I’m a fairly regular listener of The Meateater Podcast; it’s entertaining, informative, and Steven Rinella (company founder, podcast host) may be the only person in the world who likes to talk more than Joe Rogan. It’s generally non-political, though I suspect that Rinella would probably be just about fine with any form of government so long as it protected his main interest – access to lots of land to hunt on.
They recently (Ep. 538 – “Does Wildlife Win or Lose With Renewable Energy?”) had a guest from the Nature Conservancy, Brendan Runde. I don’t know anything about Runde other than he has a stupid beard and has a big image with “BRENDAN J. RUNDE, Ph.D.” on the front page of his website, so he’s very likely a douche. But I know nothing about his politics, whether he thinks his policy preferences should be forced on everyone, etc. But one thing popped out at me at the beginning of the podcast that came up recurrently. This is a transcript of the trip my mind took after thinking about it a bit.
By way of background, Brendan J. Runde, Ph.D, is very strongly in favor of what he calls ‘renewables’, e.g. solar and wind power. The connection to The MeaterEater is, I think, Rinella’s concern that ‘renewables’ can take up lots of space, disrupting animal migratory routes and restricting habitat available to hunters, and their construction and maintenance might have a negative impact on what he considers important – namely, conservation of wild places he can hunt on.
This is not a rumination on that specific question, but rather on a single statement Brendan J. Runde, Ph.D., made at the very beginning of the conversation. He insisted, prior to getting into any details, discussion, issues, that they (Rinella) agree that “we are in a climate crisis”. Now he didn’t come out and say “We must agree that we are in a climate crisis, or I’m leaving” or anything, but he did say something along the lines of “Do you agree we are in a climate crisis?” and when Rinella seems less enthused about saying “Of course!”, he repeated the claim/question; Now, whether he believes it or not, was just being a good host, or figured that’s how conversations happen, we establish a baseline, eventually Rinella said “Sure, OK, we’re in a climate crisis”.
Why is that important? Because from there on out (or at least half way through, I didn’t finish the whole podcast), whenever the conversation would reach a point where Rinella raised some sort of issue with ‘renewables’ wrt wildlife conservation or societies well being – energy density, massive footprint, potential harm to wildlife, etc – Brendan J. Runde Ph.D., would repeat “But we’re in a climate crisis, right? We MUST stop fossil fuels usage! We’re in a climate crisis!” thus derailing any specific criticism of ‘renewables’. The fact the Rinella ‘conceded’ that we are in a climate crisis at the beginning of the conversation set the baseline and, no matter the costs of the proposed solution to said crisis, the fact that it was a crisis trumped all arguments.
So there’s a general point there. Labeling something a crisis can short circuit any policy debates and allow the purveyor of the crisis narrative to insist on their, often pre-existing, policies – the policy is not the means to an ends (e.g. solving the ‘crisis’), but an ends of its own. I’m sure we can all think of several cases over the last couple of decades, from the war on terror to the Corona Crisis, of this technique resulting in tremendous impacts on our daily lives. While it’s the norm in the spirit of having a good faith discussion with someone (though one is assuming good faith here) to agree to a baseline set of ideas (always subject to revision), if you accede to an unquestionable axiom, you will often find that said axiom is designed specifically to lock you onto a single path.
Of course, the obvious question might be are we actually in a “climate crisis”? There are two questions there: 1) are we in a climate crisis, in the sense that human life or flourishing will not be possible in the not so distant future? and 2) is there something we can do or have we caused said crisis? Of course, Brendan J. Runde, Ph.D., is claiming both are true since he claims 1) as a baseline and says humans cutting fossil fuel usage and spewing solar panels and wind turbines over the landscape is the solution, implying that said, unverified but axiomatic, crisis is caused by human behavior.
I think neither is true, though 1) may be on a longer timescale than we might normally be concerned with. Why? Well, those who claim we are in a human caused climate crisis generally look over a couple hundred years – at most – of measured metrics to claim a human caused catastrophe. However, if we just expand our time horizon out the geological and astronomical time scales, I think it becomes pretty clear that those claiming crisis are either intentionally or naively lost, myopically staring at the bark of a tree and missing the forest completely.
