Counter-Currents
La Jamais Contente, the first electric car, designed in 1899.
1,279 words
“Failure of the experts is always an endearing spectacle.” — Nicolás Gómez Davila
At last year’s “virtual” Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas, General Motors’ (GM) dominatrix, Mary Barra, outlined a dystopian vision in more detail than ever before. After paying respect to St. George of Minneapolis, the “Black Lives Matter” terrorists, and the mainstream narrative concerning the gift from China, she proceeded to claim that her once-indispensable automotive juggernaut was at an “inflection point.” GM’s vision, she brazenly claimed, was a world with “zero crashes, zero emissions, and zero congestion” — and the key to “unlock this is electrification.”
Mrs. Barra is not alone. A number of global carmakers have claimed that the era of the internal combustion engine is over. Jaguar has vowed to stop selling conventionally-powered cars by 2025; Renault wants to generate 90% of its turnover with electrics by 2030, and Volkswagen’s CEO Herbert Diess is busy squandering his predecessors’ heritage with an attack on competing technological approaches: “The battery has won the race.”
Then, of course, there is the sect leader Elon Musk, whose companies rely on subsidies, fail to reach production targets, and whose vehicles seem to be immune to any scrutiny by the same regulators and media sycophants who relentlessly attack other carmakers.
Musk is a role model for inferiors like Henrik Fisker, the entitled Danish grifter who keeps scamming investors with the claim that an electric future, led by himself, is just around the corner. Believe it or not, the magazine Auto Week had actually suggested over a decade ago that Fisker was the man who would save the American auto industry. He didn’t, but rather incredibly, he is still around — unlike Auto Week.
One thing connects all of these businessmen (and Mrs. Barra): They want to use the momentum from Joe Biden’s rigged election, the Princess-Nut-Nut-informed idiocy of Boris Johnson, and the European Union’s regulatory zeal to ensure that the billions they spend on electric vehicles (EVs) are not wasted. Behold the sight of “capitalism” clamoring for regulation to force their technology down citizens’ throats. (In fairness, they were forced into this technology by politicians in the first place, not the other way around.)
The pros & cons of EVs
EVs have been around forever. In fact, the first car to exceed 100 kph (62 mph) in 1899, La Jamais Contente, was built in 1899 — and it was electrical. For a while, there was fierce competition between electrics and petrol-powered cars. But the fight was settled when Cadillac introduced the electric starter, which did away with the need to use a manual crank to start the engine. The convenience of starting a piston engine at the turn of a key killed the early EVs.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
The three most important drawbacks of EVs were — and still are — cost, range, and performance. Today, the ever-improving internal combustion engine, powered by gasoline or diesel, can squeeze 30, 50, or 70 miles out of a gallon (for European readers, anything from 3 to 7 liters per 100 kilometers is easily achieved). This energy is stored in simple tanks that can be refilled within minutes, while fuel is available in abundance.
In fact, serious analysts claim there is enough oil to meet demand for at least 150 years — and natural gas long past that. Moreover, if one is concerned about carbon dioxide emissions, entirely CO2-neutral fuels might take off at any time. In fact, Germany was working on the Fischer-Tropsch process in the 1930s and ‘40s with the aim of winning energy independence. Fuel for powering piston engines is, in other words, incredibly cheap and easily available, and it is only a matter of cost and political will to make it CO2-neutral, enabling those nations that embrace it to become geopolitically independent.
By contrast, EVs can achieve only barely acceptable ranges, and even to reach those, you need a half a ton of batteries in a single car — batteries that come at extreme cost, deteriorate to the point of uselessness after less than a decade, take hours to recharge, and are an environmental nightmare in virtually every respect: raw materials, the energy required to build them, and the need to constantly recharge them while in use — ending in having to safely discard or recycle them.
Not only are EVs’ environmental problems blatantly obvious, in many cases they are a nightmare to operate. In many cities, finding parking is already a challenge; imagine having to look for a charging station every night in addition to that. And in the countryside, distances are greater and charging stations are few and far between. Home-charging on regular outlets can take days. You really need to be a suburban AWFL with your own electric wall box in order to operate an EV worry-free. But keep it away from your tasteless McMansion, for God’s sake, given their inclination to self-immolate!
That extra half-ton of batteries, by the way, makes EVs a lot more expensive to build, and it causes them to handle poorly. When negotiating corners, extra weight is the last thing you need. Don’t believe the bullshit about the batteries’ alleged low center of gravity. In most EVs, you are sitting on top of them.
