Used EV’s selling quicker than used gas cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
cu260r6 said:
It is pretty nuts to claim any fossil fuel extraction is environmental. That is like being the most ethical executioner operating the gas chambers.

Yes, there are different grades for different purposes, but that is irrelevant to the point. It is a global commodity and the price is set by a foreign cartel. Any production we subsidize here only costs US taxpayers and does not reduce the global price more than a few cents if that.

Anecdotes are not evidence.
Click to expand...

The U.S. accounts for about 20% of global production. Take that out of the market and oil prices would be hundreds of dollars per barrel. Maybe that’s what you want, but it would crater the economy. Maybe you want that too. Most rational people don’t.
 
TZ250lover said:
The U.S. accounts for about 20% of global production. Take that out of the market and oil prices would be hundreds of dollars per barrel. Maybe that’s what you want, but it would crater the economy. Maybe you want that too. Most rational people don’t.
Click to expand...

Look up the definition of nonresponsive.

OMG, you're right. We should do nothing different while we shovel billions in taxpayer funds each year into subsidies that raise global oil production maybe 1% and therefore does not affect the price to any appreciable level. I would not have taken you for a socialist.
 
cu260r6 said:
Look up the definition of nonresponsive.

OMG, you're right. We should do nothing different while we shovel billions in taxpayer funds each year into subsidies that raise global oil production maybe 1% and therefore does not affect the price to any appreciable level. I would not have taken you for a socialist.
Click to expand...
Here you go again with subsidies. Tax breaks are money not confiscated by the government. Subsidies are money given to something from the money taken from producers or printed (which creates inflation). If that is not true then Mongo is getting subsidies to kill racing :crackup: Sorry Mongo but the pairing was to good for the losers that think that.
 
https://oilchange.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

"The most obvious subsidies are direct funding and tax giveaways, but there are many activities that count as subsidies – loans and guarantees at favorable rates, governments providing resources like land and water to fossil fuel companies at below-market rates, research and development funding including for carbon capture and storage (CCS) fossil hydrogen and other dangerous distractions, clean up of abandoned oil and gas wells, oil spills etc., police budgets for protest repression of fossil fuel infrastructure and more."

None of the approx $31 billion the US spends on this each year helps reduce the global price of oil or gas prices at the pump. They are just socialist giveaways.
 
cu260r6 said:
https://oilchange.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/

"The most obvious subsidies are direct funding and tax giveaways, but there are many activities that count as subsidies – loans and guarantees at favorable rates, governments providing resources like land and water to fossil fuel companies at below-market rates, research and development funding including for carbon capture and storage (CCS) fossil hydrogen and other dangerous distractions, clean up of abandoned oil and gas wells, oil spills etc., police budgets for protest repression of fossil fuel infrastructure and more."

None of the approx $31 billion the US spends on this each year helps reduce the global price of oil or gas prices at the pump. They are just socialist giveaways.
Click to expand...
Same everything applies for lithium. Got to mine it, pollutes, subsidized , socialism, wars .... you name it. They don't call it white petroleum for no reason. It just replaces one with another.
 
cu260r6 said:
It is a GLOBAL commodity. There are no export restrictions on US produced oil, so any oil any private company in the US produces is freely sold internationally. The only thing relying on oil does is make us subject to price swings based on turmoil in more tumultuous places. We would have to produce three times as much domestically just to equal OPEC's output and have an equal chance at controlling the market.

Thinking that continued reliance on a product whose price is controlled by a foreign cartel is the nationalistic or patriotic thing is truly nutty. How many wars have we fought over oil in the last 100 years? We are gearing up for another preemptive invasion as I type. Imagine a world where we produce an abundance of nearly free renewables at home and are truly energy independent from energy commodity swings. THAT is a real America First future, but so many seem more tied to hating EVs and worshiping oil execs than imagining a better future.
Click to expand...

Try fighting a war using solar and wind power, genius.
 
Let's see what we would have to do without if oil weren't available.

