Comments by "David H" (@DavidHalko) on "Two Bit da Vinci" channel.

  1. 27
  2. 18
  3. 16
  4. 14
  5. 11
  6. 10
  7. 8
  8. 7
  9. 7
  10. 7
  11. 7
  12. 7
  13. 6
  14. 6
  15. 5
  16. 5
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 4
  20. 4
  21. 4
  22. 4
  23. 4
  24. 4
  25. 4
  26. 4
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 3
  34. 3
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66.  @extragoode  - “everywhere in the world that isn’t using coal…” The world is building more coal plants. In 2023, it was well known that global coal consumption climbed to a new all-time high. Coal will continue to grow. Sure, a relatively small number of nations are rich enough to adopt clean energy, outsourcing the dirty energy production & dirty air jobs to the third world. The reality it, any improvement in mobility efficiency will help the world, and abandoning improvements in ICE will hurt the world more than a few rich nations moving to EV’s with a small numbers of rich regions in that small number rich nations moving to a less polluting form of energy production. “Midwest… 80% electricity… wind” According to Wikipedia, reading about the Midwest, states like “Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Kansas each had more than 20 percent of their electric power generation come from wind.” That was not north of 80% created from wind. As of 2023, Iowa is producing 64% wind, which is amazing… I don’t think we have a grip yet, on the cost (in energy & co2) of maintenance of wind turbines, as blades fall apart, but we will see over time. “Cherry picking” is thinking that the rich buying expensive cars, living in a rich area where energy prices are high due to newer energy components [being largely created where energy is dirty] is somehow going to make a difference as the vast majority of the world will burn coal & manufacturer with energy from coal plants. We know where the coal plants are being constructed: China, India, Africa, South America. Anything we do is a drop in the bucket, as soon as The West stops ICE improvements, all these other nations & continents will see only declines in their air quality, and what we have done will be nothing but virtue signaling.
    2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. 2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. “still pushing for natural gas and nuclear plants instead of wind and solar” Ummm… solar NEEDS natural gas peaker plants. Computer data centers require constant power 24x7, well suited for nuclear. Electric car fast chargers (40% of US residents rent, so charging at home is mostly for the wealthier home owner) get peak usage right before the sun comes up and at the end of the work day as the sun is going down, slightly missing the solar curve, requiring natural gas peaker plants. Air conditioning and heating costs exist when the sun goes down, people return home, and there is no sunlight for PV panels. Sure, we need batteries, with their hazardous materials, but we are no where near where we must be to recycle them. Batteries have a relatively short life expectancy when heavily used. Recycling batteries required incredible amount of heat energy, which is never accounted for in efficiency ratings. Sure, batteries to supplement power sounds good, but this brings a whole new issue. We need energy solutions with no hazardous materials & easy/efficient to recycle. Lead acid is easy to recycle, with north of 98% recycled, but load acid still has hazardous materials. Lithium is the worst of both worlds, with lithium in water linked to autism in children, close to 95% is dumped & leaching into water supplies, and recycling still has hazardous materials remaining for anything disposed of. Maybe salt batteries. 🙏🏼 Wind kills birds, as does thermal. Wind mills still have a recycling problem. Wind blade recycling is a nightmare, with huge wind blade dump yards appearing around the globe. All energy is dirty & dangerous. Carbon based fuels are still the best for recycling, if we could just grow more green plants to recycle CO2, capture CO2 to turn into fuel directly, and just be more efficient… but people are still producing more CO2 than is being recycled. Hydrogen looks like a good bet for recycling. ♻️ If only H2 production was not linked to solar ☀️, wind 💨 , natural gas, oil, and coal. Tidal production of H2 looks like it could be a truly viable solution, since H2 can be stored, transported, and conversion to energy can be done in low-tech combustion or through high tech fuel cells — allowing for a gradual ramp up of existing well recycle ♻️ technology to newer technology. Honestly, the recycling is the biggest problem we are not taking seriously enough. Anyone who says we have a solution is either disingenuous or ignorant. We need more energy. Period. We need it all. We need to figure out how to recycle ♻️ whatever remains. What recycles best should be increased, what recycles worst should be minimized. We need all energy forms, to avoid crisis when there is a bottleneck (example bottlenecks included: 1970’s embargo, power line constraint in California, polar vortex which caused blackouts in Texas & Mexico, electrical outage across North East & which extended into Canada, etc.)