Admittedly, some EVs are fascinating in some ways. Their drivetrains are easily scalable, and you see great straight-line performance in cars like the Tesla Model S or the Porsche Taycan Turbo. Their silent, seamless power delivery has futuristic appeal, and their architectures offer potential for new, potentially more efficient bodies in the future. In reality, however, most EVs are less practical than similarly-sized conventional cars. An Audi e-tron GT is less spacious than an Audi A7, and a Mercedes-Benz EQC offers none of the off-road capability of the similarly sized GLC.
In short, EVs suck.
EVs take away your freedom
“Auto-mobile”: that used to be the perfect description of the product. A car allows the driver to move from A to B without planning, unsupervised, and at any time he wishes. Fill it up every 300 to 500 miles, grab a coffee, and onwards you go, wherever you like.
“Auto-mobile” doesn’t describe EVs, however. Electrics require meticulous trip planning in terms of the availability of charging stations and the need to wait for a “go” from the operators of those stations. They ground you forever while the energy drips slowly into the battery pack. Furthermore, they allow corporations and the authorities to monitor your movements and potentially curtail your travels. And don’t forget: EVs are expensive.
Despite the punitive taxation they now entail, individual mobility using regular cars is still affordable. It will be out of reach for many citizens when EVs are mandated.
And this is of course why the Left is pushing for EVs so hard. They don’t want to make cars better or cleaner; they want fewer people to drive, and they will probably try to eliminate EVs as well once they are done with the far superior conventional car. They want everyone to take the bus, the bike, or to just stay at home. They hate our cars for what they symbolize: They are the ultimate expression of aesthetics, power, status, and freedom. Real cars use carbs and oxygen, they scream and growl, they charge forward, and they can blow fire out their exhaust pipes. And they don’t determine where you can go and not go.
That’s why we have an unequivocal answer to the rhetorical question with which GM’s chief clown, Mary Barra, ended her pathetic CES pep talk: “Are you in?”
No, we are not. Not at all. And we are looking forward to witnessing a train wreck of epic proportions, one that will embarrass politicians and big business like seldom before. EVs will –and should — never take off.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
31 comments
Petrol gang forever!
Another aspect of EVs is that nobody really knows how reliable the batteries are, I read that some Finnish guy recently blew up his Tesla after finding out how expensive the replacement battery was.
Leftoids are also against nuclear fission energy which would at least make the electricity used in EVs clean.
The best solution to this IMO would be heavily subsidising public transport to make it very cheap, of course in a demographically sound European society, public transport is not the nightmare it currently is in multikult.
Leftoids are against nuclear energy at all, and so since 80´s. In 80´s the chiefs of all those “Greens” were recruited by the KGB and the East-German Stasi, so they destroyed the civil programs of nuclear energy, to get the West addicted to the Soviet/Russian oil and gas deliveries. “Die Grünen” in Germany were and are simply traitors.
Electric car batteries are limited, circa now, but technology will continue to improve. Sort of like predicting CRT TVs and monitors were going to be around forever because the early plasma TVs and LCDs were extremely expensive and heavy. The promise (not necessarily reality) of electric cars is keeping the left from going into extreme panic about climate change and demanding you remove your gas furnace or oven.
I agree. I’m a former Broadcasting Engineer and have a huge interest in the history of technology. I remember back in the Dark Ages, about 1998 or so, about the time most people were just starting to get on the Internet, and I went into a big box electronics store to see the cool flat-screen TVs they had on display.
If I am remembering correctly, a plasma with a six-foot screen was selling for 16 thousand dollars ─ and on the showroom floor it looked crappy because they did not have any high-definition content to feed into it.
Within just a few years, however, an even bigger flat-screen was down to a few hundred dollars. Also, there is ultra-HD content nowadays, but not that much of it is worth watching.
I see people driving Teslas down the freeway all the time, and the cars do look pretty cool. Apparently they also have superlative levels of red meat under the hood. But for now, I am not too sure that I would want to pay so much to find out.
🙂
A buddy of mine (also a television engineer) paid $800 for a CD
player when they first came out. A fool and his money are soon
parted.
In the last years of the Soviet Union the thieves killed people for videorecorders. The videorecorders were too expensive, that you could be killed for them.
