Youtube comments of Name (@Name-kd5jj).

  1. 1500
  2. 803
  3. 396
  4. 358
  5. 328
  6. 285
  7. 207
  8. 200
  9. 144
  10. 144
  11. 143
  12. 137
  13. 133
  14. 114
  15. 108
  16. 102
  17. 101
  18. 95
  19. 87
  20. 85
  21. 82
  22. 80
  23. 79
  24. 77
  25. 74
  26. 71
  27. 68
  28. 66
  29. 65
  30. 63
  31. 62
  32. 58
  33. 55
  34. 53
  35. 53
  36. 51
  37. 49
  38. 47
  39. 43
  40. 42
  41. 40
  42. 39
  43. 37
  44. 37
  45. 36
  46. 31
  47. 30
  48. 30
  49. 30
  50. 28
  51. As a Walfart employee i can say Walfart is really a modern day Nazi work camp. They will fire you for just about anything and work you like a dog, pushing you to work harder and faster like a Neo-Hitler all while refusing to hire any help. If you get really sick and need a some time off they will fire you. I knew someone who fell into a coma and couldn't call into work, so they fired them. Another person had cancer and requested some time off, they were also fired. They will also fire you for potentially violating federal regulations that apply to the company and not the employee just to avoid being fined. An example being if you don't clock out for lunch they will "coach" you, 3 coachings and you fired. They hardly give you time to take a lunch but will fire you if you clock out more than 6 hours into your shift. Another load of shit is they will fire you for doing work off the clock. For example if you're on your way out of the store after clocking out to go home and a customer comes to you for help, they will fire you if you are caught helping said customer while off the clock. Someone at my store was fired for helping an old lady load heavy items into her car. Now this is my first job and i don't intend to stay here forever, but for the over 2 million people worldwide that depend on this terrible company i really feel sad. Not everyone is able to get a college degree and make big money, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve the be able to live a happy and comfortable life. Everything is this world hinges on moderation and balance. We need to balance capitalism and socialism to create an economy that is profitable and prosperous but also fair and just. #trump2020
    27
  52. 27
  53. 26
  54. 26
  55. 25
  56. 24
  57. 24
  58. 23
  59. 23
  60. 23
  61. 23
  62. 23
  63. 23
  64. 22
  65. 21
  66. 21
  67. 20
  68. 20
  69. 20
  70. 20
  71. 20
  72. 19
  73. 19
  74. 19
  75. 19
  76. 18
  77. 18
  78. 17
  79. 17
  80. 16
  81. 16
  82. 16
  83. 15
  84. 15
  85. 15
  86. 14
  87. 14
  88. 14
  89. 14
  90. 13
  91. 13
  92. 13
  93. 13
  94. 13
  95. 13
  96. 13
  97. 13
  98. 13
  99. 12
  100. 12
  101. 12
  102. 12
  103. 12
  104. 11
  105. 11
  106. 11
  107. 11
  108. 11
  109. 11
  110. 11
  111. 11
  112. 11
  113. 11
  114. 10
  115. 10
  116. 10
  117. 10
  118. 10
  119. 10
  120. 10
  121. 10
  122. 9
  123. 9
  124. 9
  125. 9
  126. 9
  127. 9
  128. 8
  129. 8
  130. 8
  131. 8
  132. I've been saying this for years but Hydrogen is likely the only way for the future. Electric cars have several fatal flaws that can probably never be overcome. You have the energy density, charging times, infrastructure, weight and cost. Batteries work okay for high end passenger cars like a Model S, but scale it up to a semi truck and the technology is a total failure. A battery pack on a semi truck would weight about 9000-10,000 lbs and get about 500 miles of range in ideal circumstances. First of all thats 10,000 lbs you have to take out of your payload which hurts profits. But say you're driving though the mountains in Colorado during winter. You will see that 500 mile range drop to under 200 miles. Cold temperatures have a huge effect on batteries but also going uphill into the mountains lowers range. Keep in mind that a diesel semi truck can get about 1200 miles of range on a single fill up so 500 miles isn't really acceptable. Especially when you will only get that 500 miles driving on a totally flat straight road in Kansas in ideal temperatures with the wind to your back. But then theres the infrastructure. Say hypothetically we would build a car that could charge from 0% to 100% in 5-10 minutes. Well that cool until you consider the fact that its not just the cars ability to receive the charge but also the charging station's ability to provide that charge. You would have to run extremely high voltage lines everywhere. Considering the plan is to install charging stations in every house and parking lot, that seems like a serious danger. Okay so say we don't charge the cars that fast and instead fully charge a car in say 1 hour. Well then you would basically have to greatly increase the number of charging stations. But people also seem to forget that most people are not like your typical Tesla customer, you know upper middle class with a big house in the suburbs. What about a college kid living in an apartment? Where are they going to put their charging station? They would have to rely on public chargers as would at least 80% of the population. These charging stations would get extremely backed up when it takes a whole hour to charge a car. Also look at Europe where most people rent and cities are much more compact. You would almost need as many charging stations as you have cars and thats not really feasible is it?
    8
  133. 8
  134. 8
  135. 8
  136. 8
  137. 8
  138. 8
  139. 8
  140. 8
  141. 8
  142. 8
  143. 8
  144. 8
  145. 8
  146. 7
  147. 7
  148. 7
  149. 7
  150. 7
  151. 7
  152. 7
  153. 7
  154. 7
  155. Yeah electric cars are just a pipe dream. Not only are they not green but they are completely incapable of performing the tasks require of motor vehicles. Yes if you live in an eco-friendly city with Tesla superchargers everywhere, you never commute long distances and you make 100K a year then an electric car will work for you. Anyone else though, like say 99% of people and its a complete bust. The batteries are the biggest problem. They are made out of lithium which is one of the rarest elements on Earth, so estimates predict that we will run out in a decade. Plus a battery pack will cost any where between 10-20 K and they only last up to 100,000 miles. So you have to spend 10-20 thousand dollars every 100,000 miles? Yeah the average person can totally afford that. Then theres the range, the charging times and the fact that they tend to catch fire and/or explode. Not to mention they ARE indeed coal and natural gas burners. Coal and natural gas make up about 65% of power generation in the US. About 14% comes from renewables and the bulk of that is from hydroelectric. Less than 1% is from solar. So to all of you Tesla fanboys who think we're going to power the world with sunlight and wind think again. Not only is solar not potent enough, but the land area required to build enough solar panels is crazy, literally an area the size of Spain. Also google the "duck curve" and you'll see another serious problem. The solution is hydrogen. We can use it to power our cars and our cities. It can be gotten from any water source and it recycles itself by converting back to water one the fuel is used. It produces zero emissions. The biggest problem is producing the fuel which is expensive and energy intensive with current methods. Thats a huge obstacle but it can be overcome. The problems with electric cars and solar power however cannot be overcome. The problems lye deep within the inherent design.
