Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Really does not matter. All in all ICEs of last decade already complete unseviceable shit with remote controlled ECUs, tons of plastic parts demanding permanent replacement, insane priced spare parts and non of that engines was developed to last a half million miles as old good american/european engines of 1980-1990s.
No regrets. Just don't junk your good old beauty, take care and it will last much longer than all that modern crap.
Sounds like grumble of some old redneck luddite, but it's not. Modern car industry are real luddites, not ones who want a car that will be completely your own, easy and cheaply serviceable by yourself and last as long as you want.
There is nothing wrong with electric motors at all. They are cheap and reliable things perfectly suitable for transport. The wrong that they force them with that shitty, insane expensive, short lifetimed, low reliable, temperature dependent, unserviceable and extremly large and heavy batteries with stupidly long refilling time instead of more decent power sources like fuel cells, RITEGs, etc.
But that's whats wrong with electric motors. that they will only use them with unreliable technology. It's almost like its on purpose.
this, electric is so they can prevent you from driving to a protest.
Fuck ev’s
Those cars aren't green. There's almost nothing green about consuming more electricity. In fact it is so contrary to nature, it is diabolical.
The problem becomes increasing EMR. How many pigeons, OK pests, or wildlife, are you seeing today? Since the pylons of 5g all going up on the horizon of every major building. Do you see pigeons? There are some but prior you'd see a bird on the horizon almost everywhere. Where? The cars are silent and are far more deadly to wildlife. They accelerate much quicker. I use 5g, the medium or faster that is needed for them.
EVs, like your TV, phone, are they repaired or replaced? What is the lifetime of electrics? Far less than anything you could previously repair. Who repairs the parts. Nobody they put a replacement in. The battery lasts about 7 years. It like the rest of electrics, today, is replaced like a TV or phone for the next model. Ewaste is one of the most toxic substances on the planet. It doesn't recycle easily. Full of plastics, acids, toxic metals, synthetic materials. These cars are far more resource heavy, requiring increasing resources and infrastructure to operate use and run. They cost far more. They haven't eliminated fossil fuels when they're made out of fossil fuels.
What happens next protest. You comply or die. They can turn them off. Somebody else can remotely disable and hack your vehicle. What happens in extreme weather, they fail by comparison. Electricity suffers worst and it is hit the first in any extreme weather.
If everybody buys a new EV, how many more resources have been used? Decades, more than the existing means. It will take decades before their immediate emissions defect balances over the existing means. It is quite speculatory because of another model, like any other electric with diminishing lifetime replacing even quicker, the parts on maintenance being replaced instead of repaired.
They have nothing to do with anything else except exploiting profit by forcing demand. By control, single source, electricity, automation. Same source fitting you with an ankle bracelet. Your car will be immediately tracked, it has become a beacon. It is on the grid, it has logged into the grid for electricity. Electricity you don't stock, yourself, and pay through the nose constantly inflating to have somebody else retain their control over you. Sure you could set up a football field full of panels to stock your own electricity. How does that work? Above.
its the business model of flat tvs. they fooled retards to replace a 40yr technology that works well, for one that costs 2-4x as much an only last 10 years, max.
Now thats the model they are following for "new" cars.
Biofuel, is far more emitting than fossil fuel.
Which are you using. So you grown stuff, turned it into food, or fuel. You consumed food, creating waste, emissions, then you're using a toxic fuel. You haven't recycled, you've wasted, it is causing far more emissions. You are burning waste. Fossil Fuel was acquired off of recycled plants and animal matter, it came out of the ground. The planet produced it, with some added refining.
In every single comparison biofuel emits far more than fossil fuels. But at least you incinerated your trash, not once, not twice, but about 3 to 5 times more.
So in Clown World. Uk and German buses operating on biofuels are deforestating the Amazon, buying Brazilian sugar cane, soy to make biofuel for their stupid buses. Some narrative. How about the potato, or fat fryer, fat? What about woodchips compared to coal?
It's not. If you don't make your biofuel same as fuel your engine designed for, it just will not work. You just have to make nearly same chemical composition of your fuel. Same composition obviously gives same emissions.
It's the first.
The second is that most part of overall ICE emissions is water and CO2. Water is harmless and it does not matter. And CO2 is helping us to return normal warm and stable greenhouse Earth climate as in eocene when the Earth was literally green from pole to pole and all surface was suitable for comfortable life. So, emissions are really good thing, and not a reason to reduce them or care about fuel economy.
The problem with biofuel is that you need a lot of land to produce decent amount. And to make more land available we need more emissions to establish greenhouse effect that will make deserts and frosen land in high latitudes available for agriculture. Egg and chicken problem.
Yawn, that's mind control.
