On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>
>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>> step in and force it on them.
>>
>
> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
that voluntarily does this to himself.
-- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | We'll go down in history as the
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | first society that wouldn't save
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | itself because it wasn't cost-
/ \ if you read it the right way. | effective. -- Kurt Vonnegut

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:05:46 -0400
CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

> I found this article
> <https://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/29/read-carefully-before-you-retrofit-your-car-with-hydrogen-fuel-i/
> > which confirms that at the beginning of the 21st century, they really

It was an investment scam just like Brown's gas.

> thought that adding hydrogen to the burning process was going to
> increase efficiency. I remember, at the time, that ten-fold was the
> estimate.

Which should have been an instant red flag - internal combustion
engines are around 40% efficient so a ten-fold improvement would make them
400% efficient which is clearly absurd - even more so than Brown's gas.

> Apparently, the eventual tests determined that the hypothesis
> was wrong.

It was a scam.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/
For forms of government let fools contest
Whate're is best administered is best - Alexander Pope

On 05/08/2024 00:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
> but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
> for the teeming masses.

I have no argument with that. Renewable energy seems to be an attempt to
put the blame for failure to do that on 'climate change' or 'big oil'

So people die of cold and energy poverty, not of famine disease and war,
which is the traditional way.

But population will come down, because it *has* to.

Even with nuclear illuminated hydroponic tanks growing soylent green, it
is going to be hard to feed millennial snowflakes

Water and sewage are crucial issues in many parts of the world.

My thesis has never been that there was no problem, just that energy is
not a problem, It is entirely solvable. Just not with windmills and
sunbeam collectors

--
Labour - a bunch of rich people convincing poor people to vote for rich
people by telling poor people that "other" rich people are the reason
they are poor.

Peter Thompson

In comp.os.linux.advocacy D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: UTF-8, 58 lines --]
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 01/08/2024 20:56, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>> ?But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
>>> repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
>>> to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
>>> sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.
>>
>> No. as a true engineer I am aware that electric cars will not reduce
>> emissions one iota, *overall* and that carbon dioxide emissions are a minor
>> problem compared with trying to run a civilisation off windmills and solar
>> panels, as people like you will see if they continue to try and do it.
>
> This is the truth! If anyone here wants to look at the environmental
> impact of EV:s, a pro tip is to look at the entire life cycle from mine to
> parking lot to scrap heap.
>
> Add to that the fact that the source of the electricity is frequently
> ignored, and, that we have no good answer (yet) to large scale battery
> recycling.
>
> Another factor, is more soft, but that is the financial loss due to
> shorter range, longer charging times, and of course the expansion of the
> power grid and generation, if society as a whole would move to electric,
> which in europe (at least) is not feasible at the moment.

Of course the people prescribing a complete switch to EVs know full well
that no country can actually complete a full switch to EVs (let alone
while also switching to solar panels and windmills as the sole source
of power). But they don't really plan to do this. It's just a lie they
allow people to believe in order to prevent them from noticing what the
plan really is, which you seem to already know:

> Eco-fascism is a control tool, which is built like the medieval church
> with the intent of making the population hand over all power to
> eco-priests (politicians and corrupt scientists). Only they will allow you
> to attone for your sins by higher taxes and a medieval lifestyle, while
> they still travel with private jet.

This is the real plan. All Western countries already have bans on ICEs
in place, set to take effect in the distant future so people can be
gradually immiserated instead of thrust into complete poverty all of
a sudden. Obviously, the intent is to get the population to accept their
new lot in life without revolting. By the time life gets bad enough that
people want to revolt, they'll have no way to get to their countries'
capital cities, and they'll be too busy starving and freezing to have
any energy to put into a fight.

Of course, all of this depends on not too many people noticing what
the plan is too far ahead of time. It could be argued that too many
people already know for the plan to work. Let's hope that's the case,
or if it isn't, that enough people learn quickly enough to stop it.

On 2024-08-04 7:53 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>>>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>>>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>>>
>>> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>>>
>>> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
>>> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
>>> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
>>> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
>>> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
>>> of the real disaster.
>>
>> Global population is falling in many places.
>
> s/Global/Local/ - the global population is over 8 billion and rising
> fast, despite pockets where it has leveled off. And in those areas
> the politicians are having fits and trying to get it rising again.

The population of productive people (Whites, Asians) is leveling off.
Their rates of reproduction don't even cover replacement. The
populations that are increasing are those of lifelong parasites who
happen to be black or Muslim. It's not uncommon to see Muslims couples
with four or five children whereas the blacks are likely to have a dozen
children from different fathers.

>> we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.
>>
>> Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
>> the planet can sustain.
>
> That's my point. We have more people than we can reasonably handle
> already.

No, we don't. We have a ton of disposable people who will never produce
anything but will definitely take part in every riot. Those parasites
need Whites and Asians (the slanted eyes kind) to keep industry running
to feed their stupid asses. Get rid of those people, and overpopulation
is not an issue.

> No amount of conservation is going to help if population
> keeps rising as fast as the ruling classes want it to. It's simple
> math - cut per-capita consumption in half while doubling the population
> and you're right back where you started.
>
> Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
> but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
> for the teeming masses.

You can help stop overpopulation by refusing to send any kind of aid to
the continent of Africa. Most of its inhabitants can barely take care of
themselves but don't mind multiplying themselves a dozen times. They
won't take care of their children anyway because that's the White man's
responsibility, and they will gladly send their offspring to the West to
force that point.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 7:53 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>
> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
> step in and force it on them.

What did you brain-damaged hippies think was going to happen by voting
for Liberals, Greens and the NDP?

The British Columbian way: vote for the Communist, and if he doesn't do
a good job, vote for the other Communist. If that fails, there's another
Communist we can vote for!

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 10:43 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>>
>>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>>> step in and force it on them.
>>>
>>
>> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
>> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
>> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
>> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
>> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
>> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
>> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
>> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
>> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
>
> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
> that voluntarily does this to himself.
> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

Homo sapiens do it because their jobs are often located in a city's core
and no desirable properties are available anywhere near there at an
affordable price. The choice therefore becomes to buy a beautiful, large
home with lots of land in a rural area where the kind of job you want is
not available or to take the job downtown and live like a rat.