    7
  156. 7
  157. 7
  158. 7
  159. 6
  160. 6
  161. 6
  162. 6
  163. 6
  164. 6
  165. 6
  166. 6
  167. 6
  168. 6
  169. 6
  170. 6
  171. 6
  172. 6
  173. 6
  174. 6
  175. 6
  176. 6
  177. 6
  178. 6
  179. 6
  180. 6
  181. 6
  182. 5
  183. 5
  184. 5
  185. 5
  186. 5
  187. 5
  188. 5
  189. 5
  190. 5
  191. 5
  192. 5
  193. 5
  194. 5
  195. 5
  196. 5
  197. 5
  198. 5
  199. 5
  200. 5
  201. 5
  202. 5
  203. 5
  204. 5
  205. 5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 4
  227. 4
  228. 4
  229. 4
  230. 4
  231. 4
  232. 4
  233. 4
  234. 4
  235. 4
  236. 4
  237. 4
  238. 4
  239. 4
  240. 4
  241. 4
  242. 4
  243. 4
  244. 4
  245. 4
  246. 4
  247. 4
  248. 4
  249. 4
  250. 3
  251. 3
  252. 3
  253. 3
  254. 3
  255. ***** So your plan is to replace all of the cars on the road with electric cars with no power and no range? Well guess what, an economy can't function if all of its motor vehicles are electric. How are people supposed to transport goods across a country? At best they have a range of 200 miles, the US is 3000 miles from coast to coast. That means they would have to stop 15 times to charge, which takes 10 hours or so. What if a truck is transporting perishable goods? That means complete collapse of the automotive infrastructure and ultimately a collapse of the economy. Plus you have to consider the batteries. They are made of various materials which have to be mined out of the ground. They are in limited supply and will run out in no time if everyone starts driving electric cars. Then you end up in the same place you would be if the oil ran our in an oil economy. So what if we could combine the advantages of an electric motor and an ICE. Oh wait it exists, its called HYDROGEN. The only thing holding hydrogen back is the cost. This is subject to change especially as the technology changes. In the end we have to find an alternative to oil or else we risk complete regression to the 1800's. Electric cars are not it. For one they only address the issue of motor vehicles and not the bigger issue of the energy industry as a whole. Hydrogen has the potential to become all encompassing, we just need to invest time and money into it to find cheaper and more efficient ways of utilizing its incredible potential.
    3
  256. 3
  257. 3
  258. 3
  259. 3
  260. 3
  261. 3
  262. 3
  263. 3
  264. 3
  265. 3
  266. 3
  267. 3
  268. 3
  269. 3
  270. 3
  271. 3
  272. 3
  273. 3
  274. 3
  275. 3
  276. 3
  277. 3
  278. ​ @scruffymakaveli6870  Within 2 to 3 years the American economy will totally collapse. First we will have a recession of which the cause I'm not sure. Probably similar to the housing bubble. After which the government will bail out the corporations resulting in even worse inflation. This will also result in consolidation of power meaning mass buyout of smaller competing companies. They will do this as much as they can to avoid triggering anti-trust laws. Conditions and inequality will worsen severely during this period. Jeff Bezos will probably become a trillionaire at this point. Shortly after the first recession the effects of hyperinflation will set in causing a stock market scare resulting in sudden sell-off causing stock values to plummet. This will cause the next great depression. Bezos will go from being worth over $1 trillion to $0 overnight. While this sounds terrible it will put an end to the stranglehold the top %1 have on the system. They will be in no place to do anything because they will have no money. The period following will be the most important in US and perhaps world history. Either we end up with a just and fair new system or we struggle to find direction in the midst of chaos and allow totalitarians to fill the vacuum. If we find correct leadership we can write a new constitution to prevent such inequality from being possible in the future. The most important thing is to maintain the Trinity of power. This is a perpetual tug-of-war between the people, government and the market. In modern America the market has taken over the government turning it into a 2 way tug-of-war. In the USSR the government took over the market with similar results. So i say we mandate ESOP's for all companies to maintain control over the market. I'm calling this Democratic Capitalism. The idea being that we turn all companies into democracies. The workers will own the company and they will elect leadership. Companies as they are today are just authoritarian oligarchies run by the unelected. For the government i suggest we rethink voting laws and force candidates to sign a contract of promises. Meaning they make a list of promises that they must keep and it is made into a legally binding contract. At the end of their term they must go before a court where they will defend their term performance. If the jury finds that they blatantly broke these promises they will face prison time. A less severe punishment will be to ban them from running for office. These are just some of my ideas and predictions so take it with a grain of salt.