Not to be a total techno-pedant, but I think you might be slightly misremembering a few things. In 2002, I recall a friend intensely researching then relatively “nascent” plasmas. He ended up buying one for quite a few thousand dollars. I believe it was around 44″. I distinctly recall him saying at the time that the largest plasma (at least commercially available) was 60″ or 64″. A few years alter he bought the 60″-64″, along with a whole new 8 speaker surround sound system, “line conditioner”, top DVD player, r5 foot reticulated titanium wall-mounted swivel-arm, maybe some other accoutrement(s). The total price for all that plus installation was (in 2004 dollars – worth more than 2022 dollars of course {due to constant Federal Reserve-generated low-level [now not so low-level] inflation}) approx $26,000. I recall my friend saying to me, the first time I went to his pad to check out his ne system, “I woke up in the middle of the night recently thinking ‘I can’t believe I just dropped 26 grand on a TV’.”
Since my 20s, I’ve never owned a TV, except for a tiny screen (no cable channels) I keep on my kitchen countertop, mainly to watch/listen to news when occasionally preparing a meal.
We know who will never give up their internal combustion engine vehicles. They rarely practice what they preach. Less freedom of movement means more acquiescence with their schemes. They would like everyone, but them, to be drones on trains and living in Soviet style housing. Recall the old saw about the trains running on time. They definitely do in China and no thanks to union workers.
Thanks. You’ve laid out a knock down argument against electric cars. It is odd that Musk should be devoting his life to this doomed project. He has got to be pretty smart. Also, I think compared to other super-rich people like Gates, Bezos, etc. he seems to be a decent person. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think he is a member of the WEF.
I don’t think Musk is committing his life to EV’s. I think he saw a way of capitalizing on the Gov’t subsidies for building them. Thus it was a way of making a lot of money.
That sounds familiar. So many of these “rugged individualist free market capitalists” ultimately run to Big Daddy Government. I actually thought the drug industry was a free-market entity and not corrupt until I saw what happened with this Covid stuff and the vaccines. I am looking forward to getting RFK Jrs new book on Fauci and Gates to get more details on all of this drug company corruption. RFK Jr is really a good guy although he is somewhat difficult to listen to at first because he has a speech impediment. But you get used to it quite quickly.
However, one thing I just thought of and I got the idea from one of my English students here in Hungary is that an Electric Car could be economical if you have a solar panel on your house and an additional gasoline car. You use the gas car for long trips and charge your electric car, at least in the spring, summer, and early fall with the electricity generated by the panel and use it for short trips. The fuel for the electric car is absolutely free.
Back in the early 70s, Russian auto designer, artist and author of some interesting books about cars, Yuri Dolmatovsky, advocated the introduction of electric vehicles, but only for limited use – as delivery vans for supplying retail trade in cities, as taxis for intracity transportation of passengers. But not as cars for long-distance trips.
A well-reasoned and encouraging article for us old guards of internal combustion engine. Cheers! Another major argument that can be used to counter the EV-preaching crowds effectively and that will nail it at their pain spot, in my opinion, is that when using EV, the charging of electricity comes from mainly conventional way of generating electric power, i.e. burning fossil fuels (coal or oil) in tremendous amounts at thermal power plants, which is equally bad if not worse than using gasoline or diesel engines in its impact on the environment, and hence objectively runs against and demolishes their ostensible argument centered on environmental protection. Furthermore, the Left can hardly argue back by resorting to advocate a more active use of nuclear power instead of thermal power generation, as they themselves have been against nuclear power all along. Therefore, this smart argument from our side will put the Left in a very awkward and narrow position and hopefully checkmate them.
Future predicting is a dificult business. Even when the experts are wrong, the laymen are usually utterly wrong.
I remember a heartfelt article, here on CC, blaming the “new” economic bulbs. Instead making stocks with incandescent bulbs, I waited for the prices to drop and bought the best LED bulbs on market.
This is a fine article, but of course I would do the opposite. Momentarily I am happy with my hybrid car. The moment for an EV will be in few tears when I’ll have enough solar panels to charge it.
Things are moving and improving. Of course it will take some time to build the first electric battle tank, but that’s a different story.
The left is utterly wrong on the nuclear energy. They are fighting a straw man here, represented by faulty soviet designs and brutal and irresponsible working procedures. You can’t make a Chernobil movie and convince everyone that all nuclear plants are the same.
