Youtube comments of remliqa (@remliqa).
-
198
-
160
-
139
-
118
-
114
-
104
-
96
-
91
-
90
-
83
-
83
-
80
-
75
-
71
-
70
-
68
-
64
-
56
-
56
-
55
-
53
-
53
-
52
-
51
-
51
-
51
-
50
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
46
-
46
-
45
-
45
-
44
-
41
-
38
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
34
-
34
-
33
-
33
-
32
-
32
-
31
-
30
-
29
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
28
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
@ThrottleKitty
So many thing that you said are wrong:
" Every thing you said is a repeat of blatantly false information. It takes 7 times as much plant weight to feed humans per calories as a cow, making the net land use MUCH higher for plants."
Wrong . Firstly plant (wheat, rice , potato etc) can provide as much calorie as meat while requiring less land. Secondly, you still failing to account that it take more than 20 times in weigh for plant matters to produce meat. Producing meat is jut inefficient and that is a fact.
"Also, ignoring that cows don't need fertilizer for their plants, making this entire area of argument a non-comparable"
Only someone ignorant in agriculture would said something as blatantly false as " feed stock don't need fertiliser". Why don't you try growing soy or corn (both used in feedstock) without any fertiliser and tell us how much you yield per-hectare you can muster?
"Your opinions are completely and utterly divorced form reality and logic, please find a better, less environmentally damaging fad to be high and mighty about."
That rich coming from a guy who spew blatantly false bullshit about agriculture.
"But why am I bothering, you rad a blog post from a vegan food company, you already know all the worlds secrets and are above the circle of life and live an entirely pure and miraculous existence, thus can't be wrong."
You're talking to guy who have literally slit the throats of chicken for food and will continue to eat meat for the rest my life and even I am calling bullshit on your misinformation attempt (which indicates that you are woefully ignorant or just a plain liar).
18
-
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@deadprivacy
LOl. Shouting gain like a petulant child and needing multiple post to shout your ignorance ? I know you're young but not this young.
"HE REASON THE DX 6E IS A GOOD MACHINE IS BECAUSE OF LOW MAINTENANCE AND RELIABILITY, THATS LITERALLY WHY IT WAS BUILT, TO REDUCE DOWNTIME.
IMAGINE IT WITH BATTERIES?
YOU WOULD NEED TO DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE HORSEPOWER TO DRAG THE BATTERIES AROUND WITH IT , FURTHER REDUCING ITS EFFICIENCY."
It is efficient and powerful because it uses an electric motor. It can never achieve such high performance in such compact form factor with an traditional ICE drive. And more importantly *it is a an electric bulldozer that already out there, in our lifteime*.
Who is daft now, kid?
"AND YES WHILST AN ELECTRIC SPORTSCAR IS TECHNICALLY FASTER? IT CANNOT MTCH THAT SPEED OVER TIME , DUE TO THE ENERGY DENSITY ISSUES , PIT A FULLY FUELLED F1 CAR UP AGAINST A FORMULA E CAR OVER A 70 LAP RACE AND SEE WHO WINS LOL."
BEV is already outperform similar souped up ICE cars on track (Nürburgring
eg). A similarly purposely designed EV can and will destroy any formula one car on track once somebody have the motivation to build the thing in the fist place.
Once battery tech become better (we'll be seeing 1K miles batteries within the decades) .It will destroy ICE in term of refuel range too.
"HYDRO TENDS TO WRECK ECOSYSTEMS, WIND POWER IS NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE, TOO MUCH WIND IT DONT WORK, TOO LITTLE WIND IT DONT WORK. HIGH MAINTENANCE TOO, AND SUSCEPTIBLE TO CATASTROPHIC FAILURE ."
You know what else wreck the ecosystem and community (just look at the casualty rate) far worse than hydro plants? Fossil fuel plant.
Fortunately you don't always need huge hydro power plant (ever heard of mini hydro?)
The whole high maintenance thing for wind farms is myth. Wind farm require less maintenance and are far cheaper to run than pretty much all fossil fuel plant. You are showing your ignorance again.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@deadprivacy
You do know that you don' need to multi post, right? Do you have any disorder that prevent you from writing one long coherent post?
"like the nurburgring record? or pikes peak hill climb?
then yeah ok, electric wins, then you got ot charge it for three or four hours and go again.
but over a race?"
Silly child. I guess you never heard of a battery swap .HINT: it can be as fast as pit stop
"even the hybrdi f1 cars are totally smoked by indycars , even the nurburgring?"
LOL. Keep up wit the times .EV have been breaking record previously held by ICE there.
"an f1 car modified properly would smoke that vw milkfloat iof they let em race em round it anymore. they dont, its too dangerous as the f1 cars are simply too fast and too low and fragile.
your talking 5 minute times , a whole second quicker than the the vw.
"
Again a properly purposely built EV would destroy an F1 car. Of course no such thing exist at this point because there is no point of building such a prohibitively expensive and complicated car. Notice that all the record breaking EV have a street version(or are street version)?
'e car racing? youve got too choices, either very short races, or really slow ones like formula e
"
LOL. Vehicles than can reach 100kmph in 2.8 seconds and speed in excess of 220km are slow now. You must be the class clown.
" one would think you are old enough to realise a battery equivalent to a 215hp diesel engine running 12 hours a day would be so large as to make any vehicle its put in?
completely useless due to its sheer size."
At this moment, yes (hence why they use a conventional power plant to provide eclectic for all heavy duty electric motors). In a few decades not so much. In fact in couple of years we'll be seeing long range electric trailer trucks for such purpose. Or are you too daft (on top of your the ignorance you displayed so far) to think that technology would remain stagnant forever ,kid?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@deadprivacy
"about once every twenty years is a good idea. thats the thing, due to fuels transportable nature?
it is immune to infrastructure collapse."
Fuel truck, pipeline and even huge oil takers have suffered catastrophic accident in the past either due to natural cause or even sabotage.Ever heard of the Exxon Valdez, Deep Horizon or Saddam burning Kuwaitis oil fields u? You are probably to young to remember any of them but I have live through them (technically watched them on then news but you get the idea.
"its also far far more power dense than any sort of battery system",
Energy density pointless in terms of consumer vehicle because it is far less efficient than an electric drive train. An ICE is only around 25% efficient an electric motor is have a minimum of 80% efficiency in converting stored energy to a more usable form. In fact you can get a greater range if you use those fuel (gas eg) to generate electricity at a power plant and then use those to power BEV than simply burning them in an ICE .
"remote communities especially need fuel rather than electricity, you can prouce electricty with fuel , you cannot produce fuel with electricity."
Firstly you can produce burnable fuel with electricity through various way (generating wood gas, bioreactor to produce biomass etc) .
Secondly, something like a solar panel or miniature hydro generator or wind is far more useful and versatile for such community ans you don't ever need to ship new fuel from the outside to power them. Unlike one that rely on fossil fuel, such remote station and community could stay of grid pretty much forever without ever relying on contnious fuel delivery.
Thirdly , why would they need fuel if they have electricity?
" for heavy plant? their aint no way thats going electric, can you imagine the amount of magnets you would need for the size of the motors? "
Did you fail science class in school? You do know that you can make electric motor and generators without any magnet at all , right?In fact most electric motor and electric generators(including at power plants) don't even have any magnets in them. HINT: it have something to do with electromagnetism
Here is another hint. Electric motor tend to produce more power and torque compared too any ICE of the same size. That is why diesel locomotive actually use the diesel to generate electricity that drive their electric motor rather than using them directly and why current high end BEV can run circles around ICE supercars.
"you aint gonna see an electric bulldozer or crane in your lifetime son, dont be daft."
Ever heard of Caterpillar's D6 XE ?What that again about not seeing one in my lifetime or me being "daft"?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@billirwin3558 Everything you said is based on sentiments rather than facts. Falsely accusing him of being an apologist shows you can refute his fact based arguments.
Firstly you are exaggerating the danger of nuclear waste. Not only the amount of waste is very little, they are rather hard to "spread". Most of them can't really ruin water supplies even if you dunk them there. In fact they were kept in pools of that are safe enough for people to actually swim in it. Waste from current and decommissioned nuclear plant are still safely tucked within their impromptu containment site.
Secondly, were have a lot more uranium than you claimed. Theoretically there is enough uranium on Earth alone to power us (at today's rate ) for thousand of years with naturally occurring reserves.. With methods like fuel recycling and fast-breeder reactors, this can be extended to tens of thousand of years, longer than our own recorded history. That is we focused on uranium alone and not more abundant sources like thorium or explore outer Earths resources .
Thirdly, you are exaggerating the severity nuclear accidents. There have have been only two major reactor accident in history of nuclear power generation an only one of them caused over 99.99...% of all the casualties. Zero people died from radiation exposure at Fukushima and so far only one person have died of cancer suspected (no confirmation) caused by the incident . As I said, more people died every years form solar and wind that nuclear reactor incidents in the past couple of decades. This is despite that the majority of those 400+ rectors are based on obsolete technology that is almost a century old. Newer reactors are specially designed so that it would be physically impossible fore it to have a meltdown, thus being far safer.
Fourthly , we have method to reduce nuclear waste. Not only do currents gen reactor produce less waste, but there even ones that are designed such that actually "ate" the waste produced by previous reactors. Saying that there is no solution just shows you really haven't looked into it.
Finally , your statement about rare earths metal are false. Lithium , nickel, cobalt and many other are recyclable. Even spent uranium and many other reactor waste fare recyclable to an extents.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+CEOofFRESH1
You mean the same networks that defended Trump (FOX, Breitbart etc) despite everything he did and spreading the lies and fake news that you quoted here?The fact that you can quote their lies, fake news and misinformation they spouted pretty much shows that you're very familiar with all of them.
"The man is responsible for the EU Migrant Crisis and half a million dead in Syria."