Oil (petroleum) is a key ingredient or a necessary processing agent for the production of a vast array of products, primarily through the creation of petrochemical feedstocks, plastics, solvents, and lubricants. It is estimated that over 6,000 everyday items rely on petroleum products.
Common products that require oil to produce include:

Fuels and Energy Products
The majority of refined oil is used for energy, though these are technically derived from oil rather than products requiring oil as an ingredient in their own production process.
  • Gasoline
  • Diesel fuel and heating oil
  • Jet fuel (kerosene)
  • Propane
  • Asphalt for roads and roofing

Plastics and Synthetic Materials
Plastics are one of the most significant non-fuel uses of oil, serving as the building blocks for countless items.
  • Packaging: Plastic bottles, food containers, etc.
  • Electronics: Computer cases, TV cabinets, phones, and internal components
  • Clothing/Textiles: Synthetic fibers like polyester, nylon, and acrylic in garments, carpets, and upholstery
  • Sporting Goods: Golf balls, basketballs, helmets, surfboards, and skis
  • Household Items: Non-stick pans, dishes, trash bags, shower curtains, and insulation

Health, Beauty, and Medical Products
Many pharmaceuticals and personal care products use petroleum derivatives as essential ingredients or processing agents.
  • Medications: Aspirin, antihistamines, cough syrups, and vitamin capsules
  • Medical Devices: IV bags, artificial limbs, heart valves, contact lenses, and hearing aids
  • Personal Care: Shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, cosmetics (lipstick, foundation), hand lotion, and petroleum jelly

Other Diverse Products
  • Fertilizers: Synthetic nitrogen-based fertilizers rely on oil and natural gas feedstocks
  • Paints and inks
  • Tires and other synthetic rubber products
  • Waxes: Paraffin wax used in candles and food packaging
  • Cleaning products and detergents
Oil is also crucial for the machinery that manufactures nearly all goods, as it provides the necessary lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and cutting oils that keep industrial processes running smoothly.

Show us how lithium will be used to provide those things.
 
Let's not even mention that a country's economic health
is directly tied to it's ability to produce enough power for
its population. Reliable power. Solar and wind and
certainly lithium can't provide that. Disregarding the rare
nuclear plant, every successful society relies on fossil fuels
for their power grid. There's a very good reason for that.
It's necessary. Even if all of our power came from nukes we
would still need oil for manufacturing.
 
Feels like yall getting too close to the Dungeon.

lol imagine being banned from a Racing forum for arguing about Electric cars and how basically everyone agrees they’re gay, but some like the feeling they get from ownership.
 
sheepofblue said:
Here you go again with subsidies. Tax breaks are money not confiscated by the government. Subsidies are money given to something from the money taken from producers or printed (which creates inflation). If that is not true then Mongo is getting subsidies to kill racing :crackup: Sorry Mongo but the pairing was to good for the losers that think that.
Click to expand...
Say his name one more time
 
Let's go fight a war with cu260r6.

solar tank 1.jpg


solar tank 2.jpg
An army tank covered in solar panels sounds like a meme at first, but it’s actually a concept that’s been seriously explored (and mocked) over the years. Here’s the reality check:Real-world attempts / prototypes
  • U.S. Army “Solar Tank” experiments (2010s): The Army tested lightweight, flexible solar panels on vehicles (mostly Humvees and lighter trucks, not main battle tanks) to trickle-charge batteries and run electronics while silent/idle. The goal was reducing fuel logistics, not driving the tank itself.
  • BAE Systems / British Army “solar hybrid” concepts: They’ve shown future fighting vehicle designs with solar panels on the roof to power onboard systems (sensors, comms, air-conditioning) when the engine is off, extending silent-watch time.
  • Ukraine’s improvised solar tanks (2023–2025): There are verified photos of Ukrainian troops bolting cheap flexible solar panels onto T-64s, T-72s, and even Leopard 2s in the field. These are not powering the tank — they’re charging drones, Starlinks, radios, and auxiliary batteries so the crew isn’t running the engine 24/7 and giving away their position with heat/noise.
Why a full “solar-powered main battle tank” is basically impossible today
  • A modern MBT (M1 Abrams, Leopard 2, T-90, etc.) uses ~1,500 horsepower (1.1 MW) when moving and still hundreds of kW when idling.
  • Even if you completely covered every flat surface of an Abrams in the best space-grade solar cells (≈400 W/m² in perfect sunlight), you’d generate maybe 25–40 kW on a sunny day — less than 4 % of what the turbine needs just to creep along.
  • Tanks fight in mud, snow, forests, and at night. Solar is useless 90 % of the time in real combat.
  • The panels would be shredded by the first nearby artillery blast, shrapnel, or even brushing against a tree.
aircraft carrier 1.jpg aircraft carrier 2.jpg