The oil industry is very white and Republican. The Left doesn’t like that.
So is the nuclear industry.
Whites are fixated with internal combustion engine while leaving without a fight the entire market of EV batteries to China. Bigger than 27 billion USD market. An european or American battery will be way better than the chinese …
And the “fighters for nature”, all kinds of environmentalists, never criticize China’s Maoist government, even though China is the world’s top polluter. But there was no word from St. Greta against Red China.
Exactly!
This is what should be hammered relentlessly. Pollution? Wow, mortal danger! Look at China! Look at Russia! St Greta is a saint! Buy European or American because superior ecological and human standards!
Globalism? All right! Drop taxes for imports between US and Europe.
Social protection? Tax on imports from China!
Covid? Mortal danger! Hurry up, lock down the borders! Everybody should stay at home! And I mean everybody!
Immigration? Stop moving millions from their homeland. It’s inhumane to exploit the brain drain! It’s inhumane to uproot so many people!
Africa? All right! West is no longer rich! Let China and Russia help them! They gave Africa freedom, let them pay for that.
And you can go on and on.
Do not oppose but amplify in the desired direction. No more boxing, but Aikido! Never encountered a leftist without making them have a serious nervous breakdown.
In addition to the fact that batteries must be disposed of after use – and these are not small batteries from a player or a wrist watch, the usual electricity is used to recharge car batteries, which is still produced at power plants from solid, liquid or gas fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). And when maybe the emissions from car engines seem to be getting smaller, but the harmful effects from burning fuel to produce electricity are not getting any smaller.
This is terrific piece that captures the entire range — mechanics, environmental, economics, politics and aesthetics of — what’s wrong with EVs.
EV´s can exist, can be bought, if the people FREELY will buy them. But nobody can forbid the usual cars with internal combustion engines. Both can co-exist and compete. But nobody can dictate what kind of cars people may buy or not buy for their OWN money. Not the electric cars are guilty, but the forceful imposion of them.
Rarely have I seen more misleading or inaccurate article. Just look at this sentence: “Elon Musk, whose companies rely on subsidies, fail to reach production targets, and whose vehicles seem to be immune to any scrutiny by the same regulators and media sycophants who relentlessly attack other carmakers.”
Electric subsidies Tesla was getting, have long since expired, Musk beat pretty much every production target they set (if sometimes with delays) and media and regulators are constantly on Tesla’s ass, they had two recalls in the last six months and jewish media constantly attacks Musk.
But I guess this is to be expected from somebody who believes Trumpwon 2020 elections soundly.
Wake me up when “Semi”, the flying Roadster (lol) and “Cybertruck” hit the road. Musk continues to be showered with subsidies (other electrics, too). Please explain to me how “Autopilot” (which keeps brake checking other cars, careens into obstacles; there are actual deaths) continues to be sold without the entire management in jail… I’ll tell you why: Politicians think the (undeserved) glamor of this modern-day Ivar Kreuger (or L. Ron Hubbard?) will rub off on them. – I chuckle at Musk’s trolling, but I think ultimately he’s a swindler.
A comment from one who worked in research chemistry:
“entirely CO2-neutral fuels might take off at any time. In fact, Germany was working on the Fischer-Tropsch process in the 1930s and ‘40s with the aim of winning energy independence.”
Fischer-Tropsch is a synthesis method aimed at turning lighter hydrocarbons and CO into higher C# fuels. It’s not efficient but is what you do if you have a lot of CO and are isolated from regular supplies of fuel. Examples are given of Germany and South Africa during the apartheid era which was under embargo. Other than special cases, it’s extremely inefficient to rely upon it as a fuel source.
It relies on having H2 (hydrogen) to generate the heavier hydrocarbons. A simpler method is to just use the H2 in an engine or in a fuel cell which generates electricity.
Also unless one is getting the electricity for the EV (cars) from alt sources such as solar, wind, or nuclear, basically the EV is just using electricity generated from coal, oil, or natural gas.
True but rarely would an internal combustion engine (ICE) ever come close to the efficiency of a powerplant.
Plus, carbon dioxide is not the whole of the issue; people are killed daily by smog, which comes from tailpipe emissions.
Furthermore, Wind and Solar cannot just be put anywhere. leftist rarely make good engineers.
My Dad is a retired aerospace and nuclear engineer who has put in dozens of 2 MW Wind turbines in Idaho, which are wonderful machines in spite of some people not liking them aesthetically. They also need to be connected to a robust power grid because where the power can be generated is usually not where the power can be used.