    3
  279. 3
  280. 3
  281. 3
  282. 3
  283. 3
  284. 3
  285. 3
  286. 3
  287. 3
  288. 3
  289. 3
  290. 3
  291. 3
  292. 3
  293. 3
  294. 3
  295. 3
  296. 3
  297. 3
  298. 3
  299. 3
  300. 3
  301. 3
  302. 3
  303. 3
  304. 3
  305. 3
  306. 3
  307. 3
  308. 3
  309. 3
  310. 3
  311. 3
  312. 3
  313. 3
  314. 3
  315. 3
  316. 3
  317. 3
  318. 3
  319. 3
  320. 3
  321. The Democrats get votes by first ruining the economy, promoting illegal immigration and appealing to people's natural desire to blame someone else and identify as a victim( IE racial and gender issues). They devastate an area by over-regulating businesses forcing them to leave which raises the cost of living and unemployment. Then they force people to get some kind of government assistance. Once they have you they don't let go, you can't survive without it and the only way to keep it funded is by voting Democrat. As Tucker said they are all for open borders because illegal immigrants vote Democrats almost every time because Republicans want to deport all of them. Lastly they use the victim strategy. They create false ideas like "white privilege" and "the patriarchy" to give weak minded people an excuse to be lazy and blame the dreaded straight white male. They tell them that they can't succeed because of their gender or race. Then people are like "oh yeah thats why i'm 35 and still work at McDonalds. It has nothing to do with the fact that i dropped out of high school and completely lack any ambition." Then the Democrats tell these idiots that the only way to fight these imaginary forces is to vote Democrat. The Democrats ruin lives. Thats what they do. They intentionally raise the cost of living to increase unemployment, drug addiction, crime and government dependence. The Democrats ruin people's lives so that they can turn around and run an entire campaign on the claim that they are going to fix everything. Look at every state or city run by Democrats. In California the average home price is nearly $500,000 or twice the national average. Unemployment is the highest in the country and just about every city has high rates of homelessness and drug addiction. In San Francisco they literally have a program where they give needles to drug addicts. Why? Because they want drug addicts to ruin the city so that they can "save" it.
    3
  322. 3
  323. 3
  324. 3
  325. 3
  326. 3
  327. 3
  328. 3
  329. 3
  330. 3
  331. 3
  332. 3
  333. 3
  334. 3
  335. 3
  336. 3
  337. 3
  338. 3
  339. 3
  340. 3
  341. 3
  342. 2
  343. 2
  344. 2
  345. 2
  346. 2
  347. 2
  348. 2
  349. 2
  350. 2
  351. 2
  352. 2
  353. 2
  354. 2
  355. 2
  356. 2
  357. 2
  358. 2
  359. 2
  360. 2
  361. 2
  362. 2
  363. 2
  364. 2
  365. 2
  366. 2
  367. 2
  368. 2
  369. 2
  370. 2
  371. 2
  372. 2
  373. 2
  374. 2
  375. 2
  376. 2
  377. 2
  378. 2
  379. 2
  380. 2
  381. 2
  382. 2
  383. 2
  384. 2
  385. 2
  386. 2
  387. 2
  388. 2
  389. 2
  390. 2
  391. 2
  392. 2
  393. 2
  394. 2
  395. 2
  396. 2
  397. 2
  398. 2
  399. 2
  400. 2
  401. 2
  402. 2
  403. 2
  404. 2
  405. 2
  406. 2
  407. 2
  408. 2
  409. 2
  410. 2
  411. 2
  412. 2
  413. 2
  414. 2
  415. 2
  416. 2
  417. 2
  418. 2
  419. 2
  420. 2
  421. 2
  422. 2
  423. 2
  424.  @devinbender8428  Okay but why not nuclear. Nuclear is the cleanest and safest form of energy we have. I encourage you to do some research into nuclear power and ignore the negative public opinion which comes entirely from ignorance. More people have died by falling onto solar panels than have been killed in nuclear reactor meltdowns. The radioactive waste is stored in large concrete containers that block the radiation, then these containers are stored in a shed. If you ask most people they would think that the nuclear waste is just buried in a forest somewhere where it will contaminate rivers and lakes. Because everything they know about nuclear power they learned from the Simpsons. Now lets consider Thorium reactors. The nuclear meltdowns that scare everyone are not actually possible with thorium. In a uranium reactor they start the fission process by introducing neutrons. Once the reaction starts it does not stop until the fuel rods are depleted. A meltdown happens when the fuel rods are exposed to open air, they are normally submerged in water. In open air they overheat and melt together. An explosion can happen if this mass of superheated uranium suddenly hits a large amount of water. The rapidly expanding gases creates an explosion. It is NOT a nuclear explosion like the movies would have you believe. Now in a thorium reactor the fission starts when you introduce neutrons but it requires a constant flow of neutrons to keep the reaction going. So if the fuel rods begin to overheat you simply cut off the flow of neutrons to stop the reaction and bam crisis averted. Plus thorium is 4X more abundant, it has a half-life of 100 years instead of 10,000 years, and it cannot be used to make a bomb. So having said all of that would it not make more sense to use a combination of nuclear power and solar power instead of natural gas and solar?
    2
  425. 2
  426. 2
  427. 2
  428. 2
  429. 2
  430. 2
  431. 2
  432. 2
  433. 2
  434. 2
  435. 2
  436. 2
  437. 2
  438. 2
  439. 2
  440. 2
  441. 2
  442. 2
  443. 2
  444. 2
  445. 2
  446. 2
  447. 2
  448. I'm going to attempt to answer the last question: The meaning of life is to find happiness. Happiness changes from one person to the next. Its up to each individual to find what it is that they need to be happy. What I will say is there are a few universal truths about happiness. You need at least one or two of four things to be happy. -Health: Its difficult to be happy if you are in constant pain or suffer from disabilities which limit your freedom. However some people are perfectly content despite these afflictions. -Purpose: Giving yourself a reason to get up in the morning is essential. This can be a job, your family, religion etc. Especially if you feel like you are a part of something bigger. Religion is a source of meaning for many people. -Security: This can be in regards to your well being and safety or even financial security. Money cannot buy happiness but in this modern world it is a basic necessity. The stress that comes with worrying about being forced into bankruptcy and homelessness prohibits happiness. -Love: Most people have a strong desire to form a close bond with other humans. Love is wanting the best for and being concerned with the well being of another person. True love is caring more about someone else than you care about yourself. If that love is true and mutual it can bring true happiness. The antithesis of love is self worship and selfishness. In an increasingly atheists' society self worship in on the rise. (side note I'm not a Christian) However even with all four of those things you may still prohibit yourself from reaching happiness. That brings us to the other universal truths. -You must give up materialism and instead spend your energy pursuing things such as true love -You must be grateful and never wish for more than what you have unless you are genuinely deprived of basic necessities. This is something I see commonly in western society. People have everything they need to be happy but their ungratefulness and materialism gets in the way and ensures a lifetime of unhappiness and discontent. Even though I may not have answered the question perfectly I believe that it at least serves as valuable guidelines.