"A. Armed terrorists in Syria to overthrow the government there, leaving a vacuum of power ISIS filled.
B. Led the assassination of Gadfi, which again left a vacuum of power there."
C. The aforementioned vacuums of power allowed millions of people to flood the EU, via Syria and Libya.
You realise that Obama wasn't responsible for any of these right? All of those will still happened regardless of who was in power at the time.
"D. Sold 100 billion of arms to Saudi Arabia who promptly used them against civilians in Yemen.
The US have bee selling arms to the Sauds for decades bfore Obama came to powere .Even Trump was selling them arms (he was even bragging about it too), you want to blame Trump too?. They have been one of your closest allies there in the war against radicals there .(you realise that the ones they fought in Yemen had ties to?)
"E. Won a fucking Nobel, and called for daily drone strikes like a week later."
He didn't deserve that Nobel prize and even he himself knows and admit it, but how is that his fault? .Awarding him the Nobel Prize for just not being Bush is stupid and shortsighted , they should have save that for whoever replaces Trump(lol)
"How you could have the chutzpah to NOT label Barack Obama a HORRIBLE MOTHERFUCKER, is beyond comprehension."
Simple, because unlike Trump, he not responsible( there is no evidence that he's responsible for them) for almost all (especially the ones you highlighted here) the things they accused him of. Trump on the other hand were doing the thing they criticise him for (we got video evidence for crying out loud). Unlike Obama Trump deserves 98% of the criticism that is hurled at him.
BTW, your "Hillary sold uranium to Russia thing:
https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
The funny thing is that you you ignore all the confirmed wrongdoing of the Trump foundation (siphoning charity monies eg) and campaign . They literally had one guy fired ( "Lock her up " chant sounds hilariously ironic) for "questionable ties" with Russia.
As I said, nice selective memory you got there.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@sumduma55 Firstly. WTF about? Are you talking about the illegal Israel settlers who committed violence against the dispossessed Palestinians ? Of course they matter, it shows that not only would the Israeli government ignore the Oslo agreements by allowing the illegal settlers , they would turn a blind eye to their wrong doing and supported persecution of Palestinians. This shows the Palestinians the Two State solution was a farce and Israel would never allow or give the Palestinians the same level of authority that they promised to give in the peace accords. To deny this is to blindly ignore the reason why Palestinians (especially in Gaza) shifted their loyalty form Fattah to Hamas. Again , the political shifts was Netanyahu's short-sighted successful attempts to weaken Fattah and Yasser Arafat.
Secondly, I had contacts on the grounds in Gaza during that time (from late 1990s to early 2000s) , the sentiment there were different. They see this as finally someone willing to retaliate against Israeli oppression and violence, and unlike the impotent Fatah ws not tricked by honey trap of political engagement.
Thirdly , you mistaken labelled the bombing in the early 2000s a the starts of Hamas armed resistance against Israel when in fact they have been fighting them since the late 1980s, usually as reactionary to perceived Israeli or real violence such as the 1990 Al Aqsa Massacre. Somehow I forget to correct this mistake of yours in my last post.
Again, Hamas was always anti-Israel and unlike tey PLO, was not willing to compromise on Two State solution form the get go, not that the promised Two State solution actually solved most of the Palestinian grievance such as the refugee right to return and illegal Israeli settlement. Netanyahu should have know he was playing with fire , but just like today, take his political ambition and agenda above such risk.
But aguisb, not of this matter because just like the IRA in Ireland, the rise or armed violent resistance was inevitable one it became clear that political, peaceful solution was not working against the occupiers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jondoe8054
"I'm just gona hop in on the weapons thing too. It's not a conspiracy that we've had this technology for a long, long time."
Pretty much all of them are experimental weapon that are extremely expensive and cumbersome. Hardly a tool for your run of the mill arsonist.
"We do it on a small scale in surgery (gamma knifes etc)"
Firstly, none of them even remotely qualify as "energy weapon " or "heat based weapons" , or even weapon in general (you'll see why once you google them).
Secondly, do you have any idea how expensive and complicated those medial device are and while you need to prep to use them ? No arsonist would be stuoid enough to use them to start a fire.
"Your stance then ,is that cops are going around arresting people who are starting fires because they aren't arsonists"
Quote the part where ever said that. I dare you.
""first it's there are no arsonists."
Again, nobody said there were no arsonist, ever. What everyone been saying is that there is no mass arson campaign based o political grounds. Is your comprehension that bad to misunderstood this?
"You won't though, because you are not actually after the truth of what is going on, that much is clear"
You have been skirting around this so called "truth" for quite some time? What is this truth of yours? Arsonist exist? Duh, everyone knows that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zekew2418
That is a lot of blind accusation you are throwing . I guess you really a a ;loyal Elon fanboi. I wonder what these people get get from being a sycophant...
"Maybe you should say "it's billionaire's dodge to pay less taxes."
Maybe you should read some of my post and see that I don't hate billionaire for being billionaire. There are plenty of billonare who are great philanthropist: Chunk Feeney, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates (Who in my opinion isn't a good person but a great philantropist). Even someone like Dolly Parton (who isn't a billionaire) would come to mind when it comes to charity.
Then they are one who don't care or even worse create fake charities to scam people (Donal Trump comes to mind).
"I remember you saying Elon's $50 million dollar donation to St Jude's children's hospital was only a publicity stunt with the Inspiration flight to get free advertising for SpaceX ."
Am I not wrong? Not only did he donated less than Isaacman did to St Jude, but he donate 50 million after Isaacman paid Space X "less than 200 million" (Isaacman own words) for the Inspiration 4 mission and handling the promotion. Musk gain a lot while expending as little efforts an cost as possible.
"You just can not let your hatred of other humans
I reserve my hatred to people who are awful (Trump eg). While I don't think Musk a bad enough to deserve hatred, he is not a good person .
" go and work on fixing your faults, unless you believe you have none?""
Nice ad hominame. While I do have many faults (which I do trie to improve and fix) I never did anything as bad as Elon Musk. As I previously said, don't recall ever falsely accusing another person of a heinous crime(let alone an innocent hero) or spreading dangerous misinformation that would kill or hurt people.
Perchance you follow your own advice and fixed your own idol worship flaws . What was that Christian saying about false idol?
"how about bringing up your opinion that he is a HORRIBLE man and repeat all those derogatory adjectives you have used in previous video posts"
Sure, Elon Musk is self serving , hypocritical, narcissistic egomaniac with a thin skin. It is impossible to argue otherwise based on his past actions.
" open your heart and accept that others people intentions are good at least until they unequivocally prove otherwise.:
I use to think Musk is a good person with good intention (why I used to be his fanboy), but then I opened my heart and my eyes and see him for what he truly is. Your should do the same.
He have unequivocally proven (by his actions) that he isn't a good person .
"You will be a better person, at least according to Jesus."
Too bad I'm not Christian, though I am relatively religious and in my religion slander/libel greater sin than murder. Hence why I don't throw false accusation wily nilly.
"Remember that thing Jesus says about casting stones, do you really have no sin and want to cast the first stone at another human being :)"
Considering I never did the bad thing that Musk did, that mean I am free to cast as many stones as I want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@adinnaikhwani6255
"and "GAP" itself is no different, why is some american veteran still want to train together with vietnam and indonesia even though "the gap is wide" if you compare it with china?"
The US also train with other SEA nations like Malaysia, Thailand, The Philippines Singapore and even Brunei. The US (like every county on Earth) would want to train with everybody ( if it is possible )to further strengthen the capability of their military. If China , Russia, India or any other country offered to train with any other country (including ASEAN and the US) do you really think they will refuse?
Furthermore joint military training foster cooperation between countries and sends a political message (it obvious to whom this is intended).
"If i am BIAS, i would say that, "WHAT FOR USA TRAIN WITH WEAK NATION LIKE VIETNAM? THEY GOT THE BEST WEAPONRY IN THE WORLD, HIGH-TECH AND HUGE PILE OF BIG TOY, IN FACT, AMERICA DON'T NEED INDONESIA OR VIETNAM, THEY CAN USE HAWAII OR PANAMA FOR THEIR JUNGLE TRAINING, THEY ARE FRIEND OF BRAZIL, WHAT FOR TO GO AS FAR AS VIETNAM, INDONESIA, THAILAND?"
This is BIAS....."
That isn't bias ..That is just asinine, insane , incoherent and irrelevant ramblings.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@David-ud9ju Firstly, NASA isn't Space X's competitor, they are their top customer. NASA doesn't have any launch platform of their own but uses Space to launch their missions, be it satellite , probe and astronauts .
Now let go to Space X's actual competitors . In the US theri biggest would be ULA and Boeing. Both offer more expensive services at while having generally less capability. Let not forget Space X have the cheapest and most powerful rockets in the business. There is a reason why commercial operators chose Space X over them . Unlike Space, all their contacts are government linked because congress mandated one company can't have all government contracts. The same goes for non-US competitors such as Arianespace which rely on subsidies from the EU . To see how dominant Space X is, I suggest you google the most of launches Sapce X does in a year compared to those companies.
As for Tesla, theri car may no longer be the cheapest, have mot range or offers best road performance among EV, but that are best jack of all trades in the business . For every metric an altansvebe EV beats Tesla , they get trounced in every other categories. Just like with Space X, look at the sale figure of all EV and you will clearly see Tesla dominates here as well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@billirwin3558 It seems you haven't check verify your info for a long time as they are incorrect or outdated.
The whole how safe is swimming a nuclear pool thing was covered by many scientist and science communicators . Even xkcd have covered this in one of his comics.
The whole "nuclear waste will contaminate water" thing came from people who doesn't understand how waste material is stored and which one of them can contaminate water supply is exposed (HINT: the really high level long term waste can't).
The people who calculated the reserve of uranium based their calculation on the premise of if entire worlds today switched to uranium fission, not just current usage.