If the people living in this way were all productive members of society,
there would be no issue. However, the parasites of society also need a
place to live since they refuse even the simplest work and they insist
on being in the city, near where the welfare office is. Therefore, not
only are you living like a rat, but you live among actual rats who will
rob, rape and kill you.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-04 10:43 p.m., Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-08-05, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/4/24 16:53, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, Bobbie Sellers <blissInSanFrancisco@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> According to some population reseachers the population has
>>>> nearly reached peak and should show significant leveling off or
>>>> beginning to decline by 2100 if anyone is still alive.
>>>
>>> I hope you're right. Meanwhile, here in British Columbia the
>>> provincial government has ordered our most populous cities to
>>> rezone properties for increased density, or the province will
>>> step in and force it on them.
>>>
>>
>> Same thing in California. Exclusive towns for the horsey set
>> and gentlemen farmers are strongly resisting. But compromises must
>> be made to accommodate the oncoming hordes. San Francisco is doing
>> something to homeless encampments thanks to the SCOUSA decision
>> against allowing sleeping in public. Less than 300 contacts in the
>> first week so quality of contacts is up but still no sleeping
>> in public. So pull the wings of those compromised-by-MBA Boeing
>> planes and make them sleeping spaces. If any of those homeless
>> are verging on psychosis this might push them over the edge.
>
> Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in
> too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal
> that voluntarily does this to himself.
> -- Heinlein: The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
>
> I've been seeing a growing amount of psychosis around the world...

Homo sapiens do it because their jobs are often located in a city's core
and no desirable properties are available anywhere near there at an
affordable price. The choice therefore becomes to buy a beautiful, large
home with lots of land in a rural area where the kind of job you want is
not available or to take the job downtown and live like a rat.

If the people living in this way were all productive members of society,
there would be no issue. However, the parasites of society also need a
place to live since they refuse even the simplest work and they insist
on being in the city, near where the welfare office is. Therefore, not
only are you living like a rat, but you live among actual rats who will
rob, rape and kill you. Oh, and remember: these demons are all the same
race as you are... nothing distinguishes you from them at all.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-05 2:02 a.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:05:46 -0400
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>> I found this article
>> <https://www.autoblog.com/2008/08/29/read-carefully-before-you-retrofit-your-car-with-hydrogen-fuel-i/
>>> which confirms that at the beginning of the 21st century, they really
>
> It was an investment scam just like Brown's gas.
>
>> thought that adding hydrogen to the burning process was going to
>> increase efficiency. I remember, at the time, that ten-fold was the
>> estimate.
>
> Which should have been an instant red flag - internal combustion
> engines are around 40% efficient so a ten-fold improvement would make them
> 400% efficient which is clearly absurd - even more so than Brown's gas.
>
>> Apparently, the eventual tests determined that the hypothesis
>> was wrong.
>
> It was a scam.

Good to know, I'll stop holding my breath for this miracle to come
along. I'll stick to my gas engine.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-05 3:40 a.m., Sebastian wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Scott Alfter <scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us> wrote:
>>> In article <193f251e-a783-102b-188e-cf0e86340cb3@example.net>,
>>> D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jul 2024, Peter Flass wrote:
>>>>>>> confined to the man who takes care of a horse.
>>>>>> And leftists who believe that it is appropriate to talk about sex with
>>>>>> toddlers and have them participate in faggot parade festivities where
>>>>>> there are naked men rubbing against one another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This has nothing to do with Linux, linux advocacy or folklore about
>>>>>>> computers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It has everything to do with Linux now since Linux has been conquered by
>>>>>> these grooming, brain-damaged demons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh fuck off!
>>>>
>>>> Very powerful statement. Very powerful.
>>>
>>> It's indicative of the thought process of the average shitlib.
>>>
>>
>> Or the average sane person. Read my lips NO ONE CARES!
>
> If nobody cared, then every open-source project wouldn't have a
> CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md declaring the developers' fealty to degenerates and
> promising to dissasociate from any thought criminals who question The
> Message.

+1

> That was not an organic development. It was forced on the entire
> open-source community, and even Linus was forced to bow. It has impacted
> the quality of open-source software.

Some of us have noticed. For many, it's as good as ever; for others,
it's as bad as ever.

> We're no longer allowed to notice
> that some programmers are simply better than others. Even barely-skilled
> unteachable retards have to be treated like senior developers, and "best
> practices" have been adopted everywhere just to dumb everything down
> so morons can feel like they understand what's going on. And their shit-tier
> work gets into everything, even the kernel.

Hence why simple things like suspend are still an issue regardless of
what computer you decide to buy.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-05 5:10 a.m., Sebastian wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: UTF-8, 58 lines --]
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/08/2024 20:56, Bobbie Sellers wrote:
>>>> ?But the un-Natural Philospher is just a mindless
>>>> repeater of slurs, otherwise he would be paying attention
>>>> to real science and demanding more electric cars for the
>>>> sake of reducing climate changing emmissions.
>>>
>>> No. as a true engineer I am aware that electric cars will not reduce
>>> emissions one iota, *overall* and that carbon dioxide emissions are a minor
>>> problem compared with trying to run a civilisation off windmills and solar
>>> panels, as people like you will see if they continue to try and do it.
>>
>> This is the truth! If anyone here wants to look at the environmental
>> impact of EV:s, a pro tip is to look at the entire life cycle from mine to
>> parking lot to scrap heap.
>>
>> Add to that the fact that the source of the electricity is frequently
>> ignored, and, that we have no good answer (yet) to large scale battery
>> recycling.
>>
>> Another factor, is more soft, but that is the financial loss due to
>> shorter range, longer charging times, and of course the expansion of the
>> power grid and generation, if society as a whole would move to electric,
>> which in europe (at least) is not feasible at the moment.
>
> Of course the people prescribing a complete switch to EVs know full well
> that no country can actually complete a full switch to EVs (let alone
> while also switching to solar panels and windmills as the sole source
> of power). But they don't really plan to do this. It's just a lie they
> allow people to believe in order to prevent them from noticing what the
> plan really is, which you seem to already know:

The announcements they've made so far, such as the plan to stop selling
gas-powered vehicles by 2036, are no different than the announcements
they made regarding the COVID vaccines. "You must get vaccinated or else
you won't be able to frequent this restaurant," "you must get vaccinated
or else you won't be able to go to the supermarket." Those who call
their bluff and ignore every one of the announcements is likely to best
off by the end.