    2
  449. 2
  450. 2
  451. 2
  452. 2
  453. 2
  454. 2
  455. 2
  456. 2
  457. 2
  458. 2
  459. 2
  460. 2
  461. 2
  462. 2
  463. 2
  464. 2
  465. 2
  466. 2
  467. 2
  468. 2
  469. 2
  470. 2
  471. 2
  472. 2
  473. 2
  474. 2
  475. 2
  476. 2
  477. 2
  478. 2
  479. 2
  480. 2
  481. 2
  482. 2
  483. 2
  484. 2
  485. 2
  486. 2
  487. 2
  488. 2
  489. 2
  490. 2
  491. 2
  492. 2
  493. 2
  494. 2
  495. 2
  496. 2
  497. 2
  498. 2
  499. 2
  500. 2
  501. 2
  502. 2
  503. 2
  504. 2
  505. 2
  506. 2
  507. 2
  508. 2
  509. 2
  510. 2
  511. 2
  512. 2
  513. 2
  514. 2
  515. 2
  516. 2
  517. 2
  518. Its good to see more mainstream manufacturers taking EV's seriously. Up until recently most of them have made half-assed attempts, just taking an existing platform and throwing some batteries in the engine bay and calling it a day. Now they are building unique platforms with the Tesla skateboard battery pack design. We are still about 30 years away from going 100% EV (excluding classics and recreational vehicles) but the sooner we start investing in EV technology the sooner we can get rid of fossil fuels. ICE vehicles in the future will probably run on biofuel like ethanol. I do still believe that large vehicles like semi trucks will probably be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. The weight and cost of EV's will improve but never to the point where it will be practical for large vehicles. I mean to get a semi truck to 1000 miles of range( most diesels can get at least that) it would need a 2000 kwh battery pack which would weight roughly 20,000 lbs and cost around $300,000-400,000(just for the batteries). A diesel semi usually costs around $150,000 just for reference. The Tesla semi can get 500 miles of range but truckers drive an average of 600-700 miles a day. Also remember that varying conditions can lower range by up to 30-40% and to maintain the health of the batteries you want to keep it between 50-90%. So the most you could use is maybe 50% and deduct another 30% for bad conditions and you're looking at 150-200 miles of range for the Tesla semi. Even this 1000 mile range semi would only see 300-400 miles of range. Then theres the cost and lost of payload due to the 20,000 lb battery pack. In no way does it make sense. Even if we doubled the energy density and cut the cost per kwh in half it still wouldn't work.
    2
  519. 2
  520. 2
  521. 2
  522. 2
  523. 2
  524. 2
  525. 2
  526. 2
  527. 2
  528. 2
  529. 2
  530. 2
  531. 2
  532. 2
  533. 2
  534. 2
  535. 2
  536. 2
  537. 2
  538. 2
  539. 2
  540. 2
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. occdoes mc Hydrogen is the only way to sustain our current way of life. Yes its more expensive but once again its either pay more or give up all modern technology. I'm not just talking about powering cars, i'm talking about powering EVERYTHING. Imagine a massive power plant filled with rows and rows of hydrogen fuel cells. Then you can use this clean energy to produce hydrogen fuel which means it not longer pollutes anything at all. Plus you can use the waste products of the process for constructive means. You can take the water produced by the power plant and use it for irrigation or any number of things. You could also use the oxygen produced when making hydrogen fuel and use it for something, idk what but we could find uses. This means that you take the exhaust from it and use it for something constructive, with fossil fuels you only get toxic gases that destroy the planet.  Nuclear fusion is undoubtedly the most efficient way to produce energy, behind antimatter that is. The problem with such technology is that its not entirely realistic. It uses way more energy than it produces, it also uses hydrogen but it turns it into helium in the fusion process, which means that the hydrogen is lost forever, that means its no longer renewable and we might as well just stick with fossil fuels. If we end up using fusion for say 1000 years, how much of Earth's hydrogen would we have used up? This is hydrogen that would be taken from the oceans, this would mean the oceans would slowly dry up until life on earth becomes unsustainable. Not to mention the radiation. Hydrogen fuels cells take hydrogen from water and produce water vapor, so it recycles itself. For those reasons hydrogen is a far more realistic option.  So besides cost can you give me any logical reason why hydrogen can't be the future?
    1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1
  654. 1
  655. 1
  656. 1
  657. 1
  658. 1
  659. 1
  660. 1
  661. 1
  662. 1
  663. 1
  664. 1
  665. 1
  666. 1
  667. 1
  668. 1
  669. 1
  670. 1
  671. 1
  672. 1
  673. 1
  674. 1
  675. 1
  676. 1
  677. 1
  678. 1
  679. 1
  680. 1
  681. 1
  682. 1
  683. 1
  684. 1
  685. 1
  686. 1
  687. 1
  688. 1
  689. 1
  690. 1
  691. 1
  692. 1
  693. 1
  694. 1
  695. 1
  696. 1
  697. 1
  698. 1
  699. 1
  700. 1
  701. 1
  702. 1
  703. 1
  704. 1
  705. 1
  706. Maxwell Erickson A lot of what you said is true. But one day the oil will run out and what then? We would have a complete collapse of everything, economy, infrastructure, and all modern technology. The fact of the matter is that EV's can't meet a lot of our demands, whereas HFC's can.  1. Range: EV's have a range at best of 200-250 miles. The technology will get better and the range will increase, but by how much? Not enough, we need vehicles that can drive hundreds of miles and then refuel in matter of minutes rather than hours.We need this mainly for logistics and distribution, if they can't transport goods fast enough we could have bigger problems on our hands than global warming. 2. Even if the batteries are no longer made with lead, they are still made with materials that are in short supply. We may not run into issues today but if everyone started driving EV's, then we would run out in no time. Hydrogen on the other hand is extremely abundant and renewable.  3. We need to worry about the distant future. EV's work for today, but what about 100 years from now? We could build a complete infrastructure around hydrogen, not just cars, but energy production as a whole. With EV's you still have power plants spewing toxic gases into the atmosphere, you can't run your house on an electric motor can you? The point you made is that HFC's are impractical, this is true because of cost. But my point is that we have to find an alternative regardless of price, and we need to find an alternative for more than cars. We have to put money aside and just get over the losses, this isn't a matter of profits, this is a matter of life and death.
