jmiller @ jmiller @lemm.ee

Posts

1

Comments

44

Joined

2 yr. ago

Shoot, the page is gone. I really wanted to see the AP article addressing this very important issue, lol.

This isn't a science related meme. I can understand you not being sure where to put it, I haven't seen a "Racist Memes" community on Lemmy.

Take that house so they never see that view again.

Oh, agreed!

Sure, to get them to speak in unison. They did all read from the same script though. It wouldn't be as viscerally creepy without the editing, but I would say the situation is as bad as the video makes it seem.

Growing crops to make ethanol is not particulatly green. In fact, in most existing production loops we would be better off environmentally to just burn pure gasoline than produce the ethanol to mix into it, unfortunately. Too much water, too many tractors and trucks, and way too much electricity into ethanol production to be worth what we get out of it. And the bit of carbon the crops sequester doesn't overcome it. Electric vehicles are by far the greenest option right now.

This is misleading, billionaires have been paying effectively lower taxes for many many years. They just had to be more creative about it before now.

If you are using Firefox, switch your default search engine to DuckDuckGo, haven't gotten a captcha from them once. And right in the search bar you can switch to Google if DDG isn't doing too well on a particular search, I do end up doing that about 5% of the time.

It won't have started getting closer again before the Milky Way collides with the Adromeda galaxy in 5 Billion years, so it and anything we send on a similar path isn't coming back.

Last year their revenue from selling cars, powerwalls, and solar tiles was around $90 million. Makes the stock price seem crazy, yes. But then they sold $1.8 billion of carbon credits to other auto manufacturers, and that costs them basically nothing. Still doesn't justify the stock price, but makes it less ridiculous. Selling carbon credits is Tesla's main business at this point, the things they make just provide the justification for it.

In general I agree with you for sure, we have way too many. But if there are any worth preserving, I'd say it's the old ones in Scotland where golf was invented. And at least there they don't have to be watered constantly.

Oh, it's not the only reason, and the other may actually be worse. They sold $1.8 billion of carbon credits to other auto manufacturers last year. Which is pretty much free money to them. And hastens climate change, but, you know, free money.

Thank you, Nougat, for your guidance in these trying times.

I'd say anyone choosing to drive 74mph in a 25mph zone can be said to have disregarded safety. And if you haven't realized you are going 74mph in a 25mph zone, you shouldn't have a license, let alone be an officer.

I am not any kind of expert either, but I have been following this company for a couple of years. If it makes it to market and is at all price competitive i can't see it not being a big deal. Granted, that is an if, not when, but they seem to be further along than most battery tech you read about.

No rare earth metals or even nickel or copper, has a very flat degradation curve even at charge rates up to 30C (testing stopped at 3k cycles in the coin cell tests), non flammable and non toxic. The only thing you would wish for is better capacity, but it is already better than any mass produced Li ion cell, and it has a theoretical maximum a couple times that of Li ions.

You're right, battery news IS always breathlessly excited about the next crazy advancement, but they have a lot of things in their favor on this one. They broke ground on a manufacturing plant last year, which is not the case for most battery news stories. And the battery uses no rare earth metals, is non flammable, and performes better by nearly every metric than lithium ion. If they make it to market, I think they will absolutely be revolutionary.

A increasing percentage of new construction gets heat pumps. Some replacement HVAC units make the switch, but there is still a large portion of people who won't because of misinformation and/or stubbornness.

But, unfortunately, most existing residential systems do not use heat pumps, under 20% in the US I believe.

They are too expensive. But only because auto manufacturers are only making midsized and larger suvs or luxury cars. The average price of an EV has dropped over 50% in China since 2015. That would have been tough for us to match, mostly because of batteries, but we could have made much more progress than we have.

The electric grid isn't nearly as unprepared as people say. Sure, we need to build out more charging stations, but the grid as a whole far exceeds current needs. In fact, nationwide electrical usage is actually trending down in the US because of efficiency gains. Better building codes, heat pumps, LED lighting, if it uses electricity newer stuff is more efficient. If we had sold 8 times as many EVs in 2023 than we did, electricity usage would have stayed about flat.

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/

Well, you are right about the subsidies and going after bigger market shares. And they may not be the highest quality vehicles, but I don't think they will be terrible either or they wouldn't hold on to the market share they gain.

They have been making electric buses and forklifts in the US since 2009, and have a decent reputation.

EVs very rarely catch fire. A vehicle with a large tank of gasoline which is burned to produce power poses a much higher fire risk.

20-60x more likely to catch fire, depending on which study you look at. My first Google result said 20x, but it was on an EV focused website, and I thought they might not be impartial. But Kelly Blue Book should be pretty good, right? Their article says 60x.

https://www.kbb.com/car-news/study-electric-vehicles-involved-in-fewest-car-fires/