Real simple Chuck. Biofuel is more dense than diesel after conversion.
What are you converting, not the Amazon, surely? Growing stuff to burn like another forest fire? Except you done that how many times. First you felled the Amazon, then you grew fields of crops requiring resources, transporting them to a refinery converting it. Then you burnt it again. About 3 to 5 times more.
What about if you cooked it first?
It is a bad, not useable biofuel. Typical car or tractor diesel engine will not work on "more dense" fuel. Just because high pressure pump, injectors, cylinder pressure developed and tuned for normal diesel fuel and not for "more dense" one. To make your engine run on biofuel you have to fit your biofuel parameters to the parameters of usual diesel. And as you do it, it will not differ from regular diesel.
There exists diesel engines that was developed to work on wide range of fuels, but they never was used in cars or tractors. Mostly it was used in expensive and large diesel generators, that is definitely not the case.
Seems you never experimented yourself with running diesel engine on something else.
Even gasoline engines, that could run on gasoline, LPG methane and even wooden gas, demand the specific mixture preparation device for each kind of fuel.
Why do you need to fell Amazon in the first place? And how? You have a land, you want to get a fuel, independently from corporations. why the hell you need to travel half a globe to fell Amazon to seed your field with oily plants?
And what is wrong with burning grown plants? You just release what plants you grow collected during grow, nothing else. There will be zero emissions, really.
Diesel is denser than unleaded, unleaded than rocket fuel. Biofuel is denser than diesel. Emiting more than its counterpart even with the catalytic convertors.
German, UK buses running on biofuel, because diesel was outlawed, are buying sugar cane, soy, maize from Brazil to convert into biofuel. Okay but to grow stuff, you deforest first, turning woodland scrubland marshland peatland into farmland. Farmland needed to grow ethanol, etc, not naming them all, based crops for biofuel, now that the demand has peaked by the mind control. It is then converted into biofuel and burnt in your engine. Or likewise, worse, if it converted the fat from your fryer. You done the above, growing stuff consuming it, cooking it, then took waste made it into fuel and burn burn burn more than any fossil fuel. Fossil fuels are already recycled the planet did that, they come from decayed plant and animal matter, yes also refined. It is much less than biofuel by every comparison. Except you got your idiot badge from the Greta scouts, use ethanol. So renewable. Burn burn burn.
Every time there's the huge forest fires, the carbon released into the atmosphere is often far more than our man made equivalents. Yes they are also natural and some have good affects. Burn it, it grows back stronger. Fertile soil. But not today. Too many negative affects from our man made habitats counter balance the natural cycle. Deforestation specifically, a lack of forest cover absorbing it, and instead causing temperature to steadily increase. Whether or not, we have no control over an inevitable planetary cycle occurring regardless, also due to many other factors occuring in the cosmos like the sun and planetary alignment.
You can't use unleaded in diesel engine, because density does not fit diesel engine specs. You can't use something denser than diesel by the same reason.
That dubmfucks do a lot of stupid things. Why should you care about that one? Next time they will mass kill pandas to "save the planet", so what?
None of ICE on market could run on ethanol. You could only use it as addition (no more than 25%, 10% without engine adjustments) to regular gasoline reducing efficiency. ICE for ethanol should be designed specially for it and will not be able to run on gasoline. Attempts to build such engines for casr are made from 1978 without any significant result.
It is a big question, really. Forest fires is not the only variable in equation. There is massive forestation process due to exiting from current ice age. The amount of forests that replaces tundra now could be larger than what we loose in fires and by human activity.
From what studies?
Studies, you won't find on legacy media. But instead have to use common sense to find.
Read my replies. So you deforested, contrary to the narrative, producing and growing agriculture, after resource heavy production you turned crops into biofuel which you're now burning. But with fossil fuel the planet had already recycled it, converting plant and animal matter into a fossil fuel after refining is burnt as fuel. OK the toxicity is an issue which is cleaner. But which common sense is emitting more. Which is costing more? What is more efficient?
The toxicity is highly questionable once considering the other factors. The fact becomes biofuel hasn't done anything else. But there is some recycling of waste being burnt anyway. Not once, or twice, but remarkably more.
What existing power grid can support all of these?
I don't think this is a conspiracy.
I think all the manufacturers have agreed to stop by 2026. It was suspicious that they all pledged within months of each other.
The globalists told them to transition. These are easy to stop with EMP guns. They have potential battery ownership by manufacturer (see Smart car and the Mercedes battery). The globalists are already heavily invested in "green" energy (see $TSLA).
Watching Western civilization crumble before my eyes has been painful to see.
This is sooooo not gonna go over. Nobody I know can even afford a used car right now. We’ll be like cuba and drive around 50 year old cars running off homemade ethanol.