Fig A – Temperature proxy over the last million years. As proxy, it’s certainly inexact – some temperature estimates have the current inter-glacial much cooler the last couple of inter-glacial periods- the variation is larger than the uncertainty in temperature conversion. Warmer to the top, colder to the bottom, look-back time increases to the right.
Looking at Figure A: on the vertical axis is plotted the ratio stable isotopes of oxygen (18 and 16) and is considered a proxy for temperature. Look back time increases to the right – i.e. current era is at time 0, and the right hand side of the figure is 1 million years ago. So if we look over the last few hundred (or even thousand) years – i.e. a millimeter of the curve on the far left at time 0, that might look like a crisis. But if we expand our vision, we see that over the last several hundred thousand years there have been multiple very cold – glaciation – events, interspersed with warm periods – inter-glacial. We are currently warming into the peak of the current inter-glacial. Twelve thousand years ago (Wisconsin Glacial on the figure), much of North America was under a mile of ice. Several of the inter-glacial going back were at least as warm, if not warmer, than our current inter glacial.
Fact is, we are currently in an “Ice Age”, the Pleistocene, covering roughly the last 2.5 million years. There have been something like 40 glacial/inter-glacial cycles during the Pleistocene – we just happen to be experiencing (perhaps not coincidentally) the latest inter-glacial. Now whether we are truly seeing the end of the Pleistocene ice age and going into an extended period of elevated temperatures (see Figure B) is a separate question. But the idea that humans are anything more than a immeasurable blip on these long term secular changes (orbital perturbations, solar output) is not terribly convincing – everything we see is consistent with us just being along for the ride. The big villain of CO2 – where human production is basically in the error bars of natural annual variation – has been much higher (as in factors of a few 10s) in the past as well as much lower (to the point of nearly all plant life going away), and seems to have little correlation, let alone causative association, with the earth’s temperature. So why is it the focal point of the ‘crisis’? It’s not even a very strong greenhouse gas, let alone the strongest – that title goes to water vapor – hence the need to included strong feed backs into models to get whatever answer you want. That freedom to ‘manipulate’ the models might drive the focus on CO2; or maybe it’s the fact that focusing on CO2 gives you the strongest lever arm on controlling human access to energy which in turn gives you almost complete control over humans period.
Figure B – longer, lower resolution temperature proxies. Covers ~2.5 billion years. Note alternating periods of high and low (ice ages) temperatures. The current Pleistocene Ice Age is the dip at the far right of the plot.
Shorter: If we are indeed in a climate crisis (1 above), it’s because geological and astronomical secular effects don’t give a rat’s ass about life on earth – we might be ready to plunge back in a very difficult period of glaciation, or stay at an elevated temperature for a while if this era truly signals the end of the Pleistocene ice age. Either way, there’s not much we are going to do about that. As far as 2 above, we have abundant, irrefutable evidence of tremendous variability in the earth’s climate over the lifetime of the planet – hell, over just the last 1000-20000 years. This variability is far in excess of even the worst, model tortured manipulated WAGs about our impact on climate. Humans and humanoid ancestors have survived over the course of the worst swings in temperature over geological time scales and we certainly have more means to deal with what nature will throw at us now. Unfortunately for Brendan J. Runde, Ph.D. preferred policies, we are not in a man-made climate crisis and likely, not in a nature caused climate crisis, at least over a few thousand year timescale. Rinella should never have conceded that point.
Even if I accept the premise that we’re in a climate crisis and need to move off of fossil fuels, there’s still nuclear.
I have no opinion, but people have made the argument there is not enough known fissionable material to supply all energy demand.
My expectation is similar to “peak oil” both the technology and material would be found. But at this point that’s not even a concern given nuclear energy in the US.
There is plenty if we were to use breeder reactors.
Or how about just natural gas?
It’s responsible for most of the first world’s reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
“Fossil Fuel” is a dirty word designed to suppress reasonable steps forward.
Natural Gas is now being lumped in with fossil fuels. I remember when it was lauded as a clean alternative (back when it was more expensive/harder to acquire), why do you think there’s all the pushes to ban it now?
Which I think is one of the points of the article.
It shouldn’t be. It’s reasonable. Cheap. Better Cleaner.
Hydropower* used to be renewable as well but it’s being removed, too.
*kiss salmon goodbye. Millions and millions, possibly billions, spent on various mitigation techniques over the past century and none of it really works.