    1
  707. 1
  708. 1
  709. 1
  710. 1
  711. 1
  712. 1
  713. 1
  714. 1
  715. 1
  716. 1
  717. As far as the crossover point goes here is my prediction: 2030: more than 50% of cars built are full EV or Hybrid. Full EV's will make up about 5-10% and the other 40%+ being hybrid. The lithium supply will limit full EV production to about 10-15 million units per year. 2035: Every mainstream manufacturer will offer a full EV with a base price around $25,000 in todays money. Those that are not full EV will be hybrid, using electric motor and a Ethanol/Biodiesel combustion engine. Lithium production and battery advancements will allow for production of about 15-25 million full EV's per year. 2040-2045: Every mainstream manufacturer will have a full EV lineup offered. By this point EV's will probably outsell ICE and hybrid vehicles. 2050: Manufacturing of ICE vehicles will be banned. They will still be sold on the second hand market. By this point car production will drop from about 90 million in 2019 to 60-70 million per year. I believe that by this point the largest source of lithium will become recycled batteries. About 30-35 million cars will be produced using raw lithium mined out of the ground with the remainder coming from recycled batteries. Side note: Even though Tesla promises to make batteries that can last 1 million miles they will not last nearly that long due to the market. Battery technology will evolve rapidly and people will want the latest and greatest. So batteries will last no more than 10-15 years due to market demand. Also even though ICE production will be banned in 2050 many people will still drive ICE vehicles due to supply or not being abled to buy a new EV. Secondhand EV's over 10 years old will be scarce due to the reasons i listed above and many people drive cars that are 15-20 years old due to cost. 2070: Ownership of ICE vehicles will be banned with certain exceptions such as classics. Governments will have to work out some kind of program to buy the ICE vehicles and help subsidize EV adoption for those who cannot afford even a used EV. So in other words ICE will be around for another 50 or so years, but manufacturing will be banned by 2050. I'm also talking mostly about the developed nations so what will happen in Africa for example is anyone's guess. If you're wondering why i'm predicting a serious decline in global vehicle production by 2050 its due to demand and improvements in public transportation. Some people are predicting the number of cars to double to over 2 billion by that point but i predict they are wrong.
    1
  718. 1
  719. 1
  720. 1
  721. 1
  722. 1
  723. 1
  724. 1
  725. 1
  726. 1
  727. 1
  728. 1
  729. 1
  730. 1
  731. 1
  732. 1
  733. 1
  734. 1
  735. 1
  736. 1
  737. 1
  738. 1
  739. 1
  740. 1
  741. 1
  742. 1
  743. 1
  744. 1
  745. 1
  746. 1
  747. 1
  748. 1
  749. 1
  750. Wow Tulsi went from seeing Trump for what a fraud and liar he was to sucking his you know what. Sad. I honestly thought she was one of the good ones. I'm no democrat but I'm no republican either. But if we're going to talk about who's trying to take our right to vote lets just be clear; its all the republicans. Also lets make some points about Trump. He's a failure as a businessman. He declared bankruptcy 6 times. He got millions from his daddy to build various casinos and resorts in Atlantic city. They all went bust. By then he had established himself as celebrity due to his over-the-top decadence. So when no bank would loan him money after his failures, he got a job on the TV show the Apprentice. He took the money from that and began buying already successful businesses, mostly golf courses. He then overvalued his assets to get big loans to buy more golf courses. This is why he has to pay $450 million. Because he's a fraud. All of his success is built on lies. He has no actual beliefs. He is an opportunist and changes his beliefs based on what is convenient at that time. He has switched parties several times and has supported both parties. However he has typically had a preference for the democrats and has stated in the past that they are much better for the economy. He only became a republican when he wanted to run for president. His reasoning? As he stated republicans are stupid and will vote for anyone. He saw that millions of boomers were afraid and angry at the changing world. So he promised to return America back to the 1950s and they bought it. He also only became a Christian when he wanted to win the votes. He's a traitor. Firstly he has brought unbelievable shame to America and embarrassed us. The whole world is laughing at us. Secondly he refused to accept the results of the 2020 election and came damn close to a coup. If we let him back in we might not get him back out again. He also state he wants to be a dictator. He wants to abandon NATO and invited Russia to invade our allies. He did very little for the economy. He promised to bring back the manufacturing jobs. He did not do that. He promised to secure the border and build the wall. He failed to do that. He started a trade war with China and placed tariffs on our allies such as Japan. Not a smart move as they hit us with their own tariffs and soured our relationship. I mean I could go on and on. The point is that anyone who supports Trump is either blind or part of his corrupt regime. As for you Tulsi. Shame on you. The radical left is taken things to far but the solution is not a greater swing in the opposite direction. Trump makes the radical left look reasonable.
    1
  751. 1
  752. 1
  753. 1
  754. 1
  755. 1
  756. 1
  757. 1
  758. 1
  759. 1
  760. 1
  761. 1
  762. 1
  763. 1
  764. 1
  765. 1
  766. 1
  767. 1
  768. 1
  769. 1
  770. 1
  771. 1
  772. 1
  773. 1
  774. 1
  775. 1
  776. 1
  777. 1
  778. 1
  779. 1
  780. 1
  781. 1
  782. 1
  783. 1
  784. 1
  785. 1
  786. 1
  787. 1
  788. 1
  789. Could you imagine how heavy a megacharger cable would be? Not to mention charging a battery that fast will likely shorten the battery lifespan drastically. They claim the Semi can get 500 miles of range. Keep in mind that's best case scenario. Typically you will see about 20% loss just from changes in grade, wind, temperature etc. So cut that down to 400 miles. Now lets say you want to maintain the battery as well as possible. Well that means you cannot charge the battery more than 90% and cannot discharge it more than 40% without damaging it. Really they want you to keep it above 50% but we'll give them some room. So that means that 400 miles becomes 200 miles. Now consider that you must have enough range to get back home. That means that 200 miles becomes 100 miles because you'll need the other 100 miles of range to get back. So you can only run routes that are 100 miles or less. Just for reference most truck drivers drive 600-750 miles per day on average. Now you could use the full 400 miles of range and stop at a megacharger and then charge up and go another 400 miles. But remember that will greatly damage the battery and it would likely only last 100,000 miles best case scenario. Given that this battery pack will likely cost around $150,000 that's not an option. Then you run into the logistical nightmare of the megachargers. So most likely megachargers will simply not exist and you would have to rely on superchargers instead. Those would likely take more than 10 hours to fully charge the 1000 kw battery pack. I mean there's simply no scenario where the Tesla Semi works. Period. End of story.