I just don’t see “renewables” replacing fossil fuels any time soon, unfortunately, and wood is no answer to pollution.
If it were up to me, a massive number of breeder reactors would be built, and during the off-peak power hydrogen generated, which would be distributed at cut-rate costs for fuel cells and hybrid vehicles.
Perhaps battery technology will eventually improve to the point that EVs can be more than just commuter cars, but the most important thing is to eliminate tailpipe emissions and coal powerplants as rapidly as possible.
As usual, Leftists have everything askew. Germany killing off their nuclear plants without modernizing them instead only means that they will be dependent upon Russian natural gas and (if they are lucky) buying electricity from French breeder reactors.
🙂
As usual, Leftists have everything askew. Germany killing off their nuclear plants without modernizing them instead only means that they will be dependent upon Russian natural gas
I am sure they get money from Russia for it – not stupid pawns, of course, but leaders. Or Russians have compromise materials on them since the times of the Stasi and Markus Wolf (Onkel Mischa).
Thanks for the info Scott. I didn’t know that the 2MW wind turbines were so successful: it’s good to know. That is much smaller scale than most powerplants (500 MW) but every little bit helps. I’m familiar with the failure of the giant wind turbine farm out in Hawaii in which all the turbines had to be cut down after some years.
For myself I recently (2017) bought a 1 y/o used car and plan to keep it a long time. I may consider an EV in 10 or 15 years but we’ll see where the technology is by then. Maybe self-driving cars will be the norm then? I really hate driving long distances manually and public transportation here is extremely slow and only really for poor Black people who are often very unpleasant to be next to.
Even tho a power plant is more efficient than an IC engine, there are still losses in transmission, storage, and any conversion for EV’s. Perhaps the US will go that way eventually but I plan to wait for now.
Not sure the breeder reactors will be widely adopted here. I think the US has only one: used for weapons research. They’re quite dangerous I’ve heard and are capable of undergoing an actual nuclear detonation, rather than a steam explosion like a conventional U235 or fission power plant. I think we could use more regular fission plants with the advanced safety systems. But as the Critical Diversity in our country increases, the population who can safely and economically operate nuclear power plants decreases. Oh, well, the advantages of Diversity I suppose.
Of course, fusion is the great panacea for power production, but I think our Diversity issues may eclipse that.
Yeah, it is a fascinating topic, and I love to talk about it.
Basically, the breeder reactor problem in the United States stems from the Carter Administration banning private firms from chemically processing plutonium from reactor waste because Amy Carter was afraid of nuclear proliferation.
This legal limitation is still true today, and Hollywood made a very lame 1983 movie about ditzy labor organizer Karen Silkwood, with Cher as her Lesbian roommate. Today, nuclear makes up 20 percent of the U.S. power grid ─ but since none of us want plutonium in our corn flakes, the reactor waste is stored in swimming pools at the reactor sites in perpetuity instead of being reprocessed for fuel along with Silkwood’s unmentionables. Since only 7/1000s of natural uranium is fissile U-235, that is a lot of waste and un-reprocessed transuranic waste.
The exception is the U.S. Navy, which chemically reprocesses the uranium (and plutonium) fuel for its ships and submarines. The French don’t have these arbitrary plutonium processing restrictions, although I don’t know much about their industry, unlike Idaho.
My Mother is a third or fourth-generation Idaho farm girl, so she was happy when my Dad got hired at the Idaho National Laboratory, where hundreds of research reactors have been built in the Idaho desert since the 1940s, and they also train Navy nuclear personnel there. Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-I) is where nuclear electricity was first demonstrated in 1951. Dad worked on reactor safety for over twenty years from 1973.
I started school in Las Vegas, Nevada in the 1960s when they were doing underground nuclear tests there, and there was maybe one “Diverse” student in the whole school, now part of the UNLV campus. Aside from a couple of casinos off the Mojave desert highway, the town still had the flavor of a smallish Mormon frontier railroad waypoint between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles.
At the Idaho National Lab, they extensively studied the 1979 Three Mile Island snafu, and in 1986 developed a breeder reactor that passively shut down. This important breakthrough was overshadowed by the Chernobyl steam explosion and fire a few weeks later, and the Space Shuttle launch explosion earlier in the year, which led to my Dad leaving the INL briefly to work on that problem, since he was a reliability expert on Thiokol solid-rocket boosters from the 1961 Minuteman missile.