There are methods that mostly work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCE_lFUMXNg
That would be part of the millions. It’s a mixed bag at best. Dams aren’t the only factor, but mitigation won’t save salmonids.
I remember when the watermelons were whining “If only we could access more natural gas to replace all of this coal and oil”
Y’all remember that? The same evil fuckers are now anti-frackers.
See my comment below on prosperity.
I remember those folks.
Funny how the “climate crisis” only applies when pushing for “renewables” and not nuclear power, for which we have 4000 years of fuel, and with future advances, possibly enough to last until the world literally burns (from the Sun expanding).
Not much power and grift in that.
Which one would Rinella prefer?
I think I’m going to start referring to solar as remote nuclear power.
I dubbed coal “solid-state solar”
Too much mercury.
Retrograde?
We need to stop going along with the euphemism “renewable” for wind and solar. What they are is “intermittent” power sources. And using that term changes the frame of the discussion.
Wind is also solar. No sun, no wind.
Someone was going to write an article on words used in persuasion that sway people into being gullible by conjuring up emotion or irrelevant thoughts.
Gilmore? I was looking forward to that article, but alas, we never got it.
My personal favorite is a car commercial that described the car as “effortlessly stylish”. Wow.
This tactic is used to deceive, to persuade under false pretenses…in other words a lie. They have to lie because they know if they just lay their case out honestly no one will buy into it.
In this case ‘renewable’ is the word. Wind and solar are not renewable. Like geothermal heat they are capturable kinetic solar energy but are very unreliable and our method of capture is wildly inefficient.
The whole green energy/save the earth crap is just that: a con. Climate crisis my ass. The solutions always result in more of your money disappearing out of your wallet. They are, without exception, an effort to deprive you of your money and power.
Just say we need “I support new clear power”
“But we’re in a climate crisis, right? We MUST stop fossil fuels usage! We’re in a climate crisis!” thus derailing any specific criticism of ‘renewables’. The fact the Rinella ‘conceded’ that we are in a climate crisis at the beginning of the conversation set the baseline and, no matter the costs of the proposed solution to said crisis, the fact that it was a crisis trumped all arguments.
Stipulate the conclusion at the beginning, and winning the “debate” is a piece of cake. As we are painfully aware, they all want cake.
Well stated.
I really don’t understand how people keep using this (really pathetic) rhetorical trick, and I really don’t understand why otherwise intelligent and well-schooled people keep falling for it.
Smart people have better rhetorical and reasoning skills. Thus, they are better able to convince themselves that what they want to believe is true.
It is how really smart people end up believing really stupid things.
But its different now!
It’s also sort of a myth that things like wind turbines are “renewable”. Each one uses 300 tons of iron and 270 tons of coke coal. They need to be replaced every 20-25 years with smaller parts replaced more frequently.
This may ultimately use less in the way of fossil fuels than alternatives, but I don’t really know how we get to declare something “renewable” when it isn’t and that’s the end of the discussion.
Similar issues with solar.
…
Furthermore, the US hasn’t really increased greenhouse emissions in decades and has steadily declined.
Yes further, if the US were to abruptly stop all greenhouse gas emissions plunging their economy into the dark ages it would have basically no effect on anything. Emissions are a result of the economic growth and expansion of India and China.
Agreed on all fronts. But this argues from a practical POV and assumes that the goal is addressing the ‘climate crisis’. And while, initially, there’s some rational basis for questioning human impact on the climate, at this point it isn’t science, it is religion. And you are not going to argue its adherents out of their position with facts, because most of them didn’t get there with facts. To me the goal is what it has always been – control other people – and the climate crisis is just the latest window dressing on that underlying goal. If every issue that comes up has as a common redress, regardless of the issue, one might be forgiven for assuming that the redress is the actual goal, not a solution to current issue.
I agree with the two of you in the main, but I don’t think religion is the right term. Millenarian Death Cult would be closer to the the adherents of this.