    1
  790. 1
  791. 1
  792. 1
  793. 1
  794. 1
  795. America is like a modern Sodom and Gomorrah. Mainly the states and cities run by the democrats but really the whole nation as well. The problem is that America has been too prosperous and too wealthy. People have become spoiled, entitled, lazy and wasteful. No one wants to work for anything anymore, they just expect it to be handed to them and if its not than they blame the system. If you can find someone who can show up for work on time and do a decent job, well its like finding a unicorn. And the wasteful nature of people in this country is appalling. A good example is the portions of food they give you at restaurants. They give you twice as much as you can eat and then they throw out the rest. This is normal? No one stops to think of where that food comes from? Its just fucking staggering. Then theres the way they waste water and electricity, like this shit is just free. The good news is that like Sodom and Gomorrah America will collapse in spectacular fashion. The reason this is good news is because it will give us a chance to fundamentally revolutionize this country for the better (hopefully) and it will force Americans to re-think the way they live. We desperately need to become more like Europe and in my opinion Germany specifically. We don't need to live in a huge house and drive our pickup trucks 30 miles to work everyday. We can live in compact cities with good public transportation and never even own a car. Public transportation is the most important thing for lifting people out of poverty, because owning a car is very expensive. But overall we need to live within our means. The American lifestyle in built on unsustainable things like cheap land, cheap gas and well cheap and abundant everything. But these things will not last. How are you going to get to work 30 miles away when you cannot afford a car or gas?
    1
  796. 1
  797. 1
  798. 1
  799. 1
  800. 1
  801. 1
  802. 1
  803. 1
  804. 1
  805. 1
  806. 1
  807. What we need is more socialism to a degree, but importantly more of the RIGHT KIND of socialism. That means none of these exploitable social programs like welfare that incentivises people to be lazy and remain unemployed. The biggest problem in modern America is that the government and economy are run by the same people. CEO's become politicians in other words. That is what you call a conflict of interests. I've worked jobs where they would not let a someone work there if their relative was in management. But yet we let CEO's run the government which is responsible for keeping the corporations in check? We need a reform that has strict laws that force anyone in office to cut all ties with any sort of business. Think of it as being similar to separation of church and state. The government keeps the corporations in check and the people keep the government in check, checks and balances. Politicians would be constantly kept in check by a citizen run organization that would sniff out corruption. They would investigate bribes or other cases of corporations interfering with government. This would require a high degree of transparency and citizens would be given access to almost all government documents. Certain sensitive documents that could be related to national security would still be kept secret. Something that they do in Germany is every year they give you a report that lists all of the government spending so that you can see exactly where your tax dollars are being spent. Why don't we do that here?
    1
  808. 1
  809. 1
  810. 1
  811. 1
  812. 1
  813. 1
  814. 1
  815. 1
  816. 1
  817. 1
  818. 1
  819. 1
  820. 1
  821. 1
  822. 1
  823. 1
  824. 1
  825. 1
  826. 1
  827. 1
  828. 1
  829. 1
  830. 1
  831. 1
  832. 1
  833. 1
  834. 1
  835. 1
  836. 1
  837. 1
  838. 1
  839. 1
  840. 1
  841. 1
  842. 1
  843. 1
  844. 1
  845. 1
  846. 1
  847. 1
  848. 1
  849. 1
  850. 1
  851. 1
  852. 1
  853. 1
  854. 1
  855. 1
  856. 1
  857. 1
  858. 1
  859. 1
  860. 1
  861. 1
  862. 1
  863. 1
  864. 1
  865. 1
  866. 1
  867. 1
  868. 1
  869. 1
  870. 1
  871. 1
  872. 1
  873. 1
  874. 1
  875. 1
  876. 1
  877. 1
  878. 1
  879. 1
  880. 1
  881. 1
  882. 1
  883. 1
  884. 1
  885. 1
  886. 1
  887. 1
  888. 1
  889. 1
  890. 1
  891. 1
  892. 1
  893. 1
  894. 1
  895. 1
  896. 1
  897. Please know that i don't hate anyone that may consider themselves a liberal or a democrat. Being a conservative i understand that diversity of thought is what makes America great, not diversity of skin color. Race means nothing, we are all just people. I am here to ask you to do your research, listen to right-wing speakers and intellectuals, actually LISTEN. The problem is that as soon as a liberal hears that someone is a conservative they just plug their ears and scream racism. Listen to what we have to say. Sit down with us and have a civilized debate. The free exchange of ideas is the only way to learn. Now their are some neo-Nazis out their no doubt, but don't assume that every conservative is a Nazi. Anyways heres my perspective: The Democratic party is the American Soviet party. Don't believe me just look at all of the similarities. They want to take our freedom of speech, they want to take our guns, and they promise salvation without ever changing things for the better, always for the worse. They also have a cult like mentality, basically "believe what i believe or your Hitler", thats a cult like mentality. They destroy every state or city that they control. Look at Detroit, once the wealthiest city in America, then the Democrats took over and now it looks like a scene from Mad Max. Look at California. Low wages, absurd cost of living, high unemployment and homelessness, and tons of drug addicts. Then look at what they have done to blacks in America. Lets not forget that the Democrats are the ones who fought FOR slavery in the southern states, they created Jim Crowe Law, and they opposed the civil rights act. Democrats HATE black people, they just use them for votes. Now i ask you to fact check my points and if you disagree with me provide a counter argument. Please remember to be civilized and adult about it, theres no need for name calling or any such vulgarities.