    2
  84. 2
  85.  @klepow  - the problem is that rail is generally half duplex, one train 🚊 travels on the rail at a time going into a city. Maybe 2 trains 🚂 on a line, in the same direction, but not traveling the same line in opposing directions. Large segments of rail are shared. Sharing is more limited. With airports, multiple planes can be in the air at a time, hovering in queue, at different altitudes, and they are landing 🛬 one plane a minute. All day long. They look like strings of beads in the sky. It is more like a full duplex network line. Sure, we may have multiple rails entering a city, like multiple runways to an airport, but those runways are constantly in use by multiple planes, coming and going fairly rapidly within x mins, and the planes ✈️ can all be coming in and out, without the need to build the rail infrastructure between each point… only at the end points. To increase simultaneous usage with rail, more rail must be built & maintained, more rails between each & every point. To increase simultaneous usage with air, more planes ✈️ take off and land on existing runways, and adding a runway is easier than adding a rail, since the sky does not have to be built or maintained. Trains 🚂 are so 1800’s. The amount of energy & co2 required to make the steel, crush the rocks for the rail bed, create the ties of wood or concrete, swap the ties on a regular basis, inspect the rails, dispose of the old rails & ties, railroad ties are dumped in stacks on old railroad 🛤️ land (I used to live by such an area). Concrete is buried in landfills. It is outrageous! The energy used & waste is unbelievable! For the planes, we use radar to make sure the air is clear, we don’t inspect the air for flaws to replace the air when a defect is seen (just avoid occasional storms, which clear up), don’t need to dispose of bad air with defects (storms drop their rain 🌧️ and all is good). Plants 🌱 grow from the CO2. Nitrogen becomes fertilizers for the plants 🪴. The rain 🌧️ waters plants. Cows 🐮 eat plants 🌱. We eat burgers 🍔. All is good 👍🏼 in the world 🗺️ Honestly, air travel is much more economical & environmentally friendly. Once we have flying cars, this discussion will be so irrelevant.
    2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. Hey  @agr18181  - water may be at the poles, a robot may have to do a run & harvest some, using autonomous programming. 40 years ago, I programmed a BigTrak to go around my house and drop off stuff at a destination… systems are much more intelligent today! 3D Printers may produce various building materials required for a dome. Living quarters would need to be underground to some extent, because it is so cold, robots could dig those… that material could then be processed to create the material to print the building materials with… I have seen 3D printed domes made in the US - quite interesting! Really, the transparent portions of the done will need to be transported… unless they could make glass up there. If not, just transfer sand, or pick up the sand on the moon before sending it to Mars. Anything is possible with some robots, 3D printing parts, and enough energy. We have what we need today. The problem of getting off Mars, after arriving, is a bigger problem. SpaceX is closer to anything we have ever seen, with rocket boosters that can land vertically. Nuclear engines can be used to handle the propulsion between the planets. The need for solid or liquid fuel to get out of the atmosphere & gravitational fields is still a problem. Take people out there, excrement will be available as organic material for soil conditioning. Plenty of people don’t want to have children on the earth, they are perfect candidates for living on Mars, since they are not concerned about any next generation, so they would live well there. In some ways, it would be like early settlers leaving Europe and headed to the New World. Most died at first, but some flourished.
    2
  92. 2
  93. 2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. 2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. 2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. 2
  112. 2
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133.  @NeilBlanchard  - “Organic farming does not have a fertilizer runoff problem” 2015 study says organic fertilizers reduce runoff problems by ~15-18%, reduce is not eliminate. Too much chicken manure, for example, can lead to nitrate runoff, even if composted correctly. Other things like Epsom Salts, in small quantities, can help with blossom production, plant wall thickness, deter pests, chlorophyll production, etc. This is inorganic. Of course, proper quantities of everything is important. Best to test the soil. “fertilizer we use kills… the living organisms in the soil” If that was the case, then nitrogen fixing bacteria 🦠 would not be alive to create plant 🌱improvements in 3-5 days of application. Some damage occurs if too much is used, or if exclusively used for long periods of time. “ruining the soil” can be reversed by adding organic material. Heavy metals in Chinese grown produce 🍉 🍎 & herbs 🌿 may be such a sign of over-aggressively using inorganic fertilizers. Fertilizers can encourage uptake of heavy metals. Similar issues are seen with with supplement & pharmaceutical precursors & active ingredients… many come from China 🇨🇳 (They show up on mass spectrometers, but only prescription based products are tested frequently, repetitive human analysis is largely why they cost so much.) “Adding more of the problematic fertilizer”… plants 🪴 can fix nitrogen using bacteria from organic & inorganic fertilizers, as well as from lightning ⛈️ created nitrates. As long as the nutrients exist in reasonable quantities, all is good in the world. Some soils are naturally missing inorganic elements like Selenium, which can result in aneurisms for mammals eating 🍽️ produce exclusively grown on the soil. Naturally composted materials from that region, will not fix such deficiencies, without correcting with inorganic soil supplementation. “erosion… pumping” I think there is a place for inorganic work on the soil. Also, pumping from underground aquifers, without replenishing them, is problematic. I keep seeing articles about destroying dams lately… aggregated waters💧replenish aquifers. If politicians really cared about aquifers, they would not be blowing up dams across North America, instead they are contributing to the problem of aquifer over pumping, by reducing replenishment. Before this, a previous politicians tried to gain control over farmer water retention ponds, which often helped eliminate fertilizer runoff and recharge aquifers. The response was for farmers to rid themselves of these beneficial features on their farms, to remove the liabilities, but an election fixed that issue. The runoff & aquifer problems are real, but it seems politicians are doing everything they can to throw the baby out with the bath water, make the problem worse, and penalize farmers who are trying to resolve these problems on their own. There are some reasonable common sense solutions, which can be encouraged.
    1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157.  @jameshisself9324  - “local dc only” If you are going to use 12v accessories, like automobile accessories, sure… run 12v cigarette lighters & 12v barrel jacks around the house, all over the place. I did this for awhile, making sure all of my security cameras, routers, some local lighting, and Ethernet switches were all 12v. I have to warn you… changing lead acid batteries got really old, after over a decade. Moving to 48v DC (which i am trying now) is no panacea. In some ways, it is better, with 0 gauge wire available, but expensive, and enough current can be transmitted from batteries to turn over an HVAC compressor @240v A/C. In some ways, it is the worst of all worlds, with breakers & fuses being expensive, needing an adapter to step down from 48v to 12v for common uses, then using adapters to step down from 12v to 5v for common USB equipment. New Ethernet routers can use 5v, new security cameras can use 5v… but lighting is still 12v minimum, while new LED bulbs are 120v a/c without electronics circuit to step down the voltage, and new 120v A/C outlets include 2x USB power outlets. There are efficiency losses at every conversion point, and cheap equipment is notoriously inefficient (and noisy with EMF emissions.) Can you get refrigerators that operate on 12v DC? Sure, portable, but they are not very energy efficient, the 120v A/C models are better, 240v better for larger installations. If you are looking for going off-grid reliably, investigate propane for heating, cooking, instant on hot water… then D/C becomes easier. Once hydrogen becomes more mainstream, it looks like a far superior solution than batteries for off-grid living. Use solar to create hydrogen, store hydrogen in a tank (big battery), convert H2 to electricity through fuel cell (preferably, scrapped from a car) or generator (immediately available) as needed, burn H2 in a furnace or on demand water heater or for cooking as needed. Since H2 is not mainstream, I have used natural gas to limit my exposure to the electrical grid (in ~25 years, I only lost natural gas once, when an excavator hit a pipe down the street from my house, but lost the electrical grid countless times… multiple times a year.) Most wild fares are anthropogenic, when crazies & whackos are not setting fires, high tension power lines are likely the culprit (ie likely cause in Hawaii island burning to the ground.) I guess it really depends on what your needs are and what you are trying to accomplish. 120v A/C is convenient, local D/C can be hard when you are trying to use your energy wisely with batteries. 12v is definitely easier, with the availability of automotive solutions, but wire is super expensive, and you better put your battery system in the center of your house to reduce runs to D/C outlets on short runs to interior walls.
    1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165.  @geemy9675  - “gasoline receives way more tax incentives than EVs do” You are on drugs. The number of gas stations on our main drag tripled… it is not because more apartments were built, not because more gasoline was needed, it is because energy companies are jockeying for real estate to open charging stations, and those are driven by EV infrastructure subsidies. “Put politics aside” But we can’t, because China is in every politicians back pocket right now “better to remove $20B/y of fossil fuel subsidies” You mean all those Clean Energy subsidies funding all the fossil fuel gas stations opening everywhere, so they will have EV charging stations because 1/3’rd of America is renting & can’t charge at home? Once those subsidies are gone, there will be no funding for EV infrastructure… but they know that, because they don’t make their money off of Fossil Fuels… but human addictions will be increasingly needed to support the increasing footprint required by EV infrastructure. There is a bizarre thought that somehow energy companies are fossil fuel companies. There is nothing farther than the truth. They make virtually no money on oil/gasoline at the pump… their money is in vaping, beer, lottery tickets, tobacco, marijuana, and next will be EV charging stations. “semis pay for the road they are destroying” And the EV’s pay for the road they are destroying, since they are heavier than fuel based cars, per tire footprint. EV’s are getting a pass on their fair share of road they are destroying. “Fossil fuel air pollution on healthcare” We have cleaner air than any time in the past 100 years? Health care spending has been rising both per capita & in aggregate. Life expectancy has been decreasing. There is a more important pattern to see. “Air pollution cost… per people” With life expectancy decreasing of people and air pollution decreasing, no one gives a proverbial pile of steaming doggie squeeze 💩 when this [suspect] number is not what is killing people. Clearly, number is either wrong or chasing this is a bad investment of societal resources. In essence, it is irrelevant. “48K is the average new car price” Nope 👎🏽 Not without child labor in Africa. Not without slave labor in China. Not without government subsidies. Not without Genocide in East Turkistan. Not without coal plants being built across Asia at a pace that people can’t comprehend. EV’s are driving this, unfortunately, and the exorbitant price per car comes at an exorbitant human & environmental price.