It nuclear carbon neutral? Yes, it is as carbon neutral as solar and wind. Much better than fossils fuel , that is for certain . Our biggest threat came from fossil fuel driven climate change. Unlike the fears of nuclear power , this is justified fear.
Where are these fast reactors ? Currently there are two project that are bein built in Canada (the ARC-100 and The Moltex SSR-W) that "eats" waste. On the the one that are running, the CANDU reactor can run on nuclear waste tough they typically don't.
Based on your plane analogy (BTW, Western reactors are designed to survive planes crashing into them) I take that it mean you also wants plane to be banned because they can't be made 100% safe and commercial plane are vulnerable in wars as seen by MH17 flight? The war in Ukraine showed us that military power really don't wants to directly target nuclear power plants. Even the Russian attacks on the electric grid targeted other type or power plants, relay station and transformer rather than nuclear plants themselves. Furthermore it take concentrated military effort to actually destroy a nuclear power plants as one of two stray artillery shell won't for the job. So far the only military who have targeted and destroyed nuclear reactor in a military strike are the Israeli ,and both their targets in Syria and Iraq were still in construction at that time .
Your pharaoh analogy don't hold up because the pharaohs don't recycle their mummies nor do they keep the one they can't recycle in geologically inaccessible vaults. Any civilisation that have the technology to access and crack these vaults would also have the tech to detect radiation.
If accidents and casualties are not the measure in which you count thing as safe , then what is it? It should be something that is based on facts because sentiment really isn't rational or even logical. It seem you are the one here who is redefining safe.
If we go by your logic about recycling, then why bother recycling thing like aluminium, steel and copper? Entropy ensure we can't 100% recycle them anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@wbwarren57
I just realised that my response to this post was never here. Either I messed up and didn't post it or something went wrong and my reply went into netherworld . Either way, something weird happened 3 weeks ago.. Here is a rethread of what I wrote then.
The aerospace industry can only surpass Sapce X if Starship never comes into service. When (not if, when) Starship starts its commercial operation, it will render every other launch platform obsolete, including the Space Launch System(SLS)as well as SpaceX own Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rockets . Currently the cheapest launch cost belong to Space X with its couple thousand dollar/kg price tag. With Starship, that cost will be reduced to less than 100 dollar/kg. Unless they have they own version of Starship, they can't compete on that front. Only niche platform that cater to very specific need (such Dream Chaser) , or heavily subsidized by their government (EU, China, Russia and even the US) will survive against Space X.
While I have many reservation about how Space conducte it operations (remember the Stage 0 debacle of the first full orbital Starship test launch?) , delay is inevitable in the aerospace industry . The answer to the question on what happened if the NASA test didn't go well is the same as when the first Falcon 9 test went horribly, they will reiterate and retool until works out or abandon it and a new solution entirely.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+
"The unmanned part addressed anything to do with solar radiation over long term. New systems may be more efficient, but when you count the energy cost to get them into orbit I doubt it really matters..."
It does matter a lot. It would take a lot, lot more energy to boost something the size of the ISS (even without adding the shielding needed to survive there) then to send the LOP-G from planetside to its proposed orbit.
"As for Mir, I think they should have done the same, The Mir modules could have served as a staging ground, even if they weren't used in the final construction, though after the fire and the collision I can see how that could have been an issue, but fire or not I doubt it would have been used for anything."
The MIR was a decrepit ailing (some of its module aren't even operational or can be entered in its last few years) station that was not only no longer suited for newer scientific mission but was also a health hazard (seriously look it up) to the astronaut .
"The shuttle... Yea it was old, and the space frame not particularly suitable to be re-purposed in any way but still possible with enough imagination."
Not at the cost of nearly half a billion per-launch. The Space Shuttle was an expensive compromised project that virtually choked NASA's ability to fund new experiment and innovate for years . There is a reason why may people who are more savvy of the space exploration weren't a fan of the Space Shuttle and what it represent.
"The point is... it costs a non trivial amount to get materials into space in the first place... so once they are up there, isn't it best to make use of what there is? Any new designs MUST consider reuse, recycling, re-purposing."
Again, that have nothing to do with the absurd idea of boosting the ISS to the purposed orbit of the LOP-G. The ISS is completely unsuitable for that mission and it will cost more ( in material and financial standpoint) to retrofit and boost its orbit than to send a brand new station up there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vibesanm
So many things factually wrong in your post:
First and foremost, Hydrogen powered car are EV FCEV stand for hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle .
"there isn’t enough data to conclude that hydrogen wouldn’t work,"
There is enough data to know it won't work . We know the amount of enegy needed to break the molecular bond of H2O, we know the theoretical limit of a fuel cell efficiency (which is far from what is achievable with today' tech) , w also knew that cost of bukdin a hydrogen logistics network compared to simply upgrading the electricity grid. By those facts alone we know that hydrogen can never compete with batteries for consumer vehicles.
"Evs are barely better than ice cars "
In what metric? If we talking about environmental impact than then EVs ( batteries and hydrogen powered) are much , much better for the environment than ICE cars.
We are never going to power our ridiculous lifestyles by solar and win"
This is factually wrong, both solar and wind alone is more than enough to support our current and near future(10-30 years ) energy needs
"Most of electricity generated doesn’t even get used"
Hence the need for energy storage facilities. This is where hydrogen can shine.
" fluid form of fuel is not only convenient, but efficient."
Again, factually incorrect. Havin electricity through the grid is far, far more efficient than managing thousand (hundreds of thousand if we go global ) of miles of complex piping network, this is true for any liquid. Even more so for extremely hard to transport fluid like hydrogen.
"The only way evs are the future is if the future is all about everyone virtuesly driving evs to feel superior even though the overall impact to environment is the same"
"Evs are a joke, it’s been proven, there is barely any difference in the overall carbon emissions and water pollution and so on and so forth if you consider everything that goes into it from manufacturing to consumption. I like how we change nothing other than drive evs, and they are indirectly powered by the same source, and everyone wants to pleasure themselves thinking about how awesome they are for driving that crap instead of an ice crap"
Again this is factually incorrect. Multiple peer reviewed studies have concluded that EV ( batteries and hydrogen powered) are much , much better for the environment than ICE cars. They found that even in n the worse case scenario where all the energy needed to charge a BEV only come form fossil fuels( natural gas or coal plant), the BEV would still be less than half as polluting as the ICE vehicle within both of the vehicle's lifetime. Increase the percentage of electricity grid energy sourced from green power (nuclear, solar , wind etc) and no ICE vehicle can even compete with EV on the environmental front.
I don't know where you get your false information from , but they can easily be debunked even with some cursory research.
Evs are a joke, it’s been proven, there is barely any difference in the overall carbon emissions and water pollution and so on and so forth if you consider everything that goes into it from manufacturing to consumption.
1
-
1
-
@angellestat2730
So many of what you said is factually not true,
"Also fuel cells or any hydrogen technology is increasing much faster than batteries technologies because only now that field is getting money and interest around the world."
This is completely false. There is far more money currently being poured into battery research than it is for fuel cells.
"Besides.. no everyone lives in a house with garage in where you can charge your car... Most people live in cities, it is way more cheaper to have 1 hydrogen station every 100 blocks than having 30 electric chargers on each block, not only that, it is one order magnitude cheaper to transport hydrogen than electricity by wires"
Both are wrong on so many account. Firstly a hydrogen refilling station cost a lot , lot more (up to millions more) to set up than a supercharger station because of the complexity involved in making , transporting and storing hydrogen.
Secondly it cost more to transport hydrogen than any other fluid due to how hard is is to contain it. Yiu either need to freeze it, keep it is hig pressure in specialised containera or convert it into NH3 or other chemical compound (you need to convert it back into H2). All these drives the cost up where ae transferring electricity just needed some good wiring.
"For last.. the electric grid only represents the 15% of the energy consumption of the world, if you want to solve all the co2 emissions, you have to deal with all those areas in where batteries can never be a solution, like the utility transport sector (ships, airplanes, trucks, no electrify rails, etc), then the natural gas grid, for that you need more solar and wind energy and transform all that to hydrogen, because the world needs energy in chemical form."
While hydrogen is a good choice for aplication such as aircraft. ships and energy storage. You are wrong in saying that battery can never be a solution for some of these problems. For example batteries can provide solid choice for energy storage.
"But this video is wrong in one thing, hydrogen is not the enemy of batteries, both technologies shine for different task.
"
This is the only thing you said that is true.
1
-
@angellestat2730
"There are many different concepts that you need to learn to understand why most country powers are investing hard on hydrogen."
Just like failed projects (solar roadway eg) and misguided ones( anti nuclear energy eg ) , those countries will learn the hard way why their political driven decisions (intead of a a practical one) to back the wrong horse
for consumer vehicles will be a white elephant .
"You need energy in chemical form one way or another for several reasons, because some sectors can never be replaced by any future battery tech meanwhile the definition of battery remains the same, like:
1-natural gas grid."
You can't transport hydrogen using the natural gas grid without significant infrastructure upgrade . Transporting pure hydrogen would cause the pipes and tank to go brittle (which requires replacement) and a large portion of the H2 would even escape (because hydrogen is hard to contain). You need to significantly overhaul the entire natural gas grid for this or invest in huge infrastructure to convert H2 into more manageable compound (like NH3).
Both would be far, far more expensive than setting up charging networks.
"2-utility vehicles that require to operate for longer than 5 hours (2 hours for flying applications), this include ships, trucks, airplanes, trains with no electrify rails, etc)
"
Again, this have nothing to do with consumer vehicles. My point was consumer vehicles.
"3-to store solar and wind power or to deliver power for longer than 4 to 8 hours (depending the case), side note: solar and wind are the cheapest source of energy, even cheaper than extracting oil at equal energy value, they just need a way to store it.
"
Again, this have nothing to do with consumer vehicles. My point was consumer vehicles.
In fact most of your points have nothing to do with what I wrote at all.