>> Eco-fascism is a control tool, which is built like the medieval church
>> with the intent of making the population hand over all power to
>> eco-priests (politicians and corrupt scientists). Only they will allow you
>> to attone for your sins by higher taxes and a medieval lifestyle, while
>> they still travel with private jet.
>
> This is the real plan. All Western countries already have bans on ICEs
> in place, set to take effect in the distant future so people can be
> gradually immiserated instead of thrust into complete poverty all of
> a sudden. Obviously, the intent is to get the population to accept their
> new lot in life without revolting. By the time life gets bad enough that
> people want to revolt, they'll have no way to get to their countries'
> capital cities, and they'll be too busy starving and freezing to have
> any energy to put into a fight.
>
> Of course, all of this depends on not too many people noticing what
> the plan is too far ahead of time. It could be argued that too many
> people already know for the plan to work. Let's hope that's the case,
> or if it isn't, that enough people learn quickly enough to stop it.

In training us to accept an unnecessary, useless and dangerous vaccine,
they actually unveiled their plan and showed us their cards. Ignore
every one of their threats and take them to court whenever they
overreach. They _will_ lose.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 5:46 a.m., D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-03 6:28 a.m., D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You mean cars that run on batteries whose production leaves a massive
>>>>> carbon footprint
>>>>> <https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22026518/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint>,
>>>>> which are only recycled at a rate of 1%
>>>>> <https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/lithium-costs-a-lot-of-money-so-why-arent-we-recycling-lithium-batteries/>,
>>>>> which spontaneous combust "rarely"
>>>>> <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-fires-electric-cars-bikes-scooters-firefighters/>
>>>>> and which are 79% less reliable than gas cars
>>>>> <https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2023/11/electric-vehicles-are-improving-but-charging-and-battery-issues-persist-in-consumer-reports-2023-annual-auto-reliability-survey/?msockid=287d4f79ae8b60c3236c5bb1afb0613d>.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, you are a ridiculous cretin.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sorry Bobby, I have analyzed the thread and it does in fact seem like
>>>> you are a ridiculous cretin. CrudeSausage is the clear winner here.
>>>
>>> Truth is the clear winner, not me.
>>
>> Can't you let a man troll in peace? ;)
>>
>>> When I was buying my first car in 2004 (late bloomer, I had a train
>>> station nearby that always brought me straight to university and work), I
>>> actually wanted a Prius. I had no interest in paying for gas because, at
>>> the time, I
>>
>> Last time I did the calculation, electric didn't even come close to the
>> economy of a gasoline car. Hyrbid was much closer.
>
> The Chevrolet Volt has the best idea, in my opinion. It's too bad that the
> company abandoned it. An electric car that can rely on a gasoline recharge
> whenever the battery is depleted makes the most sense. Hybrids are good too,
> but I think that what you get from a hybrid vehicle can be reproduced by
> simply injecting hydrogen to the burning process in a regular car.
> Apparently, it allows for fuel to be burned in its entirety, resulting in
> less pollution and a ten-fold improvement in efficiency.
>
> There is no way EVs could compete with such a solution.
>
>> I think today (many years later) the I could probably make a financial case
>> for a hybrid over gasoline, but would have to run the excel spreadsheet
>> again if I can find it.
>
> I just read that hybrids tend to be less reliable than traditional gasoline
> engines. I imagine it's the electric car of the car which causes the greatest
> number of issues.
>
>>> didn't want to enrich Arabs. That's when I started doing a lot of research
>>> on hybrid and electric cars and started realizing the pitfalls of having
>>> one.
>>>
>>> A lot of people love their electric cars, but a lot of people love their
>>> unreliable Jeeps too. I remember reading one article where a guy's Tesla
>>
>> It's marketing and virtue signalling. I find it hilarious when I debate
>> climate hysterics that they have an iphone worth 1000 USD and I have a
>> button phone worth 50 USD. In addition, I keep mine until it breaks, while
>> they somehow find the money to buy a new smart phone every 2-3 years.
>>
>> Isn't consumption supposed to damage the planet? ;)
>>
>> Marketing and virtue signalling. Creating a need where there is none.
>
> Funny enough, I got an iPhone specifically because it gets at least five
> years of support from the manufacturer. I wanted to avoid having a phone
> which would become insecure two years from purchase, and I also wanted to
> avoid constantly replacing it.
>

My modus operandi is to not store anything sensitive on my phone. ;) Maybe
apple has wisened up and will focus more on longer lasting models, and
fewer releases. That would be true green, and not green washing.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 5:50 a.m., D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-03 6:36 a.m., D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work because
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there (because we
>>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves cease
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> times when the grid is underutiliosed and electricity is cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you drive
>>>>> as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive the same
>>>>> kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a charging
>>>>> station?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's also add that it is very entitled to assume that everyone just have
>>>> a house so they can charge overnight. Many people in the world live in
>>>> apartments, which makes this impossible.
>>>
>>> Great point. The time when housing was still affordable has passed. Here
>>> in Quebec, a person coming out university and landing a job with a starter
>>> salary might have been able to afford a house in some distant suburb a few
>>> years ago, but even those distant homes now have unreasonable prices. It
>>> wouldn't be a problem if our government wasn't trying to convince us that
>>> there is a labour shortage (there isn't) and that we need a ton of
>>> immigrants (legal or illegal) to solve it. Instead, we have lots of
>>> useless people coming in who need to live somewhere, the government
>>> expects them to help build homes but they are wholly incapable of even
>>> hitting a nail into a plank of wood. Even if they were capable of doing
>>> something other than sticking their hand out for money, stabbing or raping
>>> people, the construction companies which would have been willing to build
>>> these homes aren't willing to do it with the restrictive costs of
>>> materials today. If they build, it will be homes for the rich where they
>>> can make a profit, but the government needs homes for the wretched where
>>> there is no money to be made. The result is that more parasites come in
>>> looking for a handout, they get money from the taxpayer merely for
>>> existing, and they band together with other cockroaches to buy whatever
>>> shithole they can in whatever distant municipality that will have them.
>>> They'll put twenty families into a small home if they have to as long as
>>> they can stay and prevent a _working_ couple from getting that modest
>>> home.
>>>
>>
>> Fear not! Let yourselves be inspired by swedens unregulated and
>> unrestricted immigration! ;) This created many new millionaires among the
>> socialist party, because the government would pay for the immigrants to
>> live somewhere, so crafty socialists started immigration housing companies
>> extracting millions and millions of dollars from the government for
>> something which should not have happened in the first place.
>>
>> But this is very common in sweden.
>>
>> When they privatized schools (which was a wise decision) over night, plenty
>> of socialist politicians popped up in school company boards getting nice
>> extra salaries on top of their party salaries, and on top of the parliament
>> salary (which is corruption and should have landed them in prison).
>>
>> When it comes to the housing situation in Stockholm, a new graduate from
>> univeristy would not be able to afford a small 1 room apartment á 25 m^2 in
>> the city center without parents helping out with the cash needed and with
>> the security for loans.
>>
>> I think, if you work hard, that it should be possible to save for a
>> 1 room apartment in about 4-5 years or so if you don't live too freely.
>
> In exchange for the money they made, those same people have doomed their
> country into becoming yet another dysfunctional Islamic state. It might not
> happen immediately, but Sweden will be unrecognizable in the next two
> decades. Their culture will disappear, replaced by some generic Muslim one.
> Women will be unable and unwilling to go out at night at all, during the day
> they will be forced to wear a headdress (even if they aren't Muslim) for fear
> of being raped or killed, and anyone White will need to carry a weapon for
> fear of being attacked by a handful of Muslims. The same is already happening
> to France, Belgium and England, and now Ireland is joining in on the fun.

