated people in this area can make the decision to buy these gas-guzzling vehicles. It isn't ignorance of the facts. These drivers (1) know that climate change is real; (2) know that SUVs are a non-trivial component of CO2 emissions; and (3) know that fossil fuels are a finite resource that could eventually be exhausted. Armed with this knowledge, I don't understand how educated people can purchase a big SUV.

Soon all these large SUV's and full size trucks will be electric. What will you have to complain about then?

This will be better than our present situation, but there will still be a lot of CO2 released in the production process. Some SUVs weigh more than 6000 pounds. This is more than twice as much as compact car. 6000 pounds -- and the associated CO2 -- is excessive.

We not only need to electrify the economy, but we need to downsize our houses and cars, and reduce our tendency to buy lots of stuff that we barely use and that toss in the rubbish bin. These changes are needed even in the absence of climate change. They are needed to reduce our energy requirements so that they can be served, in the long run, by renewable sources. Fossil fuels are finite and will not last forever. Nuclear power is also a finite resource.

Here is an excellent book written on sustainable energy rewritten by a British physicist named David MacKay. He has since passed away, but his ideas remain valid. The book examines if renewable resources -- developed to their theoretical full potential -- can satisfy our present level of energy consumption. The answer is clearly NO. So significant lifestyle changes are necessary or, alternatively, we need to gradually reduce the human population to a sustainable level.

<url>https://www.withouthotair.com/</url>

Thanks for the link but the answer from that link is not “clearly NO” but rather “most likely YES”. The estimates of renewable energy supply is just slightly (5-10 percent) less than demand. Given how crude these estimates are it is within the margin of error

A realistic estimate for the combine power provided by wind, solar and tides is trivial relative to our present rate of energy consumption. David MacKay brings nuclear into the picture to provide more power, but acknowledges that nuclear is not a renewable resource. He advocates for significant lifestyle adjustments such as smaller houses and apartments, mass transportation and bicycles. Here is one of his key conclusions, keeping in mind that he uses the U.K. as the focal point for his discussion:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar
power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

In regard to "solar power in other people's deserts" -- namely, in the Sahara -- he acknowledges that this is tricky proposal given that the power would have to be transported great distances, across many political boundaries.

Realistic estimate of renewable energy is trivial? That is laughable. Things we take for granted today were completely unrealistic 100 years ago. Did he take into account that we’ll stick a solar panel on top of each SUV? Or cover the moon with solar panels and beam the energy to Earth?

You are joking about the solar panels on the moon, right?

And exactly how much energy do you think you can get from a solar panel on the top of an SUV, relative to the energy requirements of an SUV? An SUV is heavy and is not aerodynamic, so its energy requirements to accelerate and to maintain speed against air resistance are quite large. But let's suppose an SUV needs about 4 kilowatt hours per mile traveled, which is about the requirements of a Tesla. Suppose a typical SUV driver would like to drive 30 miles a day. So they need 30 * 4 = 120 KWH of power each day. Suppose that we cover the entire upward surface area (about 130 sq feet or 12 sq meters) of the SUV with solar panels that have 60% efficiency, which is double the level of the best panels today. On average, each square meter of the planet's surface receives solar energy of 170 watts per square meter (average across 365 days and 24 hours a day). Therefore, each day our solar-powered car will receive an energy of 170W * 24 hours * 60% efficiency * 12 sq meters = 30 KWH, which is only about 25% of the vehicle's daily energy needs. And keep in mind that this is just the usage of our vehicle, and does not include the production. And we are also heating and cooling our homes, growing our food, and manufacturing all of the many items that we use.

The author -- a well-respect physicist -- demonstrates that to replace fossil fuels with renewables (solar, wind, tides) would require vast areas of land. So much land, in fact, that it would compete with the land area we need for other things, such as growing our food and the areas where we place our houses, apartments and offices.

I suggest before quarrelling with the author's conclusions that you read his book.

Lol, you just proved my point. According to your calculations a solar panel on top of a car provides 25 percent of car energy needs. Car energy needs account for 40 percent of all energy needs. So, there you go you get the extra 10 percent of total energy needs you were missing.

Just read the book. I can tell you have read a couple of pages and that is it. The book is not long. You could already have made some progress with it in the time you have spent here on DCUM misstating the author's ideas.

The issue boils down to land area per capita, and the competing demands placed upon that land. When you add up all of our present energy and food needs, and the available land per capita, and the maximum potential energy per square meter provided by wind, solar and tides, you fall well short of the mark. The author concludes as follows:

"Let’s be realistic. Just like Britain, Europe can’t live on its own renewables. So if the aim is to get off fossil fuels, Europe needs nuclear power, or solar power in other people’s deserts (as discussed on p179), or both."

While the author's focus is on the UK and Europe, the same conclusions apply to the USA -- in fact, our situation is even worse because our present energy usage per capita is twice that of the UK.

I am not the one writing pages of nerdy calculations. And I was not laughing at the author but rather at your very opinionated interpretations and conclusions. That said, it was an interesting link, thank you for that. I might actually read it sometime