"You can split water with only a 10%"
If you look at most electrolysis methods you notice that the current real world most lost around 20-30% of power . Even if they manage reach a 10% energy loss , it is still more than twice the current energy loss for batteries (at around just 5%),
" and inject that to the natural gas grid (main pipe only needs 30 bar, or 0.5 bar for resident grid.
"
You do know that doing so is a compromise that greatly reduces the efficiency of hydrogen right? There is reason why hydrogen are usually stored and transported in their pure state .
Again, building a natural gas grid alone is more expensive and more complex than setting up all the wiring to provide electricity for homes (which is why far more t homes have electricity than piped in in nataural gas. .
"Storing at 700 bar you lost a 12% of the energy content, in liquid a 30%, but today we can reduce that to 8% for 700 bar electrochemical hydrogen compression, or to 15% at liquid just scaling the current plants (which we would need).
"
Again, that is huge energy loss compared to simply transporting electricity and would require huge capital to build new infrastructure.
"Even without the help of the natural gas grid, transporting power over new hydrogen gas pipes vs a new power line, the gas pipe is 10 times cheaper than by wires at equal power. (there are a lot of papers and studies about that).
"
There are a lot of paper that have studies that and they find that the energy loss is still far greater than transporting electricity is most cases and all of them found that it would cost a lot, lot more to set up such infrastructure.
"Trying to add so many chargers to the current electric grid, would require a lot of extra lines, this mean add infrastructure over infrastructure which is even more expensive"
It is still a lot cheaper to upgrade the network than setting up piping network for natural gas let alone refuelling infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles. There is a reason why there is huge growth in fast charging network over the decades compared to new hydrogen fuelling stations.
Heck, even setting up slow charging networks at city parking spaces would require less money and effort than setting up H2 refuelling network ,I willing to be more municipality would opt for this option .
" you just need to let the hydrogen heat up to rise the pressure you want.
It recharge a car in 5 min, this mean 10min by car = 144 cars on a day, for a single hose. "
You forgot to add that repressuring after a refuel takes 20-230 minutes (based on experience by H2 vehicles users) on top of the 5 minute refuel so a single hose can 't only continuously refuel 40-57 car a day and not 144 as you claim. Of course BEV user don't even need to wait for refuelling as they can charge at home or at work .
"I think none of us has a single source that would measure that, but I check all the energy news around the world day by day in all their forms.
I see way more breakthoughts or news about hydrogen than real news about batteries."
Really? You failed to notice advancement such as Tesla battery day, Goodenough's solid state batteries, Quantum State and many other advancement in battery tech? Suffice to say that there are more news about battery breakthrough than there are about hydrogen.
1
-
@angellestat2730
"hydrogen pipeline network to connect all europe."
You do know that they is also building an fully connected electricity grid all across Europe right? It not like they are abandoning electricity transmission over hydrogen pipeline.
"Also.. I already explain you that the world needs energy in chemical form.
"
And I explain multiple times: Hydroegsn is a dead end that goes nowhere for consumer vehicles. Consumer EV do not need hydrogen when batteries can fill that function better.
"Of course, you would repeat every hydrogen misinformation "
There is no misinformation: building up the hydrogen networks take significantly more resource (ergo more costly) than upgrading the electric grid. This is a fact.
"What part of transporting energy by wires is way more expensive than in chemical form did you not understand?
"
What part of physics do you not understand? Because the need to electrolyse hydrogen from H2O , then storing and transporting it, hydrogen will never be cheaper to transport than simply transferring the equivalent amount electricity through the grid. This is the laws of physics and no amount of tech advancement will ever change this. Cheaper electricity will just make the discrepancy worse.
'20% is with hydrogen compression included, most electrolyzers already compress hydrogen between 50 to 200 bar, 50 bar is already half of the energy requirement to achieve 700 bar (is not lineal).
I mentioned that you only lost 10% without compression, this is to separate the cases in where you dont need compression, like hydrogen in the natural gas grid at residential net. Try to pay attention, I do not want to repeat.
Also, better technologies are coming, in lab was proved that 75% round trip efficiency was already possible using the waste heat of the fuel cell mode to improve the efficiency of water spliting mode, which also work with almost any hydrocarbon or hydrogen mix."
Let me repeat myself:
Again, even it their best case scenario they are still far less efficient than simply charging a battery. This is a scientific fact.
"How is that energy lost when you already need 70% of the energy you produce in chemical form.
"
Where is the problem: we do not need to set up expensive and wasteful hydrogen network for consumer vehicles because batteries are better.
Sure it might be worthwhile for application that absolutely needed hydrogen, but consumer EV do not need hydrogen .
"What?? where do you get that? from the hydrogen hate bible"
So you are denying the experience of H2 vehicle (the Toyota Mirai eg)? There have numerous complain from owners of Hydrogen vehicle about this problems .Google it.
"but the cost for such power transmission line would remain quite high."
The fact is the cost of setting up and upgrading power line to transfer electricity will never be higher than setting up/upgrading an equivalent H2 logistics network.
" If you can not discuss the basic points I presented to you, then you dont have a case, is all connected."
"So you would have hydrogen you like it or not, because there is no other solution, unless you explain me how to end with all co2 emissions without hydrogen in a cost efficient way?
"
Again , most of your point are irrelevant to the fact that hydrogen is inferior to battery for consumer EV and is wasteful dead end in this function. I never denied ( quote the part where I ever did)that hydrogen still have its place for application like ships, aircraft energy storage. Why are you arguing against point that I never made? I hope this doesn't mean that you are resorting to strawman logic.
"That is why all country powers and huge private companies are taking that path, is not a world conspiracy against Elon or against the nuclear plants.
"
I never said there is a worldwide conspiracy against Elon or against the nuclear plants. Quote the part where I ever implied this.
As for nuclear: it is the safest form of electric generation (it kill even less people than solar and wind per Kw/h ) and produce very little greenhouse emission. The decision to abandon them in favour of dangerous and polluting fossil fuel plants are one of the dumbest political decision ever made. Have we go full on nuclear we would have eliminate all the greenhouse emission form power generation years ago.
There are quite a number of ill informed decision that supposedly could reduce greenhouse gases but does' really have the intended effect (tha aforementioned solar roadway, biomass power generation etc) . Hydrogen for consumer vehicle will just be that: another mistake.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+cnoogs
Those numbers I provided are easily google-able( try it). Yes, we can do a rather accurate estimates of the numbers because we know how much fossil fuels are burned each year, how much of them that comes from natural sources (the afore mentioned volcanoes, the biggest natural releaser of C02) and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere through the ages from recorded data ( ice core and sedimentary drilling eg). We know for a certain that most of the CO2 really do comes from human activity and the rate/percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere have been steadily rising.
Th biggest carbon sink on our planet is the ocean (the amount would be far higher if not for that role), but that to seem to comes at a cost to the ecosystem (the acidification of the ocean), this in turn reduced its future capacity to capture more released CO2 .Eventually it will be overwhelmed . As for plants and their ability to capture CO2, their role are mainly for stabilisation the amount of CO2 and of limited in role. Even they too have been severely compromised thanks to rapid deforestation that is occurring around the globe. If they are as effective as you claim, the buildup would not have happen in the first place
Most of the thing you stated in your second paragraph (in 800 CE he earth's temperature was far higher than today eg, the truth is average temperature from this past few decades have been higher than in 800 CE) have been thoroughly debunked . While the planet have experienced fluctuation in global temperature, the rate of change have never been higher. In just less than a century , we have experienced changes that would have taken centuries and even millennia in the past. Most geologist are in agreement to this ( again the whole most geologist disagree with man made climate change is a myth).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+cnoogs
"Okay. Nice attempt at insulting"
Take it as you may. I'm just expressing my disappointment at your rather duplicitous nature of data interpretation.
" But moving on, I agree CO2 has been increasing heavily, but the temperature has not. You refer me to the tree ring method, whose graph shows today has the highest temperature, but the scale is only back 1000 years ago. Increase that scale to 12000 years and you see a very different picture. And I accept that in 1000 years, today we have the highest temperature (the graph where temperature is derived from the tree rings - but again, that's just in the 1000 years)."
No, the data still show that temperature are increasing faster today than any other time in history. You are confusing maximum recorded temperature with rate of temperature change. While we are still largely unsure of the detail of the multiple warming and cooling periods, we are sure (to a certain degree) that the rate of climate change that we are experiencing is indeed unprecedented.
"Polar bears - so are you saying the population is in decline? If so, why do you disagree with my source. Speaking of, have you read any of my sources? Or was your point that polar bears will be in danger in the future? If that is your point, don't push the myth polar bears are in decline, they are not."
You mean the very same source that said explicitly stated that climate change indeed might have adverse impact on polar bear population? Or do you ignore them pointing out the increase in population was due to reduced hunting by humans or that when that data was collected the range of ice sheets were still greater than it is now? Your source concluded that climate change is indeed a threat to polar bear population.
"That means the at 800 CE was hotter than today - an original statement, which you tried refute earlier."
I didn't try to refute, the collected data debunked that theory. There is no proof that 800 CE was hotter than today. The few observable data actually states the opposite.
'You are the one cherry picking. You choose the graph with a scale of only 1000 years to prove your point, but refuse to consider ice cores that show a more complete picture"
You acts as if the ice core data actually debunks man-made climate change. If you actually looked at those tens of thousand of year data you'll find that they do no such thing. Cheery picking would be coming to your conclusion despite the fact that the people who do studies those ice core never agree with your conclusion.
"The overwhelming support you suggest has been all refuted with my own: Polar bears, temperature graphs with a scale of 12000 years, ice volume/ocean height graphs - which just prove the ice caps began melting 12000 years ago."