Well, within 2 generations I don't think it will be that bad. I think
within 2 generations what will happen is that the country will split into
parallell parts. Gated communities of whites, and open communities of
moslems.

For a while the whites will have the good jobs, thanks to the blessings of
gentrification, the well off will have a minimum of interactions with
moslems. The lower classes on the other hand, will increasingly experience
what you say, since they will be forced to interact with them.

Based on what I have been reading and what I think, this will push people
into three ways. Despair, assimilation (I've read about young blonde
swedish kids dying their hair black and learning to speak "ghetto-swedish"
and basic arabic in order not to get beat up), and fight (there will be
night watchmen and mobs beating arabians to death when possible).

During this time, it will then be very interesting to see if the moslems
manage to capture the political power (a moslem political party already
exists and it is growing) or if the far, far right will eventually manage
to capture power. And from there the country will either become moslem, or
the far right will do some kind of Hitler play.

> I've worked with these people and taught their kids. They are not here to
> integrate; they are here to conquer.

Oh yes... conquering and squashing all opposition is at the core of islam.
I find it so cute that western woke politicians are not aware of this and
believe that islamd can be made into the tame "democratic" ideology. Boy
are they wrong!

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

> On 2024-08-04 5:51 a.m., D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-03 6:40 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>> On 03/08/2024 08:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:49:30 -0400
>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work because
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there (because we
>>>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves cease
>>>>>>>> to work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> times when the grid is underutilised and electricity is cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you drive
>>>>>
>>>>>     I don't go on road trips, that's a peculiarly American thing. The
>>>>> longest journey I make (rarely) is about 350km of driving, most current
>>>>> EVs
>>>>> can easily do that on a charge. I wouldn't want to drive more than that
>>>>> in a day and then only for one day but if I was going to I'd be planning
>>>>> rest stops at places with chargers thus recharging self and car at the
>>>>> same
>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>>> as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive the same
>>>>>> kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a charging
>>>>>> station?
>>>>>
>>>>>     Obviously when away from home it is usually necessary to depend
>>>>> on the charging network (unless you're staying somewhere with a charger
>>>>> or
>>>>> can use a "granny cable") but "charging station" not so much. I see
>>>>> chargers in supermarket, shopping centre, hotel and municipal car parks
>>>>> as
>>>>> well as motorway service stations. I rarely see all of the chargers in
>>>>> use
>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>     The thing is that long journets are the exception not the norm,
>>>>> most of the time most cars travel less than 100 miles per day which
>>>>> means
>>>>> that overnight charging easily keeps them full and even quite small
>>>>> batteries suffice. A great many people were happy with the original
>>>>> Nissan
>>>>> Leaf with its 24kWh battery and 120km range (on a good day) - with an EV
>>>>> that limited I'd hire a car for long journeys and still come out way
>>>>> ahead
>>>>> on driving costs - 2c/km instead of 10c/km in fuel costs and much
>>>>> cheaper
>>>>> services (there's usually nothing to do but check everything in an EV
>>>>> service).
>>>>>
>>>>>     EVs have only two serious downsides - they're expensive to buy and
>>>>> they depreciate quickly at first because the new models are always much
>>>>> better every year. These are good reasons not to buy a *new* EV, second
>>>>> hand ones are getting interesting.
>>>>>
>>>> Evs have no upsides at all. Not really.
>>>> Even fuel cost will be forced to rise on account of them not paying fuel
>>>> duty
>>>>
>>>> The answer is in the sales figures of tthe major EV manufacturers. People
>>>> are stinging away on droves.
>>>
>>> The local news just announced that our rates are going to increase 3%
>>> every year to make up for demand. The 3% seems low until you realize that
>>> is the maximum legal amount they can charge since our production is owned
>>> by the state. If they could raise prices by 10 or 20%, they would.
>>>
>>> It's just a matter of time before charging your EV will cost more than
>>> gassing your car. To hippies, this won't matter because they will still be
>>> "saving the planet" even though they never consider where that battery
>>> goes after it is depleted (it's never recycled), where the CAR goes after
>>> it is obsolete (its parts are never recycled because doing so is lethal),
>>> and how much they polluted the environment simply building the car in the
>>> first place.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Add to that the fact that the whole in the public budget, when people are
>> no longer getting taxed by the gas pump, is going to shift to EV charging.
>>
>> I think the gasoline tax in sweden is 50%. I would expect this to shift
>> over to electricity once enough people switch, which will hopefully only
>> happen in 20-30 years or so.
>
> They will sell it as necessary to pay for the power plants they will need to
> build to produce the electricity needed for the multitude of things connected
> to the grid. Computers, televisions, phones and cars, everything will be
> connected to the grid owned by the government. If the population becomes too
> rowdy, they will produce a little less; if the population goes along with
> their plans, they will produce a little more.
>

Another fun political play at the moment (actually there are two) which I
am fairly certain will end in complete disaster is:

1. North volt. The attempt to build the worlds biggest battery company.
They have taken in billions and billions from the investors, including the
government of sweden, and swedish municipalities, and have not earned a
dime. As china ramps up, there is no way in h*ll that they will be able to
produce batteries at the came cost as china, especially since china and
russia are dividing up africa between themselves as we speak. Also note
that taxes and labour laws are so prohibitively strict in sweden that
china again has the advantage, even if sweden had the raw materials.