    1
  898. 1
  899. 1
  900. 1
  901. 1
  902. 1
  903. 1
  904. 1
  905. 1
  906. 1
  907. 1
  908. 1
  909. 1
  910. 1
  911. 1
  912. 1
  913. 1
  914. 1
  915. 1
  916. 1
  917. 1
  918. 1
  919. 1
  920. 1
  921. 1
  922. 1
  923. 1
  924. 1
  925. 1
  926. 1
  927. 1
  928. 1
  929. 1
  930. 1
  931. 1
  932. 1
  933. 1
  934. 1
  935. 1
  936. 1
  937. 1
  938. 1
  939. 1
  940. 1
  941. 1
  942. 1
  943. 1
  944. 1
  945. 1
  946. 1
  947. Oh no, the Earth warmed by 0.8 degrees. What in the world are we going to do? Why not invest in nuclear power instead of solar and wind? Why not start investing in biofuels instead of electric coal burners? The solution starts with nuclear and ends with electric cars using solid state batteries. But yet we are still shutting down nuclear power plants and building no new ones. If you care about the environment then shouldn't you want the BEST solution and not the "hippest" one. Electric cars are great but they will have to wait for cheap solid state batteries and a power grid that is nuclear. Plus all of the infrastructure like charging stations. Biofuels are like fossil fuels in many ways but they can be produced from organic materials so they're sustainable and they produce half as much CO2. Thats like going from 40 mpg to 80 mpg as far as emissions are concerned. So biofuels are the perfect transitional fuel. Yeah it would be great if we could power the world with sunshine, but its not feasible. First of all we would have to cover an area the size of the Sahara desert to generate enough power and thats at current rates of consumption. By 2100 that rate will increase by 3 times at the very least. Secondly the number of batteries we would need to store the excess energy would be immense. For anyone thinking that nuclear power is dangerous, just consider this. More people have died by falling on solar panels that people who have died from accidents related to nuclear power plants. They're getting much safer as well. Thorium molten salt reactors are designed in such a way that a meltdown is physically impossible. Its safe clean energy thats available at the flip of switch unlike solar which is only available when the sun shines.
    1
  948. 1
  949. 1
  950. 1
  951. 1
  952. 1
  953. 1
  954. 1
  955. 1
  956. 1
  957. 1
  958. 1
  959. 1
  960. 1
  961. 1
  962. 1
  963. 1
  964. 1
  965. 1
  966. 1
  967. 1
  968. 1
  969. 1
  970. 1
  971. 1
  972. 1
  973. 1
  974. 1
  975. 1
  976. 1
  977. 1
  978. 1
  979. 1
  980. 1
  981. 1
  982. 1
  983. 1
  984. 1
  985. 1
  986. 1
  987. 1
  988. 1
  989. 1
  990. 1
  991. 1
  992. 1
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. 1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. 1
  1043. 1
  1044. Being a conservative and a capitalist i understand that wealth distribution is important. But socialism is not the answer. A capitalist economy is driven by consumer spends and investments from the wealthy. So we need a wealthy middle class and a wealthy upper class. All of the problems we're having today are from semi-monopolies held by big business. If you look at any particular industry its likely that there are only a handful of big players. Now while this doesn't stunt economic growth immediately it will stunt it in the long term. This is because big businesses know that they can choose to pay their employees very little and there's nothing they can do about it. It used to be that if you didn't want to work for someone else you could just go out and start your own business, not any more, the big businesses have essentially monopolies on everything. What this means long term is that the wealth gap grows and the middle class shrinks. As the middle class shrinks so does consumer spending. People buy less goods and profits decline. This leads employers to cut wages and jobs, thus exacerbating the problem. If we want to save our economy we don't want to raise taxes, we want to raise wages, but this can only be done voluntarly by the employers. The middle class drives the economy, the more wealth they have the more wealth the rich have. So its in their best interest to pay their employees more. But they don't see it that way. They look at the short term, and in the short term its more profitable to pay your employees less and decrease the size of your workforce. But as i just explained that can be very bad in the long term.
    1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060. 1
  1061. 1
  1062. 1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. 1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. 1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. Saying that i'm responsible for slavery is like me saying that you're a criminal because a black guy 200 years ago that you're not related to killed a white person. Do you see my point. For one thing my family came to America long after slavery was abolished. But even if my great great great grandfather owned slaves, how would that be my fault? Whats really sad is that black Americans were starting to catch up to whites until the civil rights act was passed. Ironic isn't it? It makes you wonder what happened. I blame the democrats. They did everything they could to keep blacks down but they failed time after time. Then the civil rights act was passed, which democrats opposed, and they said to themselves" well we're not going to be able to keep these Negroes in chains but maybe we can win their vote". Ever since then the Democrats have been pandering to blacks and winning elections due to the black vote alone. They get votes through identity politics. They tell people that their opponents are racist and want to "make America white again". Unfortunately most people don't know their history and since the Democrats control the educational system and the media they will be spoon fed lies from birth. We need to take down the Democratic party. Launch a huge investigation of the party leaders. I promise you will find more skeletons than you can count. Take down the leaders and hopefully people will lose faith in the party and they will cease to exist. Then black Americans will be TRULY free.
    1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139. 1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. Hydrogen is currently made using electrolysis but scientists are working on a chemical process that will produce hydrogen fuel using no electricity. Hydrogen has 3x the stored energy of gasoline and 6x as much as natural gas. Its that potency and its dynamic versatility that makes it the fuel source of the future. Say hypothetically we can replace all cars with battery electric cars, how do we power all of them? We would have to burn 25-30% more coal to power all of them. Solar power simply isn't enough to replace fossil fuels. The world consumes about 17 terawatts of power, while the Earth receives about 100 terawatts. It sounds adequate until you account for the fact that we would have to cover 17% of the Earths surface in solar panels to harness enough energy. That is clearly impossible due to the fact that theres not enough silicone on Earth and not enough money. Not to mention to USA and Europe use roughly half of that 17 TW. With more of the world gaining access to electricity, that number could rise to over 30 TW by 2100. So with that in mind, electric cars are not only coal burners, but they also only eliminate one source of greenhouse gases. About 25% of greenhouse gases come from motor vehicles, 60% from power generation and the rest from various other man-made and natural sources. Meaning we need to focus on the biggest source first. Hydrogen can be burned in converted coal-fired power plants, used in motor vehicles and replace natural gas for heating and cooking. It is a single fuel source for everything.
