21
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:50:47 am »Every US industry is subsidized by the US govt including agriculture and big oil.
Which is wrong.
Recent Posts
Which is wrong.
22
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:48:26 am »But ok, tell the ceo of Stihl who said the people prefer electric and the industry is not going that way that he is wrong.
Would that be the new CEO? Or is the the one they just let go?
23
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Kamaji on Today at 02:43:47 am »Then there's the cobalt. An EV typically needs 6 to 12 kg of the stuff - source: https://www.carwow.co.uk/blog/what-is-cobalt-used-for-in-elecrtic-cars#gref
And here's how all that cobalt is mined:
Personally, I'd rather drive a car that was fueled with petroleum products derived from a mine with a much smaller environmental footprint than a lithium mine, and that wasn't built with the fruits of child slave labor - African child slave labor, at that. But then, I'm not a liberal.
And here's how all that cobalt is mined:
Personally, I'd rather drive a car that was fueled with petroleum products derived from a mine with a much smaller environmental footprint than a lithium mine, and that wasn't built with the fruits of child slave labor - African child slave labor, at that. But then, I'm not a liberal.
24
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by banddag on Today at 02:43:03 am »I'm not against electric things. I am against government shoving it down everyone's throats by force of law. I'm also against government subsidizing the wealthy with new electric toys while everyone else had to pay for it.
Every US industry is subsidized by the US govt including agriculture and big oil. We subsidize solar and electric because every other country in the world is subsidizing their own solar and EV industry. If we did not our own domestic solar and EV companies would be left behind . The reason why we gave $52 billion to the chip is industry to build new plants and R&D centers in the US .If we did it Intel said they would have gobe to another country.
25
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:42:05 am »Leach fields in just one lithium mine:
And for what? Lithium generates zero electricity.
26
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:40:14 am »Coalmine jobs in W.Va under trump declined every year and have shot back up under biden.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
27
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Kamaji on Today at 02:38:56 am »Leach fields in just one lithium mine:
As the accompanying article states: "Although pretty from a distance, lithium mines are environmentally damaging and use a lot water and energy."
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333710-200-lithium-fields-beautiful-from-the-air-trouble-on-the-ground/
But hey, it's not coming out of a tailpipe on the EV, so it must be "environmentally friendly".
"F**king idiot" is a perfectly sober sobriquet for the sort that believes that nonsense.
As the accompanying article states: "Although pretty from a distance, lithium mines are environmentally damaging and use a lot water and energy."
Source: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333710-200-lithium-fields-beautiful-from-the-air-trouble-on-the-ground/
But hey, it's not coming out of a tailpipe on the EV, so it must be "environmentally friendly".
"F**king idiot" is a perfectly sober sobriquet for the sort that believes that nonsense.
28
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Kamaji on Today at 02:35:49 am »2 million acres are lost every year in the US to new home construction and for building industrial buildings. 15 acres is nothing and B&D is selling back excess power and making $400k per year These companies are doing this not for virtue signaling but it makes economic sense. The B&D plant was built on farmland itself. The plant that makes products there made them in China. Do you want the jobs or not?
If you feel so bad about farmland being used up, year down your home that was most likely farmland at one time and plant corn on your lot
15 acres to generate a paltry 4.3 MW is a lot, particularly when the heat island effect is taken into account. It's a really environmentally unfriendly way to generate electricity.
29
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:34:46 am »Industry is for electrical products because they are cheaper to make. Head of GM said the typical EV uses a 1/3 of labor and 1/2 the parts of a gas vehicle. Follow the money as Rush always said.
Yes, let's follow the money. Even with 1/3 the labor cost and 1/2 the parts, electric vehicles cost considerably more even with hefty government subsidies. Which is why ICE vehicles make more economic sense, at least to those who buy them.
30
Climate Change / Re: Ford “Drastically” Cutting EV Lightning Workforce Hours
« Last post by Hoodat on Today at 02:30:51 am »My BIL is a retired 3 tar general and is now VP of a major defense contactor. All future military vehicles. is going EV because the advantages are superior over diesel on the battlefield.
Your BIL is saying what he needs to say to keep his job and keep those defense dept dollars flowing. But what he says about EVs being superior to diesel is complete bullshit. How far can an M1 go on batteries? And how do you charge it 30 miles into enemy territory with no power lines in sight? A fuel truck can make it there in an hour. Repairing power lines and bringing in a charging platform would take weeks. Not only that, every electric vehicle in an entire battle zone can be taken out with one EMP device.
If your BIL is really saying this, then he should be ashamed of himself for wasting US taxpayer dollars on such a poorly thought out policy. Why not start out with the Air Force first to see how viable electric planes and helicopters work out.
Page created in 0.022 seconds with 14 queries.