2. Green steel. I don't remember the name of the project, but I think SSAB
or some other steel company are going to produce "green steel" in northern
sweden to revolutionize the world. The problem? They need an _entire
nuclear power plant_ only for that production since it uses ridiculous
amounts of energy to produce it. So before they can do that, sweden needs
to give them a powerplant, _and_ the infrastructure to transmit the power,
and even then, the cost will be ridiculous. This is hailed as a messiah
project and the government and municipalities are investing millions and
possibly billions since this will obviously be the new green gold!

I predict that both project will fail within 10 years. Well, the green
steel ones probably will not even have started in 10 years, since a
nuclear reactor is at least 10 years away, if not closer to 20.

Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:

>I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage of the
>times when the grid is underutiliosed and electricity is cheap.

Most do *now*, because almost every EV owner has A) a home with a
off-street parking and B) another, gas-powered vehicle in the family
that can be used for longer trips.

Learn how to think!

CrudeSausage wrote:

>It's not unusual to see
>ten or twenty-year-old gas-powered cars on the road. Meanwhile, your
>electric car, once it's ten, becomes completely useless because nobody
>will be willing to pay the $10,000 or more to replace the battery in
>addition to what it costs just to buy the used car.

Good point. I hadn't thought of that.

"We're saving the planet now!" Not!

On 2024-08-05 7:25 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04 5:46 a.m., D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-08-03 6:28 a.m., D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean cars that run on batteries whose production leaves a
>>>>>> massive carbon footprint
>>>>>> <https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/article/22026518/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon-footprint>, which are only recycled at a rate of 1% <https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/04/lithium-costs-a-lot-of-money-so-why-arent-we-recycling-lithium-batteries/>, which spontaneous combust "rarely" <https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lithium-ion-battery-fires-electric-cars-bikes-scooters-firefighters/> and which are 79% less reliable than gas cars <https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2023/11/electric-vehicles-are-improving-but-charging-and-battery-issues-persist-in-consumer-reports-2023-annual-auto-reliability-survey/?msockid=287d4f79ae8b60c3236c5bb1afb0613d>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again, you are a ridiculous cretin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry Bobby, I have analyzed the thread and it does in fact seem like
>>>>> you are a ridiculous cretin. CrudeSausage is the clear winner here.
>>>>
>>>> Truth is the clear winner, not me.
>>>
>>> Can't you let a man troll in peace? ;)
>>>
>>>> When I was buying my first car in 2004 (late bloomer, I had a train
>>>> station nearby that always brought me straight to university and
>>>> work), I actually wanted a Prius. I had no interest in paying for
>>>> gas because, at the time, I
>>>
>>> Last time I did the calculation, electric didn't even come close to
>>> the economy of a gasoline car. Hyrbid was much closer.
>>
>> The Chevrolet Volt has the best idea, in my opinion. It's too bad that
>> the company abandoned it. An electric car that can rely on a gasoline
>> recharge whenever the battery is depleted makes the most sense.
>> Hybrids are good too, but I think that what you get from a hybrid
>> vehicle can be reproduced by simply injecting hydrogen to the burning
>> process in a regular car. Apparently, it allows for fuel to be burned
>> in its entirety, resulting in less pollution and a ten-fold
>> improvement in efficiency.
>>
>> There is no way EVs could compete with such a solution.
>>
>>> I think today (many years later) the I could probably make a
>>> financial case for a hybrid over gasoline, but would have to run the
>>> excel spreadsheet again if I can find it.
>>
>> I just read that hybrids tend to be less reliable than traditional
>> gasoline engines. I imagine it's the electric car of the car which
>> causes the greatest number of issues.
>>
>>>> didn't want to enrich Arabs. That's when I started doing a lot of
>>>> research on hybrid and electric cars and started realizing the
>>>> pitfalls of having one.
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people love their electric cars, but a lot of people love
>>>> their unreliable Jeeps too. I remember reading one article where a
>>>> guy's Tesla
>>>
>>> It's marketing and virtue signalling. I find it hilarious when I
>>> debate climate hysterics that they have an iphone worth 1000 USD and
>>> I have a button phone worth 50 USD. In addition, I keep mine until it
>>> breaks, while they somehow find the money to buy a new smart phone
>>> every 2-3 years.
>>>
>>> Isn't consumption supposed to damage the planet? ;)
>>>
>>> Marketing and virtue signalling. Creating a need where there is none.
>>
>> Funny enough, I got an iPhone specifically because it gets at least
>> five years of support from the manufacturer. I wanted to avoid having
>> a phone which would become insecure two years from purchase, and I
>> also wanted to avoid constantly replacing it.
>>
>
> My modus operandi is to not store anything sensitive on my phone. ;)
> Maybe apple has wisened up and will focus more on longer lasting models,
> and fewer releases. That would be true green, and not green washing.