Ironic considering the full text and data analysing on very single one of those sources ( which highlights your extraordinary degree of cherry picking and misrepresentation of data that is literally written for you)pretty much agree that man made climate change is both real and a threat to the ecosystem . Unless you mean to say that none of the data you show supported your notion, you have only successfully refuted yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AlldaylongRock
There are reason why HFCEV card are selling like garbage (and while BEV sale area shooting up) the main problem with hydrogen as fuel: Thy are far too expensive and too complicated to be feasible. If you look ta the cost for hydrogen at every stage from procurement of vehicle (how much you pay to build them, cost of setting up infrastructure and cost of fuel (it is pretty much impossible for hydrogen to be cheaper per/km than current batteries) .No one goin to waste money on such vehicle when they have worse performance (0-100 km time eg) compared to BEV.
While HFCEV do have better range/refuel cycle , it doesn't offset those disadvantages . This is compounded by the fact that over 95% of car owners/user travel less than 200 mile daily an such need is already fulfilled my most entry level BEV today. And then models there are BEV that are coming up that have ranges closing and even exceeding 1000km/full charge. I would say that for consumer vehicle, hydrogen is as obsolete as coal powered steam carriages.
Your statement about battery tech plateauing is also incorrect. There are quite a few development in battery tech such as solid state, Sulphur and graphene battery that are set to increase the currents capability of batteries. With such the , EV that can go over 1000miles (over 1600km) per charge is possible. There are even projects to make dirt cheap batteries such as sodium based or even hot liquid salt batteries.
Now about about your ICE comments:
" There are cars with 20+ years on the road with only normal maintenance. Batteries are an incognito in terms of durability, even newer ones with advanced TBMS systems."
This is actually factually false. Not only doe current batteries have the same lifespans of ICE cars ( Tesla are projected to 20-30 years ) but they also require far less maintenance. A 20 years old ICE car would need components swap (spark plugs, timing belts , valves and cylinders etc) due to fatigue lest they stop working altogether, compare that to a BEV that are require no parts change at all for the same period and would still run fine (albeit with a less range. We've seen BEV (Tesla in this case ) that have are pushing 300-400K miles with the original battery/motors and even one with over 1.6 million km of mileages (though with a couple of battery change) . Some chemistry such as Lithium iron phosphate (which is used in over 60% of Chinses EV0) even have better durability .
"Even with the low efficiency of ICEs, a smaller volume (and weight) of a liquid fuel gives much more usable energy than a battery."
It doesn't ' really matter when batteries are cheaper to run (cost per/km and maintenance cost) and ca meet the range need . Their only advantage ICE have right now is purchase price (though a BEV that is USD10K more expensive is cheaper when you count total cost of ownership) and range per refuel cycles, and even these advantages are disappearing fast (BEV are projected to have reach purchase price parity somewhere in 2025-2030). That is before you factor the horrendous environmental and health cost of ICE, Hybrids also shares this same exact problems with pure ICE and should be avoided: they are still fossil fuel burning vehicle.
1
-
@AlldaylongRock
BEV is currently out outpacing PHEV growth rate than and is set to eclipse them in total number of sales . In some countries such as China, they are already overtaking them in terms of sales numbers. The main thing that matter is cost of purchase and every time we see purchase parity (be it organic or "forced: by subsidy) the PHEV simply just losses .
Again there is also the fatc the PHEV is far more polluting than a BEV . Don't forget why we are moving away from fossil fuel in the first place.
"Commercially available batteries ARE plateau'd. All that you mentioned is LAB-SCALE ONLY. No way to make sure that tech is ever going to be available commercially at a decent price.
"
Those lab scale etch are closer to production than any lab scale test of next generation ICE engine.
If you want decent priced then you should look at LFP batteries. While they have less capacity than "traditional " Li ion chemistry, they are far more durable (little to no risk of fires) , last a lot longer and are cheaper (the reason why Chinses BEV are catching up in price). Companies that are serious about BEV are a moving towards them , Tesla for example is already using them is some lower end models.
Despite your claim of battery tech plateauing , newer mode still show increase in range. The tandem price increase is nominal when compared to them.
'I don't take what Tesla says for granted. "
None of the figure what I told you came from Tesla . Those number and came form third parties that have no direct connection to Tesla beside having their vehicle (through purchase). They are all all can easily verified as true (the 1 million km Teal was a Model S belonging to Hansjörg von Gemmingen eg).
". As for maintaining an ICEV, oil changes and a belt change here and there aren't much of an issue compared to a replacement battery or a motor off warranty (100k MI warranty? "
Again, if you don't ' so those things you car wont' run at all, a BEV with zero maintenance will still run perfectly even after 20 years. That is not a minor issue. A BEV will only need a motor change at the end of their lives ( after 30-40 years) and a battery change after 20 years (LFP batteries will increases this lifespan). . As I said BEV on zero maintenance will last far longer any any ICE with the same maintenance schedule . Try running your diesel vehicle without these periodic maintenance (no oil change at all eg ) and I can guarantee it'll ' ne in scrap yard in just a few years.
"The real price difference between ICEVs and BOVs is still staggering, despite ICEVs becoming more expensive for some reason (likely manufacturers and dealers marking up prices to pay for the R&D and to make up the money that Tesla steals from them)"
As I pointed out : a BEV that is 10K pricier than a an equivalent ICE is still cheaper when you factor in cost of ownership. And again price of BEV is catching u as evident by the model that are coming out (BYD, Nio etc) . When (not if , when) the price parity finally comes (by 225-2030) , then ICE would truly be a dead man walking.
And what's about that " money that Tesla steals from them" BS coming from? If that can' compete with Tesla than the faulty lies with them. The marking up by dealership just shows how flawed and how hostile to consumer the dealership system is.
Of course the niggest problem of ICE and PHEV is still the fact that they are far more polluting than a BEV.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aluzky
You are a prime example of Dunning–Kruger effect
on display.
"Facts are not up for debate. i mean, they can be debated but odds of those facts being proven wrong is almost non-existent. Which is why they are called facts, because they have survived human scrutiny for hundreds of years without being proven wrong."
For a guy who allegedly have a PhD you don't' seem to be able to distinguish the difference between facts and opinion. Everything you sated here are not facts : they are opinions based on your observation (which may or not be clouded by your own cognitive bias) .
". Again, I could claim that cars engines run on fairies burning fuel. That is a reasonable alternative (to many delusional people who think fairies exist) yet not a valid one''.
Talk about false equivalency. If you think that " the claim that cars engines run on fairies burning fuel" is as a reasonable alternative to the idea that "cats understand danger and may be inclined to protect those that formed bond with it against perceived danger" (something animal behaviourist have noted in cats) , that show a horrible lapse of logic on your part.
" Same way many cat delusional people think that cat is truly intelligent on a human level and is protecting a human from a fall."
"The cat is not trying to save the child. Cat is being a cat and playing like cats do. You are an idiot for humanizing the cat."
"Say the idiot who humanizes cats. lol"
Stooping to strawman , huh? Perchance you accidentally buy too many straw are yard sale you frequent and now desperately trying to build as much strawmen out of them as possible.
Care to point out (quote me , I dare you) where I ever stated that cats have human level intelligence?
"Also, just on logic alone we know the cat is not trying to protect the human, cats are not intelligent enough to understand complex though"
All animal are intelligent enough to perceive danger though (lest they would never be a viable species) what the may perceive as " dangerous" may seem strange to humans (why virtual barriers work on animals). A mother cat knows enough about dangers of high ledges (which wouldn't pose any problem to an adult cats) to prevents her kitten from crossing them when possible eg .
" if that cat was as intelligent to know the child is in danger, he/she would also know that the child does not have enough force or grip in his hands to lift himself and hurl himself out the balcony. "
For guy who claim tna cats are not intelligent enough to form complex thought you seem to be expecting that cat to do some highly complex deduction..
" Conclusion: the cat is stupid and does not know any better. "
Equally plausible conclusion supported by observed/recorded behaviours of animals (including cats) : that cat was smart enough to know high ledges are dangerous and is attached enough to the baby (or his family) to protect it but not smart enough to know that the baby can't cross it on its own
"Not casually, Literally use facts and logic to do so. "
You have failed to present a single example of facts and logic. As I said: Everything you sated here are not facts : they are opinions based on your observation (which may or not be clouded by your own cognitive bias) .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShazzPotz " Oh, so your 20 year lifespan is a projection from Tesla"
No, they're from engineering channels that focus on EV after they collect data on Tesla users, not Tesla
"who are trying to sell you their $100,000 cars"
You do know that Tesla also sell cars within the $30-40K range , right?
" Strange how you didn't originally mention it's just somebody's sales projection. "
I didn't because it was NO ONE'S sales projection , they weren't selling anything.
" As if 20 was a measured fact. Tesla only warrants their battery packs for 8 years. 8 years"
Yes, the legally covered their base right. They knew for fact that it is extremely unlikely that anyone would need to change batteries within 8 years. This is based on the fact that their earliest car (the Roadster) will keep above 70% of it initial charge after 8 years , even with the old battery tech. I'm willing to bet they will up that number in the future based the performance of their newer models..
8 years is still more than 5-7 years, though.
"What has been the longest actual life of any battery pack in an EV driven under real world conditions, before the pack fell beneath its 70% capacity waterline?
You do know that the fist mass produced car (model S) have only been around for 8 years and most of them are way above 80% despite using older battery technology. Yes, all of those are under real wold conditions.
" Guarantee it is less than 20 years."
Yes, because haven't been making car for 20 years . Their first car was only 12 years old.
"Was the rest of your comment above also just a projection?"
More like peer reviewed academic papers.
" Are you a useless Tesla fanboy?"
Saying facts makes me useless fanboy? Give me a break.
At least I'm not some cowardly troll who behind some throwaway alt-account.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@anthonyd2923
His horrid environmental policies, separating children form parent as punitive response , the death of over 200K American due to his selfish and incompetent handling of Covid 19, the lost of respect for USA from the rest of world, empowering ultra right nationalist, his horrible behaviour as human being (constant lying eg) (, his corrupt use of Presidential power ... I can go on and on.
