Quote:
Originally Posted by Monahammer
Yeah we're apparently arguing over nothing, as I initially said that they would have needed to develop electric infrastructure to make them competitive long term.
But you've jilted me a bit so I will dig more. How much do you want to bet that laws determining what types of vehicles are legally allowed on highways were lobbied to creation by petroleum companies? Because that would be an interesting one to delve into.
I digress, the original point is valid. Yeah, fossil fuels are cheap and easy. But it's way more complicated than that- the reason they are continuously so cheap is artificial, and the reason that they are so "easy" compared to other methods is probably maintained artificially as well.
|
I think vehicle manufacturers had a lot more to do with how roads and cities developed than oil companies. And vehicle manufacturers wouldn't care about the fuel used, so I don't think oil is all that relevant to that part of the discussion.
The cheapness, perhaps is somewhat artificial. It depends how many externalities you want to factor in. But it is incredibly cheap to take oil out of the ground in a place like Saudi Arabia. But as far as energy density combine with convenience, not much else comes close. There is no way to store power as efficiently as it is in hydrocarbons. The biggest impediment to wind and solar is the lack of storage. Adding batteries is extremely expensive, and I don't buy the argument petroleum would be too, if you just stopped subsidizing it. The math just doesn't work.
The reason this transition is slow is because it is incredibly hard, and we are still hunting for solutions. If it was easy to replace oil, we would have done it long ago.