Before I got the iPhone 13, I was an Android user. I only switched over
to it because I was annoyed at how the LG G6 ThinQ I had benefited from
no more than two years worth of updates. I was using Google Pay to buy
things in the store and was getting notifications that the security it
outdated. Unfortunately, there was nothing I could do about the security
since LG stopped giving a poop and it didn't look like the handset was
supported by open-source projects. Upgrading was my only option if I
wanted to continue enjoying the benefits of paying through a phone.
After doing some research, it looked like Apple's devices got five years
worth of updates versus the two Android ones got. The choice became
pretty clear.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-05 7:33 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04 5:50 a.m., D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-08-03 6:36 a.m., D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work
>>>>>>>> because not
>>>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there
>>>>>>>> (because we
>>>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves
>>>>>>>> cease to
>>>>>>>> work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> times when the grid is underutiliosed and electricity is cheap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you
>>>>>> drive as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive
>>>>>> the same kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a
>>>>>> charging station?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's also add that it is very entitled to assume that everyone
>>>>> just have a house so they can charge overnight. Many people in the
>>>>> world live in apartments, which makes this impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Great point. The time when housing was still affordable has passed.
>>>> Here in Quebec, a person coming out university and landing a job
>>>> with a starter salary might have been able to afford a house in some
>>>> distant suburb a few years ago, but even those distant homes now
>>>> have unreasonable prices. It wouldn't be a problem if our government
>>>> wasn't trying to convince us that there is a labour shortage (there
>>>> isn't) and that we need a ton of immigrants (legal or illegal) to
>>>> solve it. Instead, we have lots of useless people coming in who need
>>>> to live somewhere, the government expects them to help build homes
>>>> but they are wholly incapable of even hitting a nail into a plank of
>>>> wood. Even if they were capable of doing something other than
>>>> sticking their hand out for money, stabbing or raping people, the
>>>> construction companies which would have been willing to build these
>>>> homes aren't willing to do it with the restrictive costs of
>>>> materials today. If they build, it will be homes for the rich where
>>>> they can make a profit, but the government needs homes for the
>>>> wretched where there is no money to be made. The result is that more
>>>> parasites come in looking for a handout, they get money from the
>>>> taxpayer merely for existing, and they band together with other
>>>> cockroaches to buy whatever shithole they can in whatever distant
>>>> municipality that will have them. They'll put twenty families into a
>>>> small home if they have to as long as they can stay and prevent a
>>>> _working_ couple from getting that modest home.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fear not! Let yourselves be inspired by swedens unregulated and
>>> unrestricted immigration! ;) This created many new millionaires among
>>> the socialist party, because the government would pay for the
>>> immigrants to live somewhere, so crafty socialists started
>>> immigration housing companies extracting millions and millions of
>>> dollars from the government for something which should not have
>>> happened in the first place.
>>>
>>> But this is very common in sweden.
>>>
>>> When they privatized schools (which was a wise decision) over night,
>>> plenty of socialist politicians popped up in school company boards
>>> getting nice extra salaries on top of their party salaries, and on
>>> top of the parliament salary (which is corruption and should have
>>> landed them in prison).
>>>
>>> When it comes to the housing situation in Stockholm, a new graduate
>>> from univeristy would not be able to afford a small 1 room apartment
>>> á 25 m^2 in the city center without parents helping out with the cash
>>> needed and with the security for loans.
>>>
>>> I think, if you work hard, that it should be possible to save for a
>>> 1 room apartment in about 4-5 years or so if you don't live too freely.
>>
>> In exchange for the money they made, those same people have doomed
>> their country into becoming yet another dysfunctional Islamic state.
>> It might not happen immediately, but Sweden will be unrecognizable in
>> the next two decades. Their culture will disappear, replaced by some
>> generic Muslim one. Women will be unable and unwilling to go out at
>> night at all, during the day they will be forced to wear a headdress
>> (even if they aren't Muslim) for fear of being raped or killed, and
>> anyone White will need to carry a weapon for fear of being attacked by
>> a handful of Muslims. The same is already happening to France, Belgium
>> and England, and now Ireland is joining in on the fun.
>
> Well, within 2 generations I don't think it will be that bad. I think
> within 2 generations what will happen is that the country will split
> into parallell parts. Gated communities of whites, and open communities
> of moslems.
>
> For a while the whites will have the good jobs, thanks to the blessings
> of gentrification, the well off will have a minimum of interactions with
> moslems. The lower classes on the other hand, will increasingly
> experience what you say, since they will be forced to interact with them.
>
> Based on what I have been reading and what I think, this will push
> people into three ways. Despair, assimilation (I've read about young
> blonde swedish kids dying their hair black and learning to speak
> "ghetto-swedish" and basic arabic in order not to get beat up), and
> fight (there will be night watchmen and mobs beating arabians to death
> when possible).
>
> During this time, it will then be very interesting to see if the moslems
> manage to capture the political power (a moslem political party already
> exists and it is growing) or if the far, far right will eventually
> manage to capture power. And from there the country will either become
> moslem, or the far right will do some kind of Hitler play.

I spent the last five years teaching in an area of Montreal where the
student population is mostly Muslim. Any students who didn't worship the
murderous pedophile were Moldovan, Latin American or Haitian. Both the
Latin American and Haitian students felt comfortable going to the school
because their numbers were large enough that they could always find a
buddy. However, Whites were very visibly uncomfortable in that school.
They kept their heads down and their mouths mostly shut because if you
weren't going to be attacked by the negroes, you were going to be
attacked by members of the religion of peace. They took a great liking
to me because I was their first line of defense: the aforementioned
communities don't scare me whatsoever so when they do something even
slightly objectionable, I take pleasure in making their lives miserable.
I also took great pleasure in showing music videos and PG-13 content to
my classes, stuff that the Muslims consider "haram." I regularly told
them very clearly that their religion has zero influence over my
teaching, that I will not adapt to them whatsoever, that the state
doesn't require me to adapt and that it is up to them to integrate.

>> I've worked with these people and taught their kids. They are not here
>> to integrate; they are here to conquer.
>
> Oh yes... conquering and squashing all opposition is at the core of
> islam. I find it so cute that western woke politicians are not aware of
> this and believe that islamd can be made into the tame "democratic"
> ideology. Boy are they wrong!