A windmill-powered aircraft carrier is not realistically possible with any technology that exists or is on the horizon. Here’s why, in plain numbers: Power requirements vs. what wind could deliver
  • A Nimitz-class or Ford-class carrier at full speed (30+ knots) needs roughly 200–260 MW of shaft power (that’s 270,000–350,000 horsepower).
  • When launching aircraft with catapults, the peak electrical load can spike above 100 MW for seconds at a time.
  • Total installed power on a Ford-class is about 550–600 MW thermal from two nuclear reactors.
Now put wind turbines on the same ship:
  • The flight deck of a Nimitz/Ford is about 4.5 acres (~18,000 m²). That’s the only big flat area you have.
  • The biggest offshore wind turbines today (e.g., Haliade-X 14–15 MW) have a rotor diameter of ~220–240 m and need spacing of 5–10 rotor diameters to avoid turbulence from each other.
  • On a carrier deck you could physically squeeze in maybe 8–12 decent-sized turbines if you completely give up aircraft operations and ignore height/stability issues.
  • Even using unrealistically huge 15 MW turbines, 12 × 15 MW = 180 MW max — and only in perfect ~12–14 m/s wind. In reality you’d get far less because:
    • The ship is moving (apparent wind changes constantly).
    • Turbines interfere with each other.
    • You can’t orient them into the wind while steaming in a straight line at 30 knots.
    • Average wind speed at sea is closer to 7–9 m/s → power drops to ~20–30 % of rated.
Realistic output if the entire deck were covered in turbines: 30–70 MW average — less than 15–30 % of what the carrier actually needs to move and fight.Other fatal problems
  1. Aircraft operations become impossible — you can’t land an F-35 among 200-meter spinning blades.
  2. Top-weight and stability — putting 1,000+ tons of turbine high up raises the center of gravity dramatically; the ship becomes dangerously unstable in rough seas.
  3. Combat survivability — one missile or bomb turns your “green” carrier into a field of burning fiberglass and steel shards.
  4. Wind is intermittent — carriers need guaranteed power 24/7 in any weather, including dead calm or hurricanes.
What navies actually do instead
  • Nuclear reactors (U.S., France) or gas turbines/conventional oil (most others) — compact, reliable, enormous power.
  • Some auxiliary wind ideas have been studied (Flettner rotors, wing sails, small vertical-axis turbines) strictly to save fuel while transiting slowly in peacetime — never as primary propulsion.
Bottom line
A carrier “covered in windmills” makes great memes and AI art, but in the real world it would be slower than a 19th-century sailing frigate, unable to launch aircraft, and sink or capsize the first time it met bad weather or an enemy. It’s physically impossible with wind alone.
 
In your Corner, there isn't a single line of that I can't get from chatgpt. Come back when you have an original thought. :D

'We need oil consuming war vehicles in order to fight wars over oil!' is quite the circular justification. No one is arguing for the banishment of all oil overnight, but those that fail to consider any long term alterative are as useless to our species as flat eathers or doomsday cultists.

Let's get back to the topic at hand, a bunch of retired ex two-stroke-racing boomers telling the young kids that their new fangled battery vehicles will never work. :crackup:
 
Once again all the 2 stroke racing boomers are doing is telling you they don't want your kitchen appliance any more than they wanted 4 stroke race bikes. :D
 
cu260r6 said:
In your Corner, there isn't a single line of that I can't get from chatgpt. Come back when you have an original thought. :D

'We need oil consuming war vehicles in order to fight wars over oil!' is quite the circular justification. No one is arguing for the banishment of all oil overnight, but those that fail to consider any long term alterative are as useless to our species as flat eathers or doomsday cultists.

Let's get back to the topic at hand, a bunch of retired ex two-stroke-racing boomers telling the young kids that their new fangled battery vehicles will never work. :crackup:
Click to expand...

You know it was predicted that EVs would soon be the
worldwide standard. In 1915. Early cars were mostly electric.
Whatever happened during the last 110 years?

As far as my post goes, intelligence isn't having all the answers,
it's knowing where to find them.
 
Tristan said:
umm... Pot- Kettle called and said to eat a dick and die in a fire (preferably lithium based)
Click to expand...

I actually used Grok because it makes great pictures.
It's not even filtered. I asked for a picture of an asshole
and I got a picture of cu260r6. Lol

Just kidding dude, it refused to draw your image.
Something about community standards.

I'll be here all week. Try the prime rib.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top