Let’s say that the goal is to move cars around without polluting and that you have a sun, a planet with wind, water streams, waves and with radioactive materials that can be fused or fissed. But no oil because that pollutes.
Sure, but if you need twice the energy for doing the same, that creates a larger CO2 footprint and higher resource demand (ie also more pollution) than the more efficient alternative, even if everything is based on renewable energies. But that is maybe too theoretical, more practical is the issue that the inefficient technology will struggle to become competitive.
There’s no pollution past transition because the energy would come from wind, solar and or nuclear or other such renewables.
Renewables don’t burn anything and nuclear only produces small quantities of waste. Specifically the new fusion reactors will produce no or much reduced waste. There’s no C02 involved at all.
Realize that all of the sun energy is actually wasted. It literally just passes thru the planet every single day. All we do with solar is play with that energy by slowing its departure a little more than usual. Eventually the planet just gives it off to the rest of the universe via heat and other electromagnetic emissions. Further more, the sun is way larger than earth and it emits light that will never actually reach us. We are but a tiny sliver of all the sun’s emissions. The rest of that power is just given off to the universe. Solar power is thus a permanent source that we can use specifically for transportation… Electrical or hydrogen. The question of inefficiency only has any meaning when comparing.
There are always pollution and costs to the environment for every human activity (at least on industrial scale). Renewables are just much better than the alternatives. However, if you can choose between wasting energy by the factor of two or not to do so, the option without the wasted energy is considerably better to the environment.
You can put your hopes on nuclear fusion but it is no different there as well. It also uses resources and also creates waste, that is, in case it every becomes a feasible alternative to begin with.
Regarding solar energy. It is not the energy transformation that is such a big issue, it is the economy of building (incl. resource extraction, transport, production and assembly), maintaining and recycling the infrastructure needed. All of that creates pollution even in a 100% renewable energy driven economy.
Let’s say that the goal is to move cars around without polluting and that you have a sun, a planet with wind, water streams, waves and with radioactive materials that can be fused or fissed. But no oil because that pollutes.
Sure, but if you need twice the energy for doing the same, that creates a larger CO2 footprint and higher resource demand (ie also more pollution) than the more efficient alternative, even if everything is based on renewable energies. But that is maybe too theoretical, more practical is the issue that the inefficient technology will struggle to become competitive.
There’s no pollution past transition because the energy would come from wind, solar and or nuclear or other such renewables.
Renewables don’t burn anything and nuclear only produces small quantities of waste. Specifically the new fusion reactors will produce no or much reduced waste. There’s no C02 involved at all.
Realize that all of the sun energy is actually wasted. It literally just passes thru the planet every single day. All we do with solar is play with that energy by slowing its departure a little more than usual. Eventually the planet just gives it off to the rest of the universe via heat and other electromagnetic emissions. Further more, the sun is way larger than earth and it emits light that will never actually reach us. We are but a tiny sliver of all the sun’s emissions. The rest of that power is just given off to the universe. Solar power is thus a permanent source that we can use specifically for transportation… Electrical or hydrogen. The question of inefficiency only has any meaning when comparing.
There are always pollution and costs to the environment for every human activity (at least on industrial scale). Renewables are just much better than the alternatives. However, if you can choose between wasting energy by the factor of two or not to do so, the option without the wasted energy is considerably better to the environment.
You can put your hopes on nuclear fusion but it is no different there as well. It also uses resources and also creates waste, that is, in case it every becomes a feasible alternative to begin with.
Regarding solar energy. It is not the energy transformation that is such a big issue, it is the economy of building (incl. resource extraction, transport, production and assembly), maintaining and recycling the infrastructure needed. All of that creates pollution even in a 100% renewable energy driven economy.