On 2024-08-05 7:38 a.m., D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> On 2024-08-04 5:51 a.m., D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-08-03 6:40 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On 03/08/2024 08:11, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:49:30 -0400
>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-02 1:50 p.m., Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 12:57:36 -0400
>>>>>>>> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Power lines aren't the problem, you ridiculous cretin. Power
>>>>>>>>> _production_ is the problem. There is no shortage of videos of
>>>>>>>>> electric
>>>>>>>>> cars owners lined up to the few charging stations that work
>>>>>>>>> because not
>>>>>>>>> only is there not enough electricity being produced there
>>>>>>>>> (because we
>>>>>>>>> had to close coal factories after all), the stations themselves
>>>>>>>>> cease
>>>>>>>>> to work and nobody is ever around to fix them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>     I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>>>>>>>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking
>>>>>>>> advantage of the
>>>>>>>> times when the grid is underutilised and electricity is cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what do you do when you're on a road trip, pray tell? Do you
>>>>>>> drive
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     I don't go on road trips, that's a peculiarly American thing. The
>>>>>> longest journey I make (rarely) is about 350km of driving, most
>>>>>> current EVs
>>>>>> can easily do that on a charge. I wouldn't want to drive more than
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> in a day and then only for one day but if I was going to I'd be
>>>>>> planning
>>>>>> rest stops at places with chargers thus recharging self and car at
>>>>>> the same
>>>>>> time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as many kilometres you can, come back home to charge, drive the same
>>>>>>> kilometres and come back home to charge? Or do you use a charging
>>>>>>> station?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Obviously when away from home it is usually necessary to depend
>>>>>> on the charging network (unless you're staying somewhere with a
>>>>>> charger or
>>>>>> can use a "granny cable") but "charging station" not so much. I see
>>>>>> chargers in supermarket, shopping centre, hotel and municipal car
>>>>>> parks as
>>>>>> well as motorway service stations. I rarely see all of the
>>>>>> chargers in use
>>>>>> anywhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     The thing is that long journets are the exception not the norm,
>>>>>> most of the time most cars travel less than 100 miles per day
>>>>>> which means
>>>>>> that overnight charging easily keeps them full and even quite small
>>>>>> batteries suffice. A great many people were happy with the
>>>>>> original Nissan
>>>>>> Leaf with its 24kWh battery and 120km range (on a good day) - with
>>>>>> an EV
>>>>>> that limited I'd hire a car for long journeys and still come out
>>>>>> way ahead
>>>>>> on driving costs - 2c/km instead of 10c/km in fuel costs and much
>>>>>> cheaper
>>>>>> services (there's usually nothing to do but check everything in an EV
>>>>>> service).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     EVs have only two serious downsides - they're expensive to buy
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> they depreciate quickly at first because the new models are always
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> better every year. These are good reasons not to buy a *new* EV,
>>>>>> second
>>>>>> hand ones are getting interesting.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Evs have no upsides at all. Not really.
>>>>> Even fuel cost will be forced to rise on account of them not paying
>>>>> fuel duty
>>>>>
>>>>> The answer is in the sales figures of tthe major EV manufacturers.
>>>>> People are stinging away on droves.
>>>>
>>>> The local news just announced that our rates are going to increase
>>>> 3% every year to make up for demand. The 3% seems low until you
>>>> realize that is the maximum legal amount they can charge since our
>>>> production is owned by the state. If they could raise prices by 10
>>>> or 20%, they would.
>>>>
>>>> It's just a matter of time before charging your EV will cost more
>>>> than gassing your car. To hippies, this won't matter because they
>>>> will still be "saving the planet" even though they never consider
>>>> where that battery goes after it is depleted (it's never recycled),
>>>> where the CAR goes after it is obsolete (its parts are never
>>>> recycled because doing so is lethal), and how much they polluted the
>>>> environment simply building the car in the first place.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Add to that the fact that the whole in the public budget, when people
>>> are no longer getting taxed by the gas pump, is going to shift to EV
>>> charging.
>>>
>>> I think the gasoline tax in sweden is 50%. I would expect this to
>>> shift over to electricity once enough people switch, which will
>>> hopefully only happen in 20-30 years or so.
>>
>> They will sell it as necessary to pay for the power plants they will
>> need to build to produce the electricity needed for the multitude of
>> things connected to the grid. Computers, televisions, phones and cars,
>> everything will be connected to the grid owned by the government. If
>> the population becomes too rowdy, they will produce a little less; if
>> the population goes along with their plans, they will produce a little
>> more.
>>
>
> Another fun political play at the moment (actually there are two) which
> I am fairly certain will end in complete disaster is:
>
> 1. North volt. The attempt to build the worlds biggest battery company.
> They have taken in billions and billions from the investors, including
> the government of sweden, and swedish municipalities, and have not
> earned a dime. As china ramps up, there is no way in h*ll that they will
> be able to produce batteries at the came cost as china, especially since
> china and russia are dividing up africa between themselves as we speak.
> Also note that taxes and labour laws are so prohibitively strict in
> sweden that china again has the advantage, even if sweden had the raw
> materials.
>
> 2. Green steel. I don't remember the name of the project, but I think
> SSAB or some other steel company are going to produce "green steel" in
> northern sweden to revolutionize the world. The problem? They need an
> _entire nuclear power plant_ only for that production since it uses
> ridiculous amounts of energy to produce it. So before they can do that,
> sweden needs to give them a powerplant, _and_ the infrastructure to
> transmit the power, and even then, the cost will be ridiculous. This is
> hailed as a messiah project and the government and municipalities are
> investing millions and possibly billions since this will obviously be
> the new green gold!
>
> I predict that both project will fail within 10 years. Well, the green
> steel ones probably will not even have started in 10 years, since a
> nuclear reactor is at least 10 years away, if not closer to 20.

All "green" projects always end up being a disaster. If I'm wrong, I
invite anyone to point to one such project that actually made a profit
and continues to succeed to this day. I won't be holding my breath though.

On 2024-08-05 8:00 a.m., chrisv wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to keep out of this but Oh boy that is priceless
>> garbage! Most EV owners charge at home overnight taking advantage of the
>> times when the grid is underutiliosed and electricity is cheap.
>
> Most do *now*, because almost every EV owner has A) a home with a
> off-street parking and B) another, gas-powered vehicle in the family
> that can be used for longer trips.
>
> Learn how to think!

Where I live now, I am located a ten-minute drive or where I used to
live until I was 14-years-old. In that area, most homes are duplexes or
triplexes and you get exactly one parking spot. If you have that spot
and have an EV-charger installed, that's great. Otherwise, you have to
park your car on the street. However, I notice that on at least the main
boulevard, they installed EV chargers along the centre allowing people
without reserved parking spots to charge their EVs if they choose to do
so. One problem remains: there aren't enough chargers or even spaces for
chargers if everyone were to have an EV. Hopefully, those owners don't
need to charge every day.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On 2024-08-05 8:03 a.m., chrisv wrote:
> CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>> It's not unusual to see
>> ten or twenty-year-old gas-powered cars on the road. Meanwhile, your
>> electric car, once it's ten, becomes completely useless because nobody
>> will be willing to pay the $10,000 or more to replace the battery in
>> addition to what it costs just to buy the used car.
>
> Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
>
> "We're saving the planet now!" Not!

A counterargument can be made in that when a gas-powered car reaches ten
years of age, it will likely require the replacement of a transmission.
If you own an Infiniti, as an example, their transmissions are CVT and
can't be repaired. If yours wasn't maintained properly, it will require
a replacement which will cost a minimum of around $7k.

