Presented without comment.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (30)
sorted by:
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?
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.