    1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169. 1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. 1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. 1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. 1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. 1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223.  @iphigenia8661  Yes but even if we could double the efficiency of solar cells it would still require far too much land. As far as transmitting electricity from deserts to northern regions, its just not practical or efficient to send electricity over very long distances like that. The longer the distance the more energy is lost. While that could work in the US it probably would not work in Europe. The only deserts in Europe are in Spain and they're very small. While the Sahara desert is just across the Mediterranean it would be difficult to get that energy long distances across a sea. Not only that but it would require Europe to be energy dependent on volatile countries. Not so good for energy security. With nuclear they could mine Thorium locally and be energy independent. Given the extremely high energy density of Thorium even small domestic supplies would last forever, at least until nuclear fusion becomes feasible. Once that happens i see many territorial disputes on the Moon in our future. In case you don't know helium 3 is the theoretical best fuel for nuclear fusion and while not found on the Earth is very abundant on the surface of the Moon. Either way the number 1 priority for a country is having energy security. Whether we're talking being energy independent/dependent on an ally nation or having a reliable constant source of power that works in any condition, during prosperity or crisis. Nuclear power provides that security while renewables do not. If nothing else thats why nuclear will win this energy revolution.
    1
  1224. 1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. 1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. 1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. 1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. 1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. 1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. 1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299.  @devinbender8428  Good points. But one mistake is that 99% efficiency does not factor in electricity production, nor does it factor in storage and transfer. Electric motors are extremely efficient, that's why they are the future. However the means by which we power them is what we are debating. Solid state batteries are very promising as they can be up to 2.5 times more energy dense, and due to higher heat tolerances can also be recharged much faster. I do not doubt the feasibility of this technology. But you see its not all about which is most efficient, its about what works in every category including costs, availability of materials, and most importantly logistics and infrastructure. Not everyone lives in a typical American suburb with a 2 car garage. So how do these people charge their cars? Its not impossible but its certainly more difficult. If we are to replace 100% of the cars on the road with battery electric cars than it has to be accessible and appealing to everyone. Not just the top 1%. Hydrogen is also riddled with problems that may or may not every be worked out. Time will tell but i suggest we look at every possible option to increase our chances of finding the very best solution. People are always quick to rule out hydrogen. An idea i have is to use a new technology that can pull moisture out the air and produce hydrogen fuel. We install such systems at every fueling stations, this eliminates most of the costs involved in producing the fuel. They have developed a type of solar panel that can do just that. It uses the solar power to produce the hydrogen fuel. Sure its not the most efficient thing but again, its not about what is most efficient but what works for everyone. But cars are just one small part of the picture. Generating electricity is the major concern. If you ask me nuclear fusion is the answer. Either way its going to be decades before we can implement any of these things on a large scale.
    1
  1300. 1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. 1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. Its important to note that the universe is made up of two things: matter/energy and space. The big bank theory only addresses the creation of matter/energy. We understand almost nothing about the fabric of space but we know its there and in fact makes up 99.99999999999% of the universe( not exact numbers of course). I think of space as a sort of ocean medium that everything exists within. It has fluid like properties and fills the void in between particles of matter. Now i don't know how this works but i have theorized about something i call aether particles. These aether particles are similar to matter but much much smaller and have no defined shape or mass. They are like little bags of sand that change shape to fill in voids. Think of it as one of those stone walls where the odd shaped stones are fitted in perfectly to leave no gaps. The aether particles do this with matter but also other aether particles. When they come into contact with a planet they first fill the gaps between atoms but there is only so much room so many are pushed outside the circumference of the planet. When this happens they compress and create resistance. This resistance is what creates gravity. Therefore the gravity of an object is determined by both the amount of aether particles displaced as well as the extent to which they are displaced. So an object like a Neutron star has low volume but is so dense that aether particles cannot penetrate and are thus displaced. Its just a theory but it amazes me how no one has tried to figure out what space is made of.
    1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. 1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. 1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. 1
  1344. 1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. 1
  1354. 1
  1355. 1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. 1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. 1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. 1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. 1
  1391. 1
  1392. 1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. 1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. I think Tesla's are cool but they're more of a fad than a real solution. Eventually we might develop solid state batteries that are cheap and renewable enough to make electric cars not just competitive in cost but also functionality. Or we might develop hydrogen fuel cell technology thats competitive enough to replace fossil fuels. Either way the technology is likely decades away and the best solution for now would be investing in biofuels derived from algae. While Tesla's are cool the owners are generally pretentious snobs. I like to think of Tesla's as Iphones where other electric cars like the Chevy Bolt is like an android. They're just about equal in every measurable way but the Tesla is "trendy" so its more popular. But say Tesla just disappeared tomorrow, electric car sales would plummet because all that would left would be the "android" electric cars. For most people electric cars just don't work whether its cost or practicality. People that buy Tesla's buy them because they can afford them and because they care more about being trendy than owning a practical car. Oh and they can afford a second gasoline powered car. On another note lets stop saying we're "saving the planet". We're not trying to save the planet, we're trying to save ourselves. The planet will be fine and life will adapt, but if the planet changes too much we might not be able to adapt and therefore face extinction. Trust me life on Earth has faced far greater destruction than we could ever produce. We give ourselves far too much credit thinking we could actually kill the planet. Nature created us and we can never best our creator.
    1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. 1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. 1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438. 1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. 1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. 1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. 1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473. 1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. 1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. 1
  1490. 1
  1491. 1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. 1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. 1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. 1
  1532. 1
  1533. 1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. 1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. 1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564. 1