You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years." (really only 30 years, since Li-ion hasn't been around that long). That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia, you can appreciate why the "problems haven't been solved in 100 years.." That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, and are mostly just repeating the rhetoric that critics use to create "opposition" beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of proportion with what is suggested by the actual evidence, not the rhetoric that creates beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. I think you are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of what is suggested by the actual evidence, not the rhetoric that creates beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

Yes, it really is a massive conspiracy. Read that link.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. You are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of what is suggested by the actual evidence, not the rhetoric that creates beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues because they are the economy at every scale.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. You are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of what is suggested by the actual evidence, not the rhetoric that creates beliefs.

You dont force people to use it because 'one day' it'll be a contender.

You are conflating two completely different issues. Problems with forcing someone to use a certain tech says absolutely nothing about whether or not the technology is good or bad, or what the specific problems are with it.

Thats not a hybrid. Its a diesel powered vehicle with electric motors instead of a traditional drive train.

I stated explicitly "fewer batteries." That's a hybrid. I stated explicitly "the best of both worlds." Ignoring what I said to push an agenda is exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

Hand waving. State them.

I suggest "hand waving" is the pot calling the kettle black, but OK.

Pollution is a huge problem. Catalytic converter disposal is a huge problem (really just a subsection of pollution, but whatever). Have you ever been to a junkyard? The waste is incredible. Oil from cars gets into the water system. The production of gasoline is incredibly polluting. I could do this all day. Just because the CO2 narrative is (mostly) bullshit, doesn't make the pollution issues go away.

These are problems we haven't solved in 100 years of battery technology.

These are problems we have solved. There are many different types of batteries that don't really have any pollution issues at all and/or are infinitely recyclable. Li-ion, with their super high energy density are not among those battery types, so for EVs we haven't solved the problem (at least not in the public sphere). There is however all sorts of tech that has solved these problems, that could be applied to EVs, it just isn't allowed to be produced. When you read about "the next best thing" (solutions to the problems) there is always the caveat of "economies of scale" issues. However, once you appreciate there is only one corporation in the world, and that corporate monopoly doesn't want these problems to be solved, which keeps them purely in academia. That single corporation gives these solutions the "economies of scale" issues, you can appreciate why we actually have these problems.

All of your hand waving about PTB ignore the actual issues with battery driven EVs.

Read the link in the previous paragraph. It is completely obvious. No "ifs," "ands," or "buts" about it.

why should we adopt a crippled technology and suffer it's use just to make the PTB happy?

We shouldn't. NEVER ONCE DID I SUGGEST WE SHOULD. This is me calling foul on your statements. I am not saying "lets all drive EVs." I didn't imply it, I think that would be terrible. You are not being honest with your criticisms, and blowing everything far out of what is suggested by the actual evidence, not the rhetoric that creates beliefs.