Anyway, TMI overheated and destroyed its core, and nobody was injured, in spite of the Jane Fonda and Jack Lemmon China Syndrome movie which was just released. But TMI would not have happened at all except that the operators got confused and manually shut down the safety systems thinking they had a coolant leak. If they had just walked away instead, it would have shut down and cooled down automatically. In 1986, the Idaho breeder reactor shut itself down, not automatically but passively, when they simulated a dead man switch evacuation and power failure. Google the Integral Fast Breeder Reactor, and there are also some good YouTube videos.
The IFR breeder technology was mature and near completion in 1994 when President Clinton’s Mulatto Secretary of Energy and Congress cancelled it. Leftists hate nuclear power; it is integral to their creed. Reliability engineers like my Dad were furious.
“Integral” means that the fuel processing is simple and done at the reactor site, and “Fast” means that it uses fast neutrons, which is far less complicated for breeding fuel and cooling, and it consumes most of the waste produced.
These are inherently stable designs, so you don’t have to wonder if Homer Simpson shut off the coolant valve or not as happened at TMI, or whether the emergency power can still pump coolant ─ as happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Chernobyl was inherently unstable because the Soviets had integrated plutonium weapons production with much-needed power generation, and high demands meant that they could not shut anything down for maintenance and testing.
The only reactor mishap where anyone was killed in the United States was in Idaho in 1961 when three soldiers died after triggering a steam explosion while operating a small reactor intended for remote Antarctic applications that used highly-enriched and unstable fuel. This mishap prompted the design of inherently stable reactors for the last sixty years. And all commercial reactors built in the USA have had strong concrete containment domes. The Russians learned that lesson the hard way.
Dad started working on Wind Turbines on his own as soon as he retired from aerospace and nuclear contracts because nuclear just had too much politics associated with it ─ and that is saying something because so do alternative (to fossil fuel) energies. I think they are using GE and Siemens turbines in Idaho, and they are at this point quite a mature technology. The ones intended for the open sea are even bigger.
Yes, there are some derelict windmills that you can find near Barstow, CA ─ along with the mescaline bats of Hunter S. Thompson on his vision quest to Las Vegas ─ which were purchased by the Chinese for scrap and left to rot, that filmmaking trolls like Michael Moore have photographed. But arguing that wind turbines won’t work is like arguing that abandoned Model Ts along the Route 666 highway proves that the automobile was not a viable concept.
As always, the problem is not technology but politics ─ but I agree that there are limitations to how dumb your workers can be, from Diversity hires at the Post Office to Homer Simpson and Karen Silkwood at nuclear and chemical plants.
🙂
Wow, what a detailed description on Breeder Reactors. I Googled a little bit and saw that France’s sole breeder reactor was discontinued. The reason given was that a heavy snowfall caused the roof of the turbine room to collapse!
Excuse me. In France, Notre Dame was started in 1163 AD and they {apparently} knew how to build buildings back then where the roofs didn’t collapse from snowfalls. Due to the uniqueness and complexities of a breeder reactor, I’m really surprised that someone could make this sort of mistake. I guess the discouraging thing is that everything has to be designed to be run by POC’s? Thus while a Breeder might be safe, one has to plan for some {or all?} of the operators being highly degreed affirmative action transplants from Haiti or Mexico. Thus something so insanely stupid will be done it could result in a major nuclear accident.
I really don’t know. I did some analysis work for the proper storage of low-active nuclear waste. But other than that nuclear energy is only a hobby reading for me. If you like to keep in touch I can give you my email… I plan to attend a C-C thing when/if it comes to my areas.
I have owned EVs since 2014 and doubt you have any familiarity with them at all.
Rather than rundown refutations of everything you’ve written here, I’ll sum up your knowledge with this quote from what you wrote:
“Don’t believe the bullshit about the batteries’ alleged low center of gravity. In most EVs, you are sitting on top of them.”
Do you even know what you are talking about here? The vehicles center of gravity is low because the batteries are placed low on the vehicle. This results in handling unobtainable with an ICE vehicle – which has a large discretely placed engine. Undeniable advantage for the EV in this instance.
I could say about the same for all of your other arguments.
Anyone who is ignorant on the subject should not worry his pretty little head about the matters you have brought up here.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment