Drama

[fjh]

Elon Musk will save US! Just ask him!😅

[Miami Cossack]

Just wait 'til a bunch of these geniuses have electric trucks. Nothing wrong with electric, but their expectations are ridiculous. The rate at which mechanics are retiring and the state of the power grid is just giving me the hunch that a lot of misery and more "supply chain" issues mean something akin to a total collapse. Call me wrong. Older trucks and even cars are pure gold.

[Joey Mack]

The electric pick-up trucks make me laugh..  I dare any electric truck to work as hard and go as far as my old '77 C-30..  I love the ad's that show it pulling a boat/trailer.. and using it to power the house during a storm.. How strong are those batterie's,  really??  anyway,  just my opinion..  jojo

Edited December 21, 2021 by Joey Mack
More content needed

[tjc transport]

it tows the boat/trailer easily because the ramp is 1 mile down the road. 

and as far as powering the house during a power failure, not to worry,. the power will be back on in two hours to recharge the batteries.

[Joey Mack]

Exactly..... I love youre sarcasm...  it's the best.... jojo

[67RModel]

I still can't get any proponents of Duracell vehicles to provide me with any data an/or science driven answers as to whether or not a shift to EVs is a net benefit to the environment. Their immediate, certain, and unscientific conviction is "yes!". However, when asked the following questions they look at me like I have three eyes and usually just say I'm cynical and/or a climate denier (whatever that is):

1. What is the carbon footprint of a complete shift away from petroleum based fuel? What is the impact of building a nationwide charging network on the scale necessary to make it just as easy for everyone to charge a car vs pump fuel into a car, and then subsequently decommission all the entire petroleum infrastructure?

2. Is the surface mining / extraction of Lithium on the scale needed to make enough batteries for the entire world any less impactful than petroleum extraction and distribution? Keep in mind the petroleum industry and infrastructure is already built out and mature. Also, Lithium mining is about the dirtiest (and dangerous) business you can be in. The amount soil and overburden you need to move relative to the amount of Lithium recovered is staggering. Lithium is highly explosive under the right set of circumstances.

3. How can the electrical generation and distribution systems be upgraded to handle a complete if not even a major shift to electric transportation? Who is going to pay for it?

4. How will road tax be collected in the absence of fuel pumps if I charge my Duracell car at my house?

5. The huge majority of electricity produced in the word comes from burning natural gas and coal. Is it ok to produce CO2 emissions at the power stations so long as there are none coming from your car? Its the same footprint its just wearing a different shoe.

6.  Why should I care to spend the gargantuan bill to switch if the rest of the under developed and developing world is going to stick with fossil fuels and reap the benefits of a much cheaper form of energy? The US will put itself at a huge competitive disadvantage by switching to EVs.

Unfortunately there is no free energy to be had anywhere. Physics demands it. About the only form of free energy is from the sun. However, there is not currently, or any time in the distant future, any practical means to harness and store it's energy on the scale necessary to power the planet.  I'm fairly educated on the subject and just can't see how Duracell cars are the answer to anything, or provide a net benefit to the environment. All they do is reshuffle the same deck of cards we are playing with at a massive cost to the consumer.

 

 

[Joey Mack]

From youre brain to my ears.... Amen !!  67... jojo

[mrsmackpaul]

5 hours ago, 67RModel said:

I still can't get any proponents of Duracell vehicles to provide me with any data an/or science driven answers as to whether or not a shift to EVs is a net benefit to the environment. Their immediate, certain, and unscientific conviction is "yes!". However, when asked the following questions they look at me like I have three eyes and usually just say I'm cynical and/or a climate denier (whatever that is):

1. What is the carbon footprint of a complete shift away from petroleum based fuel? What is the impact of building a nationwide charging network on the scale necessary to make it just as easy for everyone to charge a car vs pump fuel into a car, and then subsequently decommission all the entire petroleum infrastructure?

2. Is the surface mining / extraction of Lithium on the scale needed to make enough batteries for the entire world any less impactful than petroleum extraction and distribution? Keep in mind the petroleum industry and infrastructure is already built out and mature. Also, Lithium mining is about the dirtiest (and dangerous) business you can be in. The amount soil and overburden you need to move relative to the amount of Lithium recovered is staggering. Lithium is highly explosive under the right set of circumstances.

3. How can the electrical generation and distribution systems be upgraded to handle a complete if not even a major shift to electric transportation? Who is going to pay for it?

4. How will road tax be collected in the absence of fuel pumps if I charge my Duracell car at my house?

5. The huge majority of electricity produced in the word comes from burning natural gas and coal. Is it ok to produce CO2 emissions at the power stations so long as there are none coming from your car? Its the same footprint its just wearing a different shoe.

6.  Why should I care to spend the gargantuan bill to switch if the rest of the under developed and developing world is going to stick with fossil fuels and reap the benefits of a much cheaper form of energy? The US will put itself at a huge competitive disadvantage by switching to EVs.

Unfortunately there is no free energy to be had anywhere. Physics demands it. About the only form of free energy is from the sun. However, there is not currently, or any time in the distant future, any practical means to harness and store it's energy on the scale necessary to power the planet.  I'm fairly educated on the subject and just can't see how Duracell cars are the answer to anything, or provide a net benefit to the environment. All they do is reshuffle the same deck of cards we are playing with at a massive cost to the consumer.

 

 

I can provide you a lot of the answers but have found every time I try and offer factual answers that apply to Australia people just want to argue so I tend not to enter into the conversation and put all of this in in the corner with the other tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists

However I can tell you that most of your questions have been well and truely thought out and the answers are pretty simple however most people just want to pick holes in tue answers and, well I just dont have that much effort to give trying to explain relatively simple answers to your questions 

Believe me or not, all of the the concerns you raise have been answered many times over and a lot of people just dont want to believe the answer 

Sorry, not a lot more to add here 

 

Paul

[67RModel]

On 12/23/2021 at 6:56 PM, mrsmackpaul said:

I can provide you a lot of the answers but have found every time I try and offer factual answers that apply to Australia people just want to argue so I tend not to enter into the conversation and put all of this in in the corner with the other tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists

I'd be curious to hear more on this considering how dependent Australia is on fossil fuels for electricity production. Using electrons obtained from burning fossil fuels to power cars does not necessarily equal less CO2 emitted. See 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Also, I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories nor do I wear hats made of tin foil. I agree people generally end up arguing over the political and economic sides of issues like this. There really is no "side" to be on when it comes to the science of the issue. Science is what it is, and the physics around any issue is inflexible. There is a very obvious distinction. Unfortunately issues like these are ultimately driven by political and economic decisions made by a incalculable small representation of the population, who are rewarded for using politics instead of science.

On 12/23/2021 at 6:56 PM, mrsmackpaul said:

However I can tell you that most of your questions have been well and truely thought out and the answers are pretty simple however most people just want to pick holes in tue answers and, well I just dont have that much effort to give trying to explain relatively simple answers to your questions

Sorry but no. The answers to my questions are not at all simple and require a tremendous amount of work and research across many different industries and markets to conclusively answer. Also, the actual answer to some of the questions is always a moving target because of how quickly public policy and market forces can shift.

Look I really could not care less what my daily commuter vehicles are powered by. But if the goal is to reduce net CO2 emissions then you need to look beyond a shift to EVs. If your goal is to become a market disruptor and profit heavily from peoples' emotions then a shift to EVs is an excellent path to pursue. EVs do make scientific sense at reducing net CO2 emissions in certain countries, unfortunately, the US nor Australia are not currently one of them (see France Et. al).

Edited December 28, 2021 by 67RModel
Typo

[mrsmackpaul]

8 hours ago, 67RModel said:

 

Sorry but no. The answers to my questions are not at all simple and require a tremendous amount of work and research across many different industries and markets to conclusively answer. Also, the actual answer to some of the questions is always a moving target because of how quickly public policy and market forces can shift.

 

I guess your making the assumption that a lot if not all of the work you suggesting hasnt been looked into and the answers haven't been worked thru and answers given 

The end of the day dollars and cents will dictate the end result, not climate change, greens and the leftards kicking and stamping their feet with a temper tanty or people that love to burn fossil fuels and deny climate change even exists

Money talks and bullshit walks, dollars and cents will drive the change in our enrgy usage, it really is that simple in free markets of the western world 

I guess you need to consider that Australia is probably more dependent on fossil fuels than most other countries including the U.S., fossil fuels are one of our biggest exports and with out that we would go broke over night,  BUT DOLLARS AND CENTS WILL DICTATE WHAT HAPPENS 

And I can tell you from what I know fossil fuel burning for power generation is on the way out at break neck speed 

Already Australia produces nearly 50% of our power from renewables 

Dollars and cents not emotion drives this and coal cant compete, not even close on dollars and cents and reliability 

Paul 

[mowerman]

I haven’t heard anything about a shortage of def What is far as fossil fuels go gods gift to the earth dig it out and use it remember it keeps growing like grass and hair what is the problem??? . Bob

[67RModel]

All good comments and thoughts. However, no, I am not assuming that all the leg work and analysis has not been done on the pros and cons of EVs. It has but to decry they are better for the environment and/or reduce overall CO2 output in markets like the USA or Australia is foolish. This is why I say the EV sector (at least here in the US) is driven almost exclusively on emotion, image, and perception. They do not reduce overall CO2 emissions and the dollars and cents side of it, as you say, does not remotely add up to being the cheaper alternative. People either do not understand or do not care to factor in every single input and output of the equation. The gargantuan cost of a massive paradigm shift to EVs is just spinning our wheels. All that effort should be laser focused on renewable electricity generation, which unfortunately it is not.

13 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

Already Australia produces nearly 50% of our power from renewables

This not remotely true. Per the Australia federal government's own website: https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation the percentage of renewable generation is only 24%. Give it another 20 years and you might be close 50%. Fossil fuels may be on their way out (albeit slowly) in places like the US and Australia. However, they are increasing in use in many areas of the globe, which leads back to one of my original questions.

My final thought on this topic is Duracell cars are not the answer to our (USA) immediate or intermediate term problems, to which we have many. In countries like France where they will actually have a major benefit they are an excellent option.

As a side note from looking more into Australia's domestic energy policies I was very surprised to learn the country / continent does not have a single nuclear power station while at the same time having over 1/3 of the world's uranium reserves.

[fjh]

GUYS ! Were Way off topic ! Sorry I brought Elon up! Just joking around . We won't need any of this stuff soon if you believe  in Star trek we will have transporters soon!  BEAM ME OUT SCOTTY!

😂 Just sayin

 

[67RModel]

Yea so true. I work in physics/engineering for a living and study public policy as it pertains to the energy sector. I could go deep down into all the rabbit holes you got on this subject.....I think I will use the site to talk about my three Mack trucks and other trucking related topics from here on out. 🤐 LOL.

[Joey Mack]

I really enjoyed reading your post's..  and I also understand your comment on posting in this thread.. I get caught up in some posts then I get off topic, or just need to start the topic in a different category.  I hope all is well in "The Keystone State"  jojo 

[mowerman]

lol its pretty easy for most of us to start crying about something......although legitimate  subjects no doubt..bob

[mrsmackpaul]

3 hours ago, 67RModel said:

All good comments and thoughts. However, no, I am not assuming that all the leg work and analysis has not been done on the pros and cons of EVs. It has but to decry they are better for the environment and/or reduce overall CO2 output in markets like the USA or Australia is foolish. This is why I say the EV sector (at least here in the US) is driven almost exclusively on emotion, image, and perception. They do not reduce overall CO2 emissions and the dollars and cents side of it, as you say, does not remotely add up to being the cheaper alternative. People either do not understand or do not care to factor in every single input and output of the equation. The gargantuan cost of a massive paradigm shift to EVs is just spinning our wheels. All that effort should be laser focused on renewable electricity generation, which unfortunately it is not.

