[alancalverd]

Oh yes it is. Compare sailing and gliding with motor boating and power flying. Electric cars are quiet and non-smelly at the point of use. The only problem is that they require someone to burn coal or gas somewhere else.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Electric cars are quiet and non-smelly at the point of use

And require you to drive at least 80,000 miles for the carbon used in construction  to be recouped even if powered from a low carbon fuel source such as hydro electric. Oil, tyres chemicals. A horsy may be environmentally neutral but their efficiency precludes the general population from equestrian activities.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Switzerland considers temporary ban on electric vehicles.

http://Https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2022/12/02/switzerland-wonders-if-electric-car-use-should-be-curtailed-in-power-emergencies/amp/

[Bored chemist]

A horsy may be environmentally neutral

It isn't.

[alancalverd]

A horse standing in a field emits as much carbon dioxide in a year as a small car driving 8000 miles.

If you want the horse to do anything useful (like take you from A to B) it emits more.

And the car does not emit methane.

[evan_au]

electric car owners must make sure that their houses contain enough solar panels to charge their cars

By analogy, I assume that every owner of a petrol car needs to ensure that their houses contain enough "nodding donkeys" to fuel their cars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack#Names

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

A horse standing in a field emits as much carbon dioxide in a year as a small car driving 8000 miles.

If you want the horse to do anything useful (like take you from A to B) it emits more.

And the car does not emit methane.

But at the end of the day it is neutral, it produces much in the way of big piles of steaming fertiliser, oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth, nor being a carbon neutral means of transport. The fuel for the horse is carbon renewable much like bio diesel, except it doesn't need to be processed.

[Bored chemist]

oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth

Cars are not noted for their nitrogen requirements
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Economic_and_environmental_aspects

[alancalverd]

oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth,

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?

It is obvious that to get useful work out of a  horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.

[wolfekeeper]

While an exponential decay is indeed an exponential, this is what the worldwide solar power looks like on a semilog graph:

At this point I think you must have scant interlect, selectively cherry picking and antagonistic to further your point or are insultingly slobbish, considering I started the thread. Considering the gas demand seems to be in Europe, during the winter, the solar argument just doesnt make sense.

This graph is mobile phone ownership, true viability, it starts low exponentially rise and then levels off at saturation, unlike the solar installation "exponential" of long and drawn out rise never reaching saturation, peaking and troughing like a whale in the shallows, or is fairly predictable as in your graph.

mobixsubscr_2008x20_800x574.png (5.81 kB . 800x574 - viewed 2325 times)
Europe solar installation

500px-Electricity_production_capacities_for_solar_power_in_EU-27,_2000-2019_(MW) (1).png (65.62 kB . 500x274 - viewed 2297 times)

That's not because the EU has too many photovoltaics. We're NOWHERE near saturation. We'd need three times the amount of photovoltaics and about the same factor of extra wind power to even cover the current demand. The graph is affected by economics, the 2008 crash has affected the installation rate in the EU. But the installation rate is also affected by the cost of panels, and the cost has continued to plummet, as has the cost of batteries. With all the Russian stuff solar panel installations are overwhelmingly likely to shoot up again now, and catch up to the curve. The fundamentals are economic, and they haven't changed.

oil is not recognised for its byproducts being beneficial to plant growth,

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is essential for plant growth. Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?

It is obvious that to get useful work out of a  horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.

So are nitrogen compounds. But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

.

this must be a wind up
https://www.google.com/search?q=why+are+fossil+fuels+bad

[Bored chemist]

Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?

Stars.
Do you see that as somehow relevant?

[Bored chemist]

It is obvious that to get useful work out of a  horse, or indeed any other machine that burns organic fuels, you have to generate CO2 from plant material, either living or dead.

Congratulations; you just worked out why we need electric vehicles.

[alancalverd]

And how do we generate electricity? Or build cars? Or mine the stuff we need to make batteries?

Little point in demanding a new product until you have enough supply to make it.

At present, the quantity of CO2 emitted in the production of a medium electric car exceeds that required to keep its existing diesel predecessor on the road for another 100,000 miles or more.

[alancalverd]

Where do you think all the carbon came from to make coal and oil in the first place?

Stars.
Do you see that as somehow relevant?

I think you may have missed out a few steps in the process of photosynthesis.

The idea of growing plankton or trees directly from meteorites or cosmic radiation deserves development, but I won't be investing right now: photochemical extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere is a mature and reliable, if inefficient, process.

[alancalverd]

But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.

All the carbon in coal must have originated in the atmosphere, so it must have been there at the beginning of the carboniferous period and gradually sequestered by plant growth.

[Bored chemist]

I think you may have missed out a few steps in the process of photosynthesis.

You seem to have missed one of the early steps.
The carbon came from stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

[Bored chemist]

All the carbon in coal must have originated in the atmosphere, so it must have been there at the beginning of the carboniferous period and gradually sequestered by plant growth.

Two problems.
One, it isn't necessarily true- the carbon could have entered the atmosphere gradually from carbide rocks or something. It might not have all been in the atmosphere at that point.
More importantly, your assertion does not actually address the point Wolfkeeper made

"But tip several times the optimum amount on, and the plants don't grow as well. The evidence is that plants don't, overall, grow faster with extra CO2.".

And, here's some evidence.
https://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

[evan_au]

Increasing atmospheric temperatures outside the usual range also interferes with plant growth.
This leads plants to move higher up mountains (except mountains have a top) or move polewards (until they run into a sea).
- At which point it is a matter of evolve or die...

[paul cotter]

I know of several establishments where the exhaust from chp plants is delivered into glasshouses to stimulate plant growth. When I heard this I was concerned about possible lubricant contamination.