Oh, you also keep yapping about Trump's "China travel ban" let me repeat myself:
LOL, this shit again. Did you even bother looking into what that so called "China travel ban" was all about. That order of his only stops foreigner form travelling to and from China to the US, it did absolutely nothing to stop US citizen (the ones that brought the disease back to US) from travelling to China and back nor did it provide meaningful contact tracing or quarantine for those. Not only was that xenophobic, but completely ineffectual at halting the disease.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Star Traveler
So many thing factually wrong with what you just posted:
"survival rate of those infected is 99.96%."
No, the survival rate is around 97%, with around 3%(210K American already dead from Covid 19).
" At every point in the evolving pandemic Trump relied on scientists, but the scientists didn't know much of anything about the new virus themselves! "
This is also false. Trump have repeated contradicted scientist and medical expert on the matter and even issued decrees that ran opposite to what they suggested(mask wearing , hydroxychloroquine etc).
The difference is Trump stops listening to the scientist when what they suggested ran contrary to his own uninformed opinions and what he believe would hurt his r-election prospects, his selfish desires cost lives..
"Fauci himself was saying in February that the virus "posed little or no danger" to the US."
That again is false. The last statement from Fauci where he said such thing that was in January and even then he cautioned that the outbreak (which at that time was China affair ) was an evolving matter an they will revise the assessment as the situation develops.
" Why is that Trump's fault?"
Because not only did he do little to help curb the spread of the virus but his action (promoting conspiracy theories, undermining medical professional including Fauci, anti mask etc) helps spread the disease even further.
"Trump was vilified by DemoRats as being a "xenophobe" when he shut down air travel from China very early on, in January!!"
Because it was xenophobic and ineffective. Considering you are so ignorant that you repeated a point I already debunked multiple times, I will just repost what I wrote earlier:
LOL, this shit again. Did you even bother looking into what that so called "China travel ban" was all about. That order of his only stops foreigner form travelling to and from China to the US, it did absolutely nothing to stop US citizen (the ones that brought the disease back to US) from travelling to China and back nor did it provide meaningful contact tracing or quarantine for those. Not only was that xenophobic, but completely ineffectual at halting the disease.
"Lastly, you're also wrong about a "conspiracy theory" that Covid-19 could be a man-made pathogen, since a genetic scientist recently found evidence that its DNA had been tampered with because it has an element of the HIV virus. In other words, Covid-19 appears to be genetically modified in a laboratory, not a naturally occurring virus. "
Wrong again . Most scientist agrees that there is zero evidence that the virus was made in a lab .As I said what you post are just debunked conspiracy theories. Unless you wanted to post link to your so called source, that is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Almost, but not entirely, Unreasonable
"What does your nick say about you? "
It says "it was the most random name I quickly used for youtube account when youtube started years ago and I never felt the need to make a new account or change it at all."
" Let's assume you own a car. Imagine if a new gasoline became available, same price, same performance, yet 16% of mechanics said " yeah, that's not so good for your engine / we're not sure that its good for your engine. The manufacturer said: Perfectly good for all engines. Oh, btw, its umarked so you WILL be using it either way. That make you happy?"
Umm, the reason they switched to the news product is because it offered added benefit so your " same price, same performance, " thing is already false.Considering that it 84% agrees that it is good/not worse for my engine and it passed the strict testing needed for it to be marketable, .. The answer is obvious.
"Nah, that's an opinion piece from a journo, if he had proper grounds, then he should convince Professor Krimsky to withdraw the paper. "
Considering that we had literal climate change deniers who still refuse to withdraw their papers, I will say that it is easier said that done.
"the Prof seriously outranks."
Seriously ?An argument from authority ploy? Again, there are many "high ranked scientist " that disagrees with general consensus (some even concerning Climate change and vaccine effects). This guys seems to be a vocal the outlier in the field.
The point is many of the papers he cited to support his thesis are already debunked and were withdrawn as they were heavily flawed. This is something you should focus on.
"So the 600 page USA NAS 2016 report is 'worthless ', they also considered Seralini? http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops/2016/05/17/report/"
Well, considering that paper is hidden behind a paywall... I can't really say much. Need to dig up what other scientist says about the report.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@steelshepherd6843
"You are taking their presented data at face value, you have not made a scientific point,"
No, I trust the experts in the field that have analysed those scientific data.
"you like everyone else falls back on the same defences, "
You mean falling back to scientific facts and verified data. You knows, *the truth*?
" I'm not even saying people are not having an effect, only that the data is not accurate"
Tbe data is accurate enough to explain the effects of climate change and correctly predicted future trends.
"the effects are exaggerated'
There is nothing exaggerated about the observed increased intensity of natural phenomenon (drought, tropical storsm etc) due to climate change.
"what is being presented, and predicting it is far more difficult than they are acknowledging."
i haven' met a single climate scientist that is worth his/her salt that claims their prediction is 100 accurate ofr they knew everything , ergo there is no basis for your complain here.
Really ? another pseudoscience webtsite with questionable methodology as your source?
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-climate-science/
As for rest of your links:
"https://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?src=pm%3D%3D"
'
This 1989 article have shown ridiculously outdated based on the increase in global and local(as in the US) temperature recorded through the 200s until now Heck it was in line with what predicted ibn your NASA link (yes your own NAS link correctly predicted that the temperature rise past the previous high after the year 2000s
.
"Specifically entropy, the primary method for heat loss of our planet is not even discussed. "
The entropy parts have been addressed:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/Second-law-of-thermodynamics-greenhouse-theory.htm
It seem you rather cherry pick data (many outdated ) and quote dubious sources rather than the one that uses scientific method
"1. In your first post you said my points were all debunked which is false."
They have been debunked.
"Skeptical Science, you would realize it is old, many if not most of the points were being argued about their accuracy even 12 years ago,"
That is abcaeu most of th dberate have been settled 12 year gao, and yest people keep on bringing them up.
"You are afraid to find data countering your end and likely would acknowledge it if the situations reversed, ""
False, I welcome any credible eb=vidence that would enlighten me on the thure nature if thing. You just failed to brought up any.
"which is unlikely because only one is lucrative."
Oil companies literally spent hundreds of millions sponsoring research that tried to debunks and discredit made made climate change. There is far more money to be made on your side . The fact that they failed so far despite being more well funded shows the strengths of the science behind them..
"Being published may be prestigious, but like most things that has proven to be a rigged game. I am not responsible for your lack of knowledge about all of the reports that have been cancelled or defended,"
Peer review isn't about being published. Its about having other researcher have a go at your finding and tries to dismantle you if they could. The beauty about peer reviews is that it quickly discredits any research and study that isn't up to mark. That is why many false papers (Andrew Wakefiled) quickly got debunked . The fact that thsoe studes got "cancelled"" shows the treght of the peer review method ,
'3. A consensus does mean a few things, a bias in publishing, a bias in funding, and easy money if you can produce similar reports.
"
You really don't understand how scientist mind works do you? A scientist is more likely to achieve fame and accolades if s/he manage to successfully debunks refutes
an established report/paradigm or introduce new one that no one have ever thought rather than be a conformist. Because of this insular drive, it is only when the data is strong enough do a consensus usually appears.
A fore the money enticement , as I said there is far more money to be made trying to debunk man made climate change.
1
-
@steelshepherd6843
"Your entire point is other people are right and you believe them, "
Only because they have been proven to be right. You on the other hand should trust people who are smarter than you.
" The fact you think there is more money to be made solely in oil rather than government subsidized renewable energy should be a red flag considering both Tesla, the solar industry, and the political careers of those who champion them."
You seem to not know that fossil fuel and ICE industry is far more heavily subsidised ( literally in the amounts of hundred of billion of dollars ) than renewable energy now or that very powerful political parties (the GOP in the US eg) do back them.
'Everything you say and every point you try to make has no analysis on your part, you are defending something you can't explain"
I already explain it to you my analysis : *human made climate change and their impact is supported by all credible evidence that we gathered so far*.. The fact that you refused to listen shows the problem on your side
"It should be the role of everyone to question the assertions made, it is the duty of the person making the assertion to prove it. I cannot disprove anything if it was never proven in the first place, at least o the degree that they have claimed."
Again, the theory and data behind man made climate change have been challenged countless times and very single time they do came on top. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed scientific paper that proves their assertion to be correct. The fact that you chose to ignore them shows wilful ignorance on your past.
"You walk in lock step with the narrative and have admitted as such, you are following solely what is popular and because it is popular."
You mean like how the Earth is an oblate sphere orbiting around the sun is a "popular assertion". Facts are facts regardless of how "popular" it is.
" There are a thousand comments of people trying to figure out what you call settled "
If you actually spend time reading those comment you would find that most that tried to refute climate change are as ignorant of science as you yourself have shown. They few that seem to know seem to bent of cherry picking
) instead of arguing in good faith .
"and yet you call others false when you can'explain it yourself."
No, I called them false because they are incapable of providing irrefutable evidence /data to what they claim. In fact many of them have been thoroughly debunked .
"Remember this in 2030 when we are still here"
Another strawman form you. Almost all climate scientist agrees that man made climate change will not be the extinction of mankind (so of course we would still be here). At worst it would cause catastrophic ecological disaster that will cost humanity trillion of dollar in damage and countless lives and would take the Earth million of years to recover.
' come while the goal is never reached and the alarmism continues on, the goal post are moved, and the previous alarmist and their claims are forgotten in place of the new ones"
Talk about ignoring realty. So far the=climate scientist have managed to correctly predict the effects of climate change, so no, no goalpost have been moved. They only one movie goalpost are climate change deniers, I remember the time that they tried to deny that climate change is even happening.
"https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-sixteen-the-communism-behind-environmentalism-part-ii_2786362.html"
Wow, another poorly researched, extremely biased and non credible source from you.