I think I’m using ‘religion’ in a perhaps not traditional way. I’m trying to specify a framework that carries with it a set of axioms – things that an adherent can accept without questioning or having to establish the truth of. I think all religions provide that to some degree. Those sets of axioms and the structure that derive from them can be very beneficial and useful, or can be hell, depending on how one established the axioms over time. Now whether that separates science from religion (or whether that’s desirable/reasonable) is a different can of worms. Maybe it’s just the time horizon over which axioms are sacrosanct or the predilection of the adherent to be willing to question the axioms. Maybe I should go do some shrooms.
The only reason I refer to it as am MDC is when you look for the precipitating cause of the beliefs, the millennium seems to be the trigger, and it only seems to happen in Christian affiliated areas. Notice that this isn’t in any way mainstream outside of Christendom, and when you circle back and look at many of the issues that cropped up in the same area around one thousand years ago, you see much of the same ideology behind it, not environmentalism per say, but “repent or die” and alternate means of looking at the divine.
And it is always… OK, to eat shrooms.
The fiberglass windmill blades also are difficult to recycle, so they usually end up as landfill after their useful life.
“greenhouse gases…”
Dont argue on their terms. I dont buy the greenhouse effect in a not-closed system. CO2 follows warming, not the other way about.
It’s very popular in lefty circles these days to accuse their opponents of magical thinking. What could be more magical than the claim we can just arbitrarily eliminate fossils fuels with no adverse consequences?
Not even that – what could be more magical than the claim that we can control the fucking weather?
The notion that life begins when a baby takes a breath after passing through the magic birth canal. Prior to that it murder to kill the baby unless the mother or planned parenthood do it.
First chart shows, over time, spikes upward and slow declines downward, over time? Am I reading that right?
Correct. The ‘troughs’ are deep glaciation periods, the ‘peeks’ times of relative warmth. So starting from the right of the figure (1 million years ago), there are, depending on how you count them, 10+ glaciations and correspondingly 10ish short lived warm periods. We tend to spend a lot more time cold than warm and we are roughly at the peak of the latest (generally short) warm period. If the Pleistocene Ice Age continues, we are due for a slow decline into another glaciation.
I love showing people that chart and asking them what they think will happen next.
+1970s global cooling
I remember.
I don’t really know how we get to declare something “renewable” when it isn’t and that’s the end of the discussion.
see, also: “zero emission” vehicles
Assuming that we’re in a climate crisis, is stopping fossil fuels usage the only way to counteract the crisis?
Assuming that we’re in a climate crisis, and assuming that stopping fossil fuels usage is the only way to counteract the crisis, will the negative effects from stopping fossil fuels usage be worse than the effects of the climate crisis itself? Or, is the cure likely to be worse than the disease?
I don’t know what fucking car wash gave Runde that Ph.D, but they really ought to consider taking it back…
So for UCS and any lurkers who are near to Saratoga:
There is a guy that has been accepting ammo transfers allowing me to buy cheap/in-bulk ammo even in NYS. He is making some sort of deal with targetsportsusa.com that will allow pretty much anyone to order ammo.
The terms are here: https://saratogashootingsports.com/tsorderform.html
-It gives you the 8% discount you’d get from being an AMMO+ member
-There is a 3% surcharge for using a credit card.
-$10 per order for the NYS background check
-I’m not certain but it looks like returning customers have an option to pay when the ammo arrives?
-He runs the background check before you come to pick it up.
I found an unopened box fo 50 .22LR when cleaning this week.
Unfortunately, it was the low quality brand, which is probably why it’s still sealed.
When getting an ammo box for the big SCSA match I found half a case of 9mm I took to a previous Nats and forgot about. Like finding money in your suit pocket.
Targetsportusa is who I buy my Eley .22 from.
(also, .22Hornet, as no one stocks it around here, and I haven’t gotten dies yet.)
Check out https://www.killoughshootingsports.com/ for Eley ammo. Best selection I’ve ever seen.
NICE! Thanks for that. If only they also had air gun ammo.
#sad
yup
But the idea that humans are anything more than a immeasurable blip on these long term secular changes (orbital perturbations, solar output) is not terribly convincing – everything we see is consistent with us just being along for the ride.
I have decided that this is what terrifies them most. They cannot bear to accept the utter insignificance of humanity.
Conceding to your opponents’ moral assertions is how you lose an argument in stages. It is what the Republicans always do, which is why they always lose.
“We’ve already agreed you’re a whore, we’re just negotiating a price”
That’s how everyone starts a conversation with Mike Johnson.