    1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170.  @CHANGLA34  - you can drive to the Exxon, instead of the BP, than you can set up solar panels. By the way, I have been reading about the permits to set up my own solar panels, it is a freekin’ nightmare, with requiring a state licensed engineer to sign off on a structure, building inspectors, electrical conglomerates, HOA’s, etc. - a freekin’ nightmare. A sub panel must be a minimum of 1’ away from the main panel, but if doing a service tap, different rules for 10’ vs 25’, so many feet of clearance from the door opening on the panel, so many feet from the ground, not higher than so many feet, an inspector looking for a bribe, etc. etc. etc. As far as refining your own gasoline ⛽️, people have been recycling/collecting oil from restaurants & running vehicles on it. Plenty of videos on YouTube of people recycling plastics into liquid fuels. If that day comes, everyone will be doing it on their balconies, after raiding their neighbors’ garbages. The carcinogens in the air will skyrocket, from the highly regulated environment we have today. Once the panels & batteries 🪫 need to be disposed of, they will likely be recycled to someone in a rural area, who will use them until they are cracked by hail, then they will be buried, creating mini-superfund sites everywhere. In 30 years, the environment will be ultimately screwed by all of this… at least the carbon based fuels will eventually be broken down by natural processes. Nothing is going to break down the crap 💩 we are building for damaged Solar & dead Batteries 🪫. Sure, 90% is recycled ♻️ (ie glass, aluminum frames 🖼️), but the glass & aluminum are not toxic… it is the toxic stuff they can’t recycle ♻️ yet
    1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. I am glad to see this conversation continuing. For years, I had been suggesting moving overflow from the Mississippi to the West. It really can also be used in the South East. The question about storms and water predictions is really unnecessary, to start. Infrastructure is needed to start. AI is not really needed, each water storage area could just make a desire to purchase, just as neighboring electrical grids publish a desire to purchase electricity… the software already exists. People in charge of other water sheds already do emergency discharges, they could then allow the water to be sold. It is wise to use pipeline & electrical rightaways, for pipelines, to avoid bickering by the crazies & whackos, who merely want to stop progress, for the sake of stopping progress. Oil is not going away due to a shift to more electricity, the either-or is a false dichotomy, a logical fallacy, and reduces the likelihood that this good idea will be disregarded as hubris. Oil will always be needed, for things like clothing, asphalt, plastics, vinyl, roofing shingles, paint, wire insulation, plastics, etc. These other areas have not even has serious consideration. If we truly care about water, only adding pipelines to existing right of ways will bring unity, without objections, except from anti-progressive movements. Energy Pipelines will also be needed to conduct hydrogen, ammonia, synthetic fuels (taken from CO2 combining with H2.) Canada is also well poised to be a supplier to the US, for these things, as well as water, so any pipeline right of ways from Keystone XL should be welcomed. As more western land becomes terraformed, energy needs will increase. Taking away from existing & future energy needs & eliminating existing infrastructure is foolish & not forward thinking enough into the future. If The West wants water, they can fund it through purchases, investors can put up the money through corporate bonds, and the industry can small, with a few pipelines… and expand as investors see stability in the investment. Honestly the issue is whether the regulatory infrastructure can facilitate saving The West and terraforming large segments of the continent. Some two headed lizard or three headed frog will miraculously show up in order to stop progress in The West. With current state of permits being revoked at any time, with the election of a president, long term investment in US projects is really now at risk. There needs to be guarantees, in the law, that puts controls on the executive branches, to bring stability to infrastructure investments, since another President could just come along an kill it.
    1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. It is illegal to kill raptors and the US National bird. Such birds are often endangered and are killed by some of today’s wind turbines. Outdoor cats are not killing these types of endangered birds, which target rodents, and clean up dead rodents infected with diseases like bubonic plague. Comparing the two distinct & important problems is a false dichotomy. Windmill also cause significant regional warming… raising surface temperatures by measurable quantities, much the same way urban areas do. Small Windmills at the shore, where wind is always blowing, breaks small wind turbines fairly quickly, as demonstrated in public parks, where they are often down & under maintenance as often as they are working. Windmills also require energy to heat them during freezing temperatures, to keep them safe & usable. Power lines to locations where large scale wind can be leveraged, don’t exist today, to leverage energy generation that we need to implement today. Power traversing over power lines is lost via resistance, creating heat, ironically contributing to regional warming. At home wind power is absolutely a technology to leverage, since those power lines exist, and localized energy production & consumption should reduce the heat generation due to energy traversing long distances. We need to harness wind technology, the same way we need to harness all energy. Energy is dirty, all energy is dirty. Minimizing and ignoring the negative impacts is not helping us solve the real problems of our energy needs in our biosphere.