That is the problem with you. Your opposition is based on some tribal mentality of political leanings instead of what the facts are pointing. You allow partisanship to blind your from seeing the truth, science doesn't care about political beliefs.
"If you are emotionally attached to your tribe, religion or political leaning to the point that truth and justice become secondary considerations, your education is useless.
Your exposure is useless. If you cannot reason beyond petty sentiments, you are a liability to mankind" ~ Dr. Chuba Okadigbo(Late)"
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OOTurok So, so many science ,math and even English comprehension fails in your post to the point I don't think you ever went to school at all.
to change a cellphone battery only requires 3 - 5 Volts. To charge an EV battery requires a minimum of 480 Volts. Now how is it, that a cellphone needs more energy to recharge than an EV?
This just show how much you don't know about electricity in general. Firstly , you don't need voltage of more than 480 to charge an EV . EV charging at home or place of work uses Level 1 and Level 2 charges that use 120 Volt and up to 240Volt respectively . Sure, they take a lot more time than a superchargers ,but most of the time you don't use your car anyway, such as when you're sleeping or working.
Secondly your math is wrong , AGAIN. Cellphone charger have voltage of 3-5 volt and amperage 0.5 to 2.4 amps which lead to only 1.5 -12 Watts/h whereas the slowest and lowest power Level 1 charger uses 120 volt and 12 amps to total of 1440watts/h or 1.44kW/h. In what way is 12watt more energy than 1440 watts?
1500 lbs of mass... to release the same amount of usable energy as 82 lbs of gasoline
Here is where you maths failed gains. No auto engineer that works on gasoline cars would even use this Flat Earth logic of yours, that is not how they calculate.
Neither of your example the same amount of power at all. Any chemist of physicists would correct you that the 82lbs gasoline contains 474kWh of energy if we uses gasoline's lowest estimated power density of 12kWh/kilo while that 100kKWh battery contain , well 100kWh. The fact that despite weighing thousand of pound more and 300kwh les power the Model S still managed to go further 790km vs 635km shows how much better an EV is.
Because you said 1500lsb of mass I assume you mean 100kWh battery as the Model S battery as that battery of that power weighs at 1377lbs, so it maybe you average weight for that kind of battery. An Aptera can travel 1600km on a 100kWh pack for a whopping 16km/kWh .Talk about efficiency .
Furthermore , you would still lose if you count weight of fuel per distance travelled . That 82lbs of gasoline is expended every full trip whereas the battery weigh is the same en after full discharge to 0kWh. In other word when you car travel 31750 km it would have expanded 4100lns of gasoline while a BEV traveling for 31750km would still uses the same 1500lbs of battery. Still a loss for your gasoline car in term of weight of fuel per distance .
Futhermore... Electric Passenger trains do NOT run on batteries. They are linked to a power grid that energizes the tracks they run on
I never said they used batteries. I said they used electric motors . Learn to read .
And the Battery Powered Freight Train in Australia, you are talking about is NOT even built yet. The prototype is scheduled to be finished sometime in late 2025, & testing is to begin in early 2025
Again, learn to read . I literally said IT WAS BEING BUILT .
You also obviously didn't read the white paper on that train design .The reason why it could mathematically and physically work was because the rail track from the mine to port was on slope ,and with slope and heavy cargo like iron ore , you could gain lots of power to recharge the battery just by regenerative braking.
Again, the point of me bringing up the fact that practically all train are electric is to show how much better and more efficient an electric motor is. If diesel and gasoline was much better , then they would have uses them instead.
The reason why car and truck need battery is because we really can't transmits energy directly from the grid to the EV, unless you want to go the unviable route of uprooting all road and place wireless power transmission on them . Again, Despite the limitation of the heavy batteries ,electric cars and trucks still blow theri ICE counterparts out of the water in terms of efficiency.
Kudos on to you for spreading more lies
Do you look in the mirror before doing all this projecting? The only one that is spreading lies here is you. All my figures and calculations can easily be backed up by asking any question to any science teacher or industry professional , or even basic google search, whereas none of you claim are supported by expert and scientific facts. They will just laugh at your Flat Earth level of understanding.
1
-
1
-
@OOTurok
I am flabbergasted that every single thing you wrote here all factually false, from Level 1 and 2 charger being bad for batteries when it is the complete opposite , all EV manufacturer recommend using them rather than supercharges to tha last point about the Tesl Semi can only haul 80, 000 at the speed of speed og 5 mile are literally lies. We literally saw the Tesla Semi move 40 ton on 500mile trips. Why are you lying this badly? You do know that who can use any search engine can literally search you claims and found very single one of them are incorrect, right ?
And what battery electric rockets ? Those literally don't exist and no one ever mentioned them, not Space X not Blue Origin , not ULA , Not NASA .
And you also are literally lying about what I said .
Your claim that larger batteries require less energy to recharge than smaller batteries... is false
I NEVER make that claim, ever . You can't even quote here I ever said that if I dare you .
At this point I begin to think you're truly delusional , dishonest or stupid , or even all them because you keep bringing up fake data and literal lies that can easily debunked by simple google search and arguing against points that no one ever made. I've met Flat Earther and sovereign citizen who are more honest and less delusional than you . This is my last response to you , I can't believe I tried to educate you..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@OOTurok I never said your last post were wrong , I was pointing they were incomplete as you failed to show the link or crossover between energy in joules vs energy in kWh. You literally just proved my point on why BEV are far more efficient because how little range you get out of all that energy density in gasoline ,but let's correct where you're wrong first.
Firstly lets get where you are grossly wrong about gasoline . The typical gasoline engine only have the efficiency of 25% not 39% , the latter figure is the efficiency of diesel . Since we're talking about gasoline, then the figure is 25%. This is just efficiency of fuel of tank to wheel , not total efficiency from oil refinery to wheel, the latter would be much lower.
Your math is also wrong as 82lbs of gasoline contain 10,260MJ of energy , not 1715.34 MJ. You incorrectly multiple the gallon instead of pound .
Secondly, teh 85% figure the round trip efficiency of power plant to wheel , not battery to wheel. The battery to wheel efficiency of Tesla is 97% . I don't know what the battery to wheel efficiency of an Aptera car, but I do know of its range.
Furthermore , iI alway pointed that Gasoline have much higher energy density than any battery, what I have shown is gasoline powered car are fare less efficient than a BEV.
Thus the correct measure of efficiency in Joule is
Gasoline has an Energy Density of 46 MJ/Kg or 125.12 MJ/lb.
At 6 lbs/gal, a 13.7 gallon tank holds 82.2 lbs of fuel =10,260MJ of energy.
That same car can go 635 km on a full tank thus to travel 1 km= 16.12 MJ
or 0.062 Km per MJ, . A mere 62 meter or 203 feet per KJ.
In contrast a Tesla model Y with 100KwH have 360MJ as 1kWh=3.6 MJ
That same car can go 790km on a full charge thus to travel 1 km=0.455MJ
Or 2.19km per MJ.
An Apterra with the same 100kWh battery can travel 1600km per full charge thus having a 0.255 MJ/km
or 4.44 km per MJ.
It doesn't' matter if it kWh or Joules, both will show that a BEV is far more efficient than a similar gasoline car.
1
-
@OOTurok You either don't know what goalpost moving means is or you are straight up lying about me again , the same way you lied about how I supposedly claim that larger batteries require less energy to recharge than smaller batteries, something I never did . My point is always that BEV is far more efficient than ICE and this efficiency is why it is far better than them, even when all the energy used to power it came from coal. There have been no goalpost moving on my part.
The only goalpost moving came from you. You first tried to claim than a gasoline car is more efficient than a BEV by comparing how far 82lbs of gasoline can go vs a 1500lbs EV battery, a BS apple to orange comparison no automotive engineer worth his salt would ever endorse . You never mentioned this stupid line of thought again when I pointed how wrong you math is .
The issue is the energy efficiency of the the power source & how much energy can be stored in a given amount of mass
You are still confusing gasoline as energy storage the same way battery is , this is wrong . Gasoline, like uranium or solar is form of energy source , not energy storage . Unless you can convert energy from other source into gasoline, then it really isn't a form of energy storage the way a battery is. As a form of energy storage, Li-ion battery is one of the most efficient energy storage per unit of mass .
As a source of of power for vehicle gasoline is pretty poor due to how inefficient ICE is at extracting usable energy , as shown by the calculation above.
And now you tried to move the goalpost again by pivoting to liquid lead acid battery despite it having zero relevance to any of my arguments . Heck, no one in this thread ever mentioned lead acid, just like no one in this thread mentioned perpetual motion machine or battery powered rockets, no one but you .Were you taking acid when typing that response?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Patrickf5087 ". Fuel prices on the other hand can be MUCH lower if left out of the hands of government controls. IE our current fuel crisis."
It seem to me you are ignorant of why the current gas price is so high. I suggest you watch Wendover Productions video about this .
"That's a miss conception, Electricity like every other finite resource gets a market price on it, more demand = higher cost, Electricity prices have only gone up in most regions despitw windmills power plants being constructed."
That have more to do with the increase in fuel price than anything else. It is pretty much impossible for the increase in electricity rate to outpace fuel price hikes .
"And as of right now, theybare installing them as fast as theybare.being produced."
"So your "time to upgrade" is already happening at a snails pace, not estimated to be "finished" probably never, because demands on Electricity are out pacing the component production speeds"
Not they are not. There are plenty of problem with how the US handles it grid upgrade from NIMBY to lack of funding to upgrade them. EPA regulation is not the limiting factor at all. Left to their own device utility companies only spend just as much to expand capacity as their short term profit outlook will allow them. Furthermore, the currents expansions of electric capacity in the US is still ahead of the current EV adoption rate in the country (seriously, look up the numbers) . Again the bottleneck here is mostly artificial . That is why the infrastructure bill is so important.