Yep. Never argue on their terms.
Blow away all of the smoke and gibberish.
To recap: The sun is our only source of energy. Solar energy is stored in two ways that we can efficiently capture it for use. 1. Stored chemically in hydrocarbons through photosynthesis. 2. Stored in complex atoms accreted in the formation of the earth.
1 Can be released by simply burning. It is abundant and economically feasible to gather the stuff. Also those complex hydrocarbons can be formed into lots of other useful stuff: plastics, paint, medicines etc. We can also use the energy to stack up other molecules or reduce naturally occurring molecules: reduce metals, reactants for making concrete etc.
2 can be accessed by controlled nuclear decay or capturing geothermal energy (reactors or steam engines).
Denying ourselves access to this energy is absurd. Unicorns dont exist. Neither windmills nor solar panels are economically or physically feasible.
The whole EV thing is an excellent example of the stupidity. Bypass an accessible workable source of stored solar energy and try to replace it with a wildly inefficient method of gathering energy. Then replace the wildly inefficient method with a silly shell-game of inefficiently changing energy forms repeatedly to disguise the fact that we are back to the original source – hydrocarbons. Peak stupid? Maybe.
Now add this into the equation —> Cheap, accessible energy gives us prosperity. Prosperity gives people options. Evil slavers hate for people to have options.
Solution? Destroy cheap accessible energy to destroy prosperity and thus take people’s options away from them. Power is a fixed pie. Now everyone has to toe the lion in hopes of getting the rations of slavery and maybe a little extra if they are extra useful good-thinkers.
FUCK THAT.
There are greedy and power hungry people out there for sure. But we also have this weird phenomena where people hate and actively harm themselves. This is one example, and so are all the white people pushing DEI. It is mental illness pretending to be politics.
First we were running out of trees/top soil so I planted some trees as a conservation method. Then now we’re running out of space for renewable energy (windmills/solar panels) so I cut the trees down to do my share. Then I learned I was no longer sequestering carbon so I planted more carbon sequesterers. Then we were running out of cropland so I cut down all the trees and planted corn which was subsidized into ethanol. Then the wind started eroding the topsoil…
Speaking of trees, remember when clear cutting the rainforests was a big thing? Do people still care about that?
No. Because there are no more rainforests.
They care about your money and obedience, nothing else.
Now they’re just carbon credit forests.
Stop listening to the climate crisis priests.
OT – I had no idea about this. It’s amazingly Japanese and chilling at the same time. Current reality TV can only dream…
‘The Contestant’ tells the bizarre story of a Japanese man who lived a real-life ‘Truman Show’
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2024-05-02/the-contestant-documentary-hulu
OT
HOW DARE YOU!
(Insert some sort of joke emoji or something)
Inscrutable, those Japanese, inscrutable.
Not really Truman Show though, as it appears the dude was aware of the situation.
Correct.
Although Nasubi knew he was being filmed, he was told that the footage would air at a later date, and most of it would not be used.
I assume the analogy was because he didn’t realize most of his life was going to be filmed and it was going to be on a near real time weekly basis.
That makes it a lot closer to Truman Show.
This is the one where he won, and then they pulled the rug out from him because the ratings were too good, right?
It wasn’t clear from that article, but it reads like after he completed that ordeal they pushed him into some adventure in Korea.
So my assumption would be yes.
Yeah, just confirmed it’s the same guy. I also recall several challenges from back in the late 90’s/early 00’s here where people were challenged to live in a house with no internet/no computer/no electricity and the like.
I cannot survive without electricity — no electricity, no CPAP, no sleep. However, I can take electricity with me. So, I can survive camping for a week or more without computers and internet.
“no human contact”
I dont remember the docudrama but I remember a scene where the real life protagonist was describing his induction into a max security prison on a life sentence.
He and the other inmates were told upon entering “Welcome. You will never see or touch a woman again in your life.”
That touch of sadism was handed out because they knew that is the worst thing you can do to a man. It essentially removes their very reason for existing.
A human absolutely needs human contact. We need to feel needed. We need to feel wanted. We must have a reason to be here and feel we mean something to other people.
I never understood the motivation behind fantasies like that show. Why would people want to see that? Why do people have the sadistic need to torture others?