    1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215.  @hrothgeirrH  - “export means that the product was being sold at a higher price in a foreign market rather than…” Nope. When the domestic market is saturated with a commodity, people just don’t start buying more oil to drive more miles. Storage tanks fill up, production shuts down, if there is not another buyer for it. In the US case, the switch during the last administration to the new administration saw tightening of regulations to the point where the US was making Russia the #2 foreign supplier of the US, and was funding the first invasion of Ukraine & propped up Russia to start their second invasion. The US offered Zelenskyy a ride out of the Ukraine, like the former leader of Afghanistan, but Zelenskyy shamed the US into performing minimal support (the US is retiring Worthogs, for close infantry support, Ukraine begged for the drawdown Worthogs, but Biden decided to send nothing to help Ukraine’s air offensive need against the Putin’s invading Russians.) The US could have propped up Europe with energy, but the beggar-in-chief went to Russia’s allies, hat in hand, and offended the House of Saud enough to not receive help, and created a world wide energy crisis by merely being a pain with regulations. “Exploration… didn’t benefit consumers” Sure didn’t, when Biden was filling Russia’s war chest with US currency! ROTFL! Every dollar not spent on exploration was lost US jobs. Every dollar lost in the Canadian pipeline was lost US & Canadian jobs. Inflation from increased energy costs destroyed consumer confidence, destroyed US citizens buying power, and turned back the clock on wage gains by the Middle Class and Minorities. “Canceled permits wouldn’t have benefitted US supply…” Every well needs a pipeline to be permitted, otherwise it has to be transported by truck or rail. Every truck & rail used to move oil means less train cars & trucks to move other goods (or grains, food, cars, etc.) and creates inflation on all the goods needed in America. That spare trucking & rail capacity could also be used to bring on immediate energy supplies in a pinch (like the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but Biden chose to just screw Americans & buy more Russian oil, to fund the invasion of Ukraine.) The Biden administration was just so corrupt, profiteered from Russian blood money & indirectly taxing the poor through inept energy policy. Biden even tried to sell off US oil assets to China during the time he was pressuring their profitability through regulatory pressure. What a scumbag.
    1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225.  @notone4540  - “never went to the moon… no flag on the moon, no LRO” Mirrors 🪞 were left on the lunar surface, by multiple manned lunar missions, and generations of scientists have been firing lasers at the moon 🌙 to measure the distance from the earth. Anyone can use the mirrors, not just NASA or government… since the mirrors are available for anyone to use. The McDonald Observatory, run by the University of Texas at Austin, used the mirrors & firing lasers over time, to discover that the moon is moving away from Earth at a rate of two-and-a-half inches a year. Those mirrors 🪞 exist, were out there by someone, and third-party non-government people have been using them for decades. France sent a reflector to the moon 🌙, via an unmanned Soviet mission on November 17 in 1970. Soviet lander & rover stopped reporting in on September 14 in 1971. Circa February 2010, high-resolution camera on NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) obtained images of the landing site. On April 22 in 2010, laser pulses were sent from the 3.5 meter telescope at the Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico. They re-discovered the lost Lunokhod 1 reflector, pinpointed its distance from Earth, and triangulated the reflector's latitude and longitude on the moon. It is hard to believe that the French, Russians, and American government could keep a secret about all of their manned & unmanned moon 🌙 visits are fake… with generations of scientists & college students faking it all.