'Thats not true as again your unaware of the problems, Government is PUSHING to hard to the EV market, and EV production is expected to increase in speed baring matrial shortages. And will soon drastically outpace Electricity supply and sustainability. "
Did you took a look at the infrastructure bill that was passed couple of month ago? That bill included billion allocated to upgrade the electricity grid.
"False, emissions regulation has changed that argument drastically, I younhave said that 40 years ago and I would have agreed but current day emissions aren't that way."
No, studies as late as 2021 (date of publishing) still shows that environmental and health problem cause by fossil fuels burning and handling (even gas/diesel fume are scientifically confirmed carcinogenic) is major threat, especially among the poor.
In contrast there is no such risk with EV.
"Hydrogen "
Everything said about hydrogen is false:
Hydrogen actually receive far more funding and attention from government and multinational mega corporation in the last 40 decades than batterie did (until 2012) . Huge conglomerates in both the auto industry (Toyota eg) an the petroleum industry (Shell eg) spent billion researching hydrogen technology and lobbying government to adopt hydrogen (Japan and Korea eg) . The problems was the technology hurdle was too great to overcomes. Then Li battery tech came in and took over EV
Today hydrogen is just too expensive , too complicated and too slow to competes with battery for EV.
'Also thr "Intel" is relevant sd its a data point on how companies promise advancement of technology and fall far short of expectations and promises"
Irrelevant as BEV isn't a promise it is already a reality. Evident by the tens of millions of EV on the road and its massive adoption increase year after year.
1
-
1
-
@Patrickf5087
I never said hydrogen is new tech. I personally been hearing out about prototype hydrogen car and and how it's the "fuel of the future" in the 1980s (yes, I'm old) so I know more than most people how old hydrogen tech is. What I repeated said is governments , independent research (universities) and mega companies (Toyota eg) have been pouring billions into hydrogen research over decades (since last century) . Hydrogen is just too hard of a nut to crack.
It fate in the consumer market was sealed the moment Li-ion battery entered the EV story . The reason hydrogen is fading away from consumer market is simply due to market pressure: Hydrogen is just too expensive and logistics intensive to be viable while offering no performance (they are slower nd less responsive compare to BEV) and cost advantage (they're to expensive to own) for consumers. Again, despite massive government support in Korea and Japan, the sale of hydrogen cars (Toyota Mirai eg) were still marginal. Current BEV tech is is too superior for it to compete against.
"Thats a nice hand wave, which you have brought up TWICE currently there are no large scale ENERGY STORGE in the US, and even if we start now, would take a decade or 2 to build."
You are wrong on this one as well.
I suggest you look up what pump-hydro is. Until 2021( when China launched a bigger facility) the US have the largest pump hydro energy storage facility in the world ( a record method since the 1980s) . Energy storage isn't a new thing , what is new is just the technology that are currently been added such as pressurise air, liquid air, thermal batteries and the multitude of newer battery chemistry (from Li-ion to redox flow) battery. Currently quite a number of these storage solution that are been constructed in the US and the rest of the world.
Ironically, large scale static energy storage is one utility in which hydrogen would perform well.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@tomjackson4374
Again, you are misdirecting . I never said for 150K miles, that is rookie number. I'm talking about your 30 years claims. A ten years old car needed at least a belt/chain change or it won't even run at all. Tesla needed none of that and would still keep running.
" I want reliable, affordable transportation and because I am not 16, I want it as comfortable as possible."
Except for the price, Tesla have all of that. Of course Tesla is not the only BEV on market in 2022
"I have a 2011 BMW that I bought for $10,000 and I expect to drive it for at least another ten years or more before I get another one. The only thing that doesn't work on that car is me. It is a joy to drive and the handling and brakes have saved me from two serious accidents. "
You won't get a Tesla for under 10K but there are used BEV out there that fist that price range. Heck, if you drive only 13 miles ( or double that) a day, there are quite a number of second hand BEV that are 10K or under. On top of that, you spend less on gas and maintenance for those BEV.
"For me, I don't trust the batteries and if they go out for me the car is totaled."
The same goes for an ICE, of the engine or even gearbox went out than the car is just as totalled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hewdelfewijfe There are still many thing wrong with your estimate.
Firstly the 26 million metric ton are just the proven reserve that are ready to extract with our current industry and tech. This number will get bigger over time as industry and technology grows , for example the lithium deposit reserve ten year ago was only around 15 million ton. After all the total amount of Lithium in the Earth crust is estimated at around 88 million ton.
Secondly you don't need to have a day worth of storage , at most you need around 12-14 hours storage capacity if you are only using solar when don't shine at night. If you used wind, then you need even fewer storage capacity as win still works at night. That is before counting for other innovating factors like smart grid.
Of cause solar and wind or not the only green energy around. Don't forget nuclear
Thirdly, there are plenty of other way to store energy. Currently the biggest eclectics storage doesn't even use batteries, they used pumped hydro. That is before we include other storage tech such as pressured gas, thermals storage and hydrogen storage as well many others.
Even if we just talking battery tech, then sodium batteries are not the only ones that doesn't' use lithium, cobalt or nickel. EWe have redox flow batteries , Iron air batteries liquid metal batteries and many others.
Finally, you said yourself the newest sodium batteries don't use nickel.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harleymitchelly5542
Firstly, affordable BEV doesn't ' always equal crappy cars. Both Europe and China have quite a number of good an serviceable BEV that are not available on the US market at this point .None of these BEV are what you would call "disposable" as they share the same long lifespans (they won' last as long as Tesla due to Tesla great battery management but tat won't matter to most consumer) of standard BEV. This is in no way comparable to the ethanol fiasco (which is subsidising the corn industry in the US, an effort to appeases corn farmers.) . Even if it would be a new car loan, they would still be able to pay it back thanks to the savings BEV provided (cheaper fuel and maintenance ) if the loans have low interest (why would you put high interest of a relief loan?).
Secondly, Tesla's purported goal was always to bring BEV to the masses instead of bein a luxury car company. That was what they stated when the released the Model 3 and Model Y. That was also their supposedly goal when the idea USD25K car concept was first floated. Right now this gaol seem to shelved for more profitable projects and for experiments that won't see the light of day for decades (that stupid robot project) .
Oh , and Tesla doesn't' receive any subsidy , you moron. The closes to what can be called as "subsidy" is the tax rebate consumers get (It mean Tesla don't get the money) , all car manufacturers in the US receive this "subsidy", not just Tesla. The difference is Tesla (as well as Toyota and GM) used all their allocated slots (there is a quota for how many car are eligible) years ago so it doesn't affects their sales at all , currently Ford buyer can uses this subsidy. On another note, the so called "whompy wheels" problem only affect a few car and this minor issue have pretty much been solved.
Thirdly , the current the NIMBY problems isn't solely left wing issue. I mean Nevada scrapped the proposed nuclear waste storage site isn't and that left wing states at all. The same goes for the objection over building new power lines (one republican lawmaker sated he won't support spending money to build over his constituency) and objection to new solar and wind farms. Ring wing and conservatives seem to be very opposed to spending money to increase the capacity of the electric grid (evident by how much the infrastructure bill was stonewalled).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@harleymitchelly5542 Firstly, you do know that A) the "whompy wheels" problem only affects a few early productions and B) such "problems only occurred during him impacts crashes, crashes that would total any car and C) no longer an issue with currents Tesla. Your software problem doesn't take sense as even the earliest Tesla (Roadster and Model S) are still driveable today.
Secondly, if you do know as much about the Chinese EV section then you would know that most of their EV designs are locally made( Wuling Hongguang, BYD Dolphins etc )and are not copy any European or US analogous. If you do know about the Chinses scene as much as claim then you would also know that they lead world in BEV tech in many ways such over 60% of Chinese EV used LFP chemistry which make them cheaper, safer (less prone t fire in of accident) and last longer lasting (at the expense of range) , BYD blade battery tech (which even impresses Tesla) and CTL(which is the largest battery company in the world) bein the first to implement new battery tech such as sodium batteries. People used to have your same attitude towards Korean and Japanese companies and look at where they're at now.
Thirdly, 220 and 500miles is more than enough to cover pretty much all short and mid range transport need. Considering that BEV are cheaper to maintain than ICEV, this would completely shut ICEV out of these markets. As for long range.. Do you know that laws in most countries limits how long as semi driver can drive? Even in the US they are not allowed to drive more than 11 hours (which must immediately come with a minimum 10 hours rest) a day This lead to the average US driver driving around 600miles (depending on speed limits). Couple with the fact that Tesla are building hyperchangers (that can charge these beast from empty to full in less than an hour at the expected routes make them more viable than you think.
I am willing to bet that edge case Volvo had more component/parts change in in first 300K mile than the same Tesla (lest that Volvo would be in a junkyard) and more expensive to maintain in the same time period. Again, the fact is BEV can drive longer than any ICEV without needing any part change. A BEV motor is rated to run for millions of miles on it own in theory/lab condition (though in real world condition the highest one so far is 780,000 km) and the a battery degradation isn't as bad (unless we're talking about early compliance BEV or the flawed Nissan Leaf) as you think based on real wold data . If we include part change like the Volvo you mentioned then there's is a Tesla there that have travelled more than 1 million mile (a 2014 Model S belonging to Hansjörg Gemmingen).
Again, what I said is based on thirds party real world data (based on battery and motor life) and not some "lab/theoretical values" that shows us what expect of Tesla (I can't say for other EV by other companies because unlike Tesla , there isn't enough third party data on their expected lifespans). That is why I do not bring Tesla Semi in to my arguments because they haven't come out yet and thus we do not know of their real world performance .
The current generation BEV only need to be more sustainable in comparison to the ICEV they are meant to replace and they are already achieving that goal. The other good thin is they are getting more sustainable with very passing year (thank to new improvement and the grid getting greener) , the same can't be said of ICEV. It is delusional to deny fact and evidence .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1