This not remotely true. Per the Australia federal government's own website: https://www.energy.gov.au/data/electricity-generation the percentage of renewable generation is only 24%. Give it another 20 years and you might be close 50%. Fossil fuels may be on their way out (albeit slowly) in places like the US and Australia. However, they are increasing in use in many areas of the globe, which leads back to one of my original questions.

My final thought on this topic is Duracell cars are not the answer to our (USA) immediate or intermediate term problems, to which we have many. In countries like France where they will actually have a major benefit they are an excellent option.

As a side note from looking more into Australia's domestic energy policies I was very surprised to learn the country / continent does not have a single nuclear power station while at the same time having over 1/3 of the world's uranium reserves.

I have thought about how to try and respond, to educate, to try and explain how the Australian energy market and energy production actually works and is applied in Australia,  after all I can not comment with any degree of accuracy on the American energy market or it's production as Im not at all involved in American electricity production 

I never realized that finding a government web site made you a expert on that countries electricity production, learning things every day

And this is the very reason I dont go into this with people who just want to have a knock down drag out fight to prove a point, it makes little difference to me whether you believe me or not, whether you want to learn or not, my life ticks along exactly the same whether I choose to become involved or not in this type of discussion  (even this comment you could start a argument about if you wanted)

My personal opinion has little weight if any in the grand scheme of things as does yours and as such the reward for me is very little, unlike talking about Mack trucks, that has a huge impact on my happiness, even old machinery and old stuff in general 

So I'll leave the worlds energy production problems to you, make sure you take care of us down under as I want that light to come on when I flick the switch and the compressor to start when Mrs Mack needs her air start tank filling 

Have great day 

 

 

Paul 

[67RModel]

18 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

I never realized that finding a government web site made you a expert on that countries electricity production

One does not have to be an expert to find basic information such as this. I used that link out of convenience and due to its credibility. I trust your government's published data as peer reviewed research done by actual experts point to an almost identical set of percentages.

18 hours ago, mrsmackpaul said:

My personal opinion has little weight if any in the grand scheme of things as does yours

This is the correct take. Policy makers will do what they do. The dollars and cents will follow the decisions of said policy makers and the world will continue to exist long after any of us are gone regardless of what the facts or our opinions are.

As for the rest of this I will do as the old proverb says: Let sleeping dogs lie. Or with a site specific twist> let sleeping Mack bulldogs lie. 

[Bullheaded]

You are far more intelligent than 80% of north America's population 67RModel. I've tried to explain the same thing to people.

I'm also in the mining industry, so I know a thing or two about what goes on there too. Plus I've been through a few blackouts when too many people in the big city 7 hours away from me use their air conditioners too much in the summer.

But you just can't explain it to anyone, because they are all too short-sighted. But what's scarier is the government seems to be fueling this agenda for some reason also.

 

Now what I'm wondering is if the price of fuel will still keep going up to deter people from using it, or will it get cheaper when demand drops off when all the libtards buy their electric  cars?

Anyway you look at it, I don't care if I spend my whole pay cheque on gas and diesel, I'll still be buying it and keeping my gas and diesel toys as long as I live.

[Swishy]

This arrived in my email

True or False?

cya

 

[tjc transport]

6 minutes ago, Swishy said:

This arrived in my email

True or False?

cya

 

America used more coal to fire power plants in 2021 than it has since 2014. 

so i would say that is probably true. 

[mrsmackpaul]

4 hours ago, Swishy said:

This arrived in my email

True or False?

cya

 

Swishman apparently it's false as we are reliant on coal and renewable energy isnt gunna work, but what would I know

 

 

Paul 

[carlotpilot]

would`nt surprise me one bit based on what I`ve  been reading  about au.