    1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. 1
  253. 1
  254. 1
  255. 1
  256. 1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. Hi @bzuidgeest  - “recycling a combustion engine” We have not even talked about the recycling of electric motors! ROTFL! The batteries are the equivalent of recycling a gasoline/diesel tank, much easier to recycle a gas tank, and a gas tank lasts the life of a car, while an EV battery does not last the life of a car. “life of a car these days? 10 years?” I wrecked my last car at 19 years, virtually no maintenance except tires & oil… it’s replacement is now on 6 years. I was getting 30+ MPG (city & highway for our usage.) Over 200k. My wife’s car is a 2001, now going on 22 years… tires, oil, and a radiator. Once again, 4 door sedan, 30+ MPG (city & highway for our usage.) Over 200k. “Battery will last the life of the car” Nope. The battery costs about the price of my last car… I bought a used car, 1 year old, $15k, to replace my 19 year old wrecked vehicle, 4 door sedan, leather interior, automatic everything, from an expensive dealer… ROTFL! An average Tesla battery costs $13k-$14k Basically, throw out the vehicle when the battery gets old. Maybe you are right, the battery lasts the life of the car, because we’ll throw out the car when the battery dies with it’s 100k warranty. The EV batteries suffer calendar aging, as well as usage aging, aging from being charged in cold weather, and [self-combusting] shorts can develop from charging in freezing temperatures. Batteries must be respected. All energy is dirty & dangerous. (Stick a bunch of keys in your front pocket & place a 9v battery in your pocket with the connectors facing down… or swallow a button cell… even the smallest batteries with the least power can be lethally dangerous.)
    1
  269. Hi @bzuidgeest  - “old cars… atmosphere” Emissions are a problem for EV’s, as well. The emissions required to produce an EV battery is immense. Mining rare earths in Africa or South America or Australia, transport across an ocean for battery manufacturing, manufacturing of the battery itself is incredibly energy intensive, shipping to EV manufacturing location… one may drive an EV for 40k until an EV just breaks even, compared to a regular car, as far as emissions difference. Then, the electricity is largely produced by burning various carbon fuels, since people are often charging their cars at home, after they get home at night, when solar panels are not producing electricity. If someone lives in a U.S. state like West Virginia… an EV will actually produce more emissions than a hybrid car will, since the electricity is so dirty! LOL! “most cars are wrecked earlier” If an EV is wrecked earlier, then the emissions produced in manufacturing an EV may never be recovered, in comparison to an ICE vehicle. “dangers… battery… gasoline” Yep… As I said, all energy is dangerous & dirty. This stuff has been bubbling out of the ground, for as long as written history existed, from the days of Noah sealing the ark. “defend driving ICE cars” The amount of energy stored in an tank is far superior to the amount of energy stored in a battery. The energy transmission / transportation requirements are independent of electric lines, offering redundancy in case of a down power line, storms, or war… offering people a way to survive if there is a failure. I have lived long enough & in enough places to appreciate diversity in energy infrastructure. A passive gas fireplace still heats a home when power is out. An ICE engine in my car, with an inverter, can power half my house with a power outage. A power outage does not bother me, for a week or so, when I can drive my car[s], with the energy stored up. Evacuating a peninsula or coastal area during a hurricane with an ICE vehicle is far more realistic than with an EV. H2 from renewables, like wind & hydro, is a better solution. Provides energy diversity, that carbon based fuels have. H2 fixes the problem with non-portable electrical energy, to become portable. H2 derived from water, which is readily available in all inhabitable areas. H2 emissions are less than tradition carbon based fuels. H2 is done today. H2 can be used in both ICE & Fuel Cell, to reduce barriers to entry & constraints in supply chain (to force competition to drive down costs & offer consumers alternatives when a constraint appears.) “to be”come relics, just like the people driving them” Honestly, EV is a nice idea for many use cases, just poor thinking as a “one size fits all” use case. Maybe a nice spare car, for a rich family for commuting, who has an ICE vehicle for longer trips… but EV’s are a poor choice for a poor family in an apartment where they will be left to die in a catastrophic weather event, or where they will need to use fast charging stations, where fast charge electricity costs as much as cheap gas, and the cost of vehicle replacement is exorbitant for a low budget. Honestly, compelled EV is just another way for the bourgeoisie to create a serf class, binding the poor to the local land, so they have their slave class to do the local work, and the workers have no method of emancipation. An expensive [ev] car is basically no car, for the poor. We need to emancipate people, with clean & widely available & robust energy sources for transportation… not constrain people.
    1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1