It’s fucking sick if you ask me.
Again, my memory fails me. Where is Eddy when you need him?
A Saint…Ignatius?…taught that one of the joys of heaven was being able to look down into hell and view the endless torments of the damned.
Fuck, dude…why would I want to see that?
The “Conan principle?”
Mother Theresa said that suffering brought people closer to God.
+ 1 Christopher Hitchens
She meant other people’s suffering, not her own. There seems to be a lot of that going around.
Why would she need to get closer to God? She was already blessed.
She wanted to be fucked like an animal?
She suffered and sacrificed plenty. Call me back after helping untouchables in Calcutta for a couple decades.
I agree. I can’t imagine watching such a show either.
From what I’ve read that’s why solitary confinement is considered such an awful punishment.
The confinement to a small space would be torture for a Glibertarian. We need our space to be alone.
Seems like it’d be extremely boring:
“All he does is beat off, sleep, and fill out sweepstakes entries. Why would I want to watch that?”
I posted a link about it before – can’t recall site now (this is different) -https://www.projectcasting.com/blog/news/nasubi-reality-show/?amp=fixed&=1 – but I recall reading about this show as a cult Japan thing over 20 years ago – probably while in college “weirdest Japanese game shows”, etc – maybe when the Takeshi’s Castle redub was coming out on SpikeTV.
whenever the conversation would reach a point where Rinella raised some sort of issue with ‘renewables’ wrt wildlife conservation or societies well being – energy density, massive footprint, potential harm to wildlife, etc – Brendan J. Runde Ph.D., would repeat “But we’re in a climate crisis, right? We MUST stop fossil fuels usage! We’re in a climate crisis!”
I knew it as soon as I saw that sentence on agreeing about a climate crisis – it’s an attempt to frame and control the discussion.
There is no crisis. He can shit-can that right off of the bat.
It is on par with “…we can both agree that…”
No motherfucker, we cant agree on the premises of your syllogism that only leads to one place. No.
And speaking of carbon sequestration I have personally paid for and supervised the planting of more than a million trees. As a matter of fact my brother and I were kicking around in the woods yesterday checking on a particular batch of them. The gnats were so bad we had to cut it short.
To fill the extra time we made the mistake of going to a gun store.
Gun store lady: “Sir, can I help you?”
Me: “Yes. You can throw me out of the store before I go broke, get divorced and end up drinking Sterno under a bridge.”
Gun store lady: *Deep belly laugh* “How do you think I feel? I have to work here and look at this stuff all day.”
Yep. There and hardware stores. Every time I feel the urge milady wife grabs me by the ear and leads me away.
‘Hardware store…’
You aren’t helping.
Once overheard at tool store from a couple opposite the aisle I was on: “Honey do you really need one of everything in the store” <—hyperbole from distraught wife
"No sweetheart, I need two of everything in the store." <—hyperbole from kid-in-a-candystore husband
Carryover from last thread:
“Isn’t there some deranged white nationalist theory floating around, basically saying that Amerindians are the lost tribes of Israel?”
That’s the Mormons:
https://www.associationcovenantpeople.org/whence-came-they-the-mormon-view-of-the-lost-tribes/
There were also some English Puritans who thought it was possible the Indians were the Lost Tribes.
Take the $20k loss and learn not to buy a volume non-specialty mass market car from a start up manufacturer.
Fisker Ocean Totaled After Tiny Door Ding Souring EV Dream
https://www.carscoops.com/2024/04/fisker-ocean-totaled-over-door-damage-due-to-lack-of-parts/
My friend bought one. I’m going to not forward this on to her. That would be mean.
EVs are a fucking disaster.
Now that they are out in the field, that disaster will become obvious to most people.
If this was a volume ICE car from a near bankrupt new manufacturer you’d be in the same spot.
You could argue that Fisker never could have delivered a car if it wasn’t because of EV subsidies and disrupted market.
It’s part of the reason I waited six months after it came out to buy my Tesla Model 3. I wasn’t sure there was going to be car company alive to service it.
True, there is no reason to point out the EV aspect of it. This could happen with any car from any start-up.
That doesnt mean EV’s are not a bad idea, just that in this case ‘start-up’ is the relevant variable, not the EV.
Now that I’ve actually read the article.
Those two damaged components proved insurmountable due to a lack of available parts, according to Wanner
So EV is not actually relevant to the story.
A EV city / commuter car makes a lot of sense. Less smog, better mileage while stuck in traffic, and can be recharged at home. EV sports cars and also make sense, instant torque and all wheel drive, low center of gravity for better handling, and the lack of motor and radiator allows a sleek low drag coefficent.
EVs as cars are a viable choice for many people. The issue as always is the Gov thumb on the scale that created the artificial demand via tax incentives, CO2 limits, and fleet fuel economy requirements forcing the market to make choices that are not in line with demand or needs.
EVs make great commuter vehicles. They serve a purpose.
In practical terms though, there are huge problems. Batteries have limited life span. Under current conditions, the cost to replace a batter pack exceeds the value of the vehicle at the time the pack needs to be replaced. So, the vehicle goes to the dump. Additionally, any accident that harms of the frame of the vehicle also sends the vehicle to the dump.
So, in my mostly worthless opinion, EVs as currently implemented are terrible engineering design and a non-viable product.
My take for years has been that lithium ion batteries are simply not a suitable technology for vehicles. Something lighter, more durable, bigger capacity/quicker recharging is needed, and it ain’t here yet.
I think it depends on the vehicle. They seem to work quite well for eBikes and the like (assuming a quality battery pack).
You mean when they’re not setting apartment buildings on fire?
Well, bicycles . . . . Technically a vehicle, I suppose. But for cars, trucks, airplanes and even motorcycles, not so much. You can always carve out a narrow use case, but that’s really the exception proving the rule*.
As far as cars go, maybe as a second car, depending on how total cost of ownership really pencils out. I’ve heard the plus side (low operating cost), but resale and cost of battery replacement are still kind of unresolved for me at least.
* in the correct sense of the term.
Well Time….that is the closest thing to a reasonable argument I have heard yet. I would argue that overall the plus’ do not outweigh the minus’ but at least we would be engaged in a legitimate debate.
““We lost over $20,000 investing in this startup EV …”
You bought a depreciating asset. You didn’t invest in shit.
Well…technically…they did also buy company stock.
Ah, missed that detail.
But, still, that $20,000 loss was from that car, not the stock. Although the stock is down 99.09% over the last five years. So they probably got bit there too.
Fisker Ocean Totaled After Tiny Door Ding Souring EV Dream
Can’t he buy back the salvage and just keep driving the stupid thing?
(got no time to RTFA)
Not clear, but I’d bet he had a note on it.
I’d bet he had a note on it.
I keep forgetting what a weirdo I am for paying cash (not that I’d pay 75k for a car, no matter who made it).
Get that rear windshield done?
Same. Have financed cars to get all the discounts, then paid off the loan as soon as allowed.
Same here – the magic words are “no prepayment penalty”.
“But I know nothing about his politics, whether he thinks his policy preferences should be forced on everyone, etc.”
“He insisted, prior to getting into any details, discussion, issues, that they (Rinella) agree that “we are in a climate crisis”. “
If he insists you agree with him on this premise, you can be damn sure he will insist that his policies be forced on you.
Must be a slow news day: https://www.phillyburbs.com/story/travel/airline-news/2024/05/02/tsa-snakes-passenger-pants-miami-airport/73543345007/
They knew it was a snake in his pants because NO ONE is ever happy to see the TSA.
If the internet has taught me anything, it’s that you never say nobody to something like that.
Gender Traitor wins comment of the day.
+1 Mae West
The internet delivers, with this bad lip reading version of the Hamas Hottie’s demand for snacks:
https://twitter.com/jayroo69/status/1785456402577977823
Damn fine work.
Speaking of EVs, new strategy is out:
Tesla is too expensive to complete the green revolution! The answer is Chinese made EVs! That meanie Trump put unfair tariffs on them to help his billionaire buddies!
https://www.npr.org/2024/05/02/1248634118/high-tariffs-are-keeping-affordable-chinese-made-evs-out-of-the-u-s-for-now
Note that this is from NP-freaking-R who is the biggest Union whore there is. They really must hate Elon.
Lemme know when they care about Chinese firearm import bans.
Damn you, now I’m dreaming about $0.07/rnd chicom steel core.
I’ll be in my bunk.