However, most cars don't use a CVT and in the case of Toyota and Honda,
their CVTs can go two decades without requiring any kind of expensive
intervention. This is never going to be the case with an EV. At ten
years, no matter who you bought your EV from, that car is likely to be
parked in a graveyard until it rusts away naturally... which will
probably take a while since most cars are now using galvanized steel.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged demonic groomers

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, CrudeSausage wrote:

>> This is an interesting question from a survivalist point of view. Is it
>> possible to hook up your EV to solar panels?
>
> I'm going by what I learned from the 8-bit guy but I believe you will first
> have to connect the solar panels to your existing grid which will then supply
> the charging station. However, the amount of electricity produced by the
> solar panel is a fraction of what the electric car needs to charge. If it
> takes 24 hours for an EV to charge using a standard 110v outlet, you'd be
> looking at days with solar. I think it's possible to connect it directly
> using the equipment that is sold to you when you buy the panels, but the rate
> would still be too slow to be useful.

I'm not so sure. It would depends on the nr of panels you have, and the
amount of sunshine you get, where you live, on average.

In northern europe, it is completely feasible to supply a full home with
electricity between march and october if you have several panels.

Also during winter, there's a small trickle, but I doubt it would be
enough to produce anything worth while so that would have to be done by
wind, or ironically, some kind of gas/diesel driven generator. ;)

Occasionally you see enthusiasts who manage to get hold of old submarine
batteries and bury them on their land plot, and charge them during the
summer to use them during the winter.

I have also found this:

https://deepresource.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/cesar-seasonal-energy-storage-in-basalt/

But then we are of course moving far, far away from any tough
survivalist scenario. ;)

>> Given the right equipment I'd say yes. That still leaves the problem of
>> what to do during winter in the northern hemisphere, so I imagine that wind
>> or your own built hydro might be necessary there.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Those solutions are all based on components which you cannot manufacture
>> yourself.
>>
>> Now... let's look at the other side, producing fuel from vegetable oil or
>> mix of alcohol. What would be needed in terms of raw materials and in terms
>> of technology to make that happen?
>
> For biodiesel (the vegetable oil solution), from ThoughtCo
> <https://www.thoughtco.com/make-biodiesel-from-vegetable-oil-605975#:~:text=Biodiesel%20is%20a%20diesel%20fuel%20that%20is%20made,the%20result%20is%20a%20less-expensive%2C%20renewable%2C%20clean-burning%20fuel.>
>
> 1 liter of new vegetable oil (e.g., canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil)
>
> 3.5 grams (0.12 ounces) sodium hydroxide (also known as lye). Sodium
> hydroxide is used for some drain cleaners. The label should state that the
> product contains sodium hydroxide (not calcium hypochlorite, which is found
> in many other drain cleaners).
>
> 200 milliliters (6.8 fluid ounces) of methanol (methyl alcohol). Heet fuel
> treatment is methanol. Be sure the label says the product contains methanol
> (Iso-Heet, for example, contains isopropyl alcohol and won't work).
>
> Blender with a low-speed option. The pitcher for the blender is to be used
> only for making biodiesel. You want to use one made from glass, not plastic
> because the methanol you will use can react with plastic.
>
> Digital scale to accurately measure 3.5 grams, which equals 0.12 ounces
>
> Glass container marked for 200 milliliters (6.8 fluid ounces). If you don't
> have a beaker, measure the volume using a measuring cup, pour it into a glass
> jar, then mark the fill-line on the outside of the jar.
>
> Glass or plastic container that is marked for 1 liter (1.1 quarts)
> Widemouthed glass or plastic container that will hold at least 1.5 liters
> (2-quart pitcher works well)
>
> Safety glasses, gloves, and an (optional) apron

Ahh... not that difficult! I thought it was going to be way more
complicated than that. I think we have a winner for a tough survivalist
scenario here in terms of lessening the depdendence on technology and
its associated components.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 04/08/2024 11:16, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>> It is socially impossible to build anything like enough nuclear
>> plants to get off fossil fuels. There are also questions about how long the
>> available nuclear fuels will last - suffice it to say that estimates vary
>> even more wildly than those about how long the oil will last.
>
> This is actually not so
>
> The total energy consumption of Great Brtiain, *including* indiustrial and
> transport use of gas an oil, could be covered by somewhere between 100 and
> 300 medium sized nuclear plants.
>
> Its hard to be more definite than that, on account of not knowing how the
> market for energy would change cased with a high differential between nuclear
> electricity and say synthetic gas.
>
> That is not a huge number of power stations and it would cover less land area
> than existing wind farms.
>
> The current contribution to energy cost of the raw uranium is now around
> $0.001c per kWh.
>
> That means the price of nuclear electricity is very insensitive to the price
> of uranium, which is currently around $50/lb.
>
> A Japanese study calculated that to access the 4 billion tonnes of Uranium in
> seawater could be done at $200/lb, so would be viable if there was no other
> option.
> As uranium prices rise the viability of reprocessing increases. And also of
> breeder reactors and the use of thorium.
>
> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile and
> fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a current
> western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>
> Which should be long enough to make fusion work.
>
> So neither of your arguments stack up in the face of reality.
>
> The greater risk is that we will run out of v cheap fossil fuels required to
> kickstart nuclear power having wasted it all building windmills and solar
> panels
>
> Oh and the current lie that we will need 'nuclear AND renewables' is utter
> bollocks.,
> Once you have nuclear there is no reason to build a single solar or wind farm
> ever again
> And the renewable advocates know this.
>
> They are the NIMBYS.
>
> They want you to buy windmills, instead.
>

Also note that there is the way of thorium, as well as reusing current
spent fuel in modern reactors, which would again, buy us 100s of 100s of
years before we would have to do anything about it, which will be ample
time (if you are an optimist) for science to work its magic.

And yes, I do know that this is not something that can be done _today_,
but it is within the realm of the possible within a decade or so would be
my guesstimate.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/08/2024 18:10, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-08-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For what its worth Sir David Mackay calculated there was enough fissile
>>>> and fertile material on the earth to keep the existing population on a
>>>> current western lifestyle for 10,000 years
>>>
>>> Existing population when? Now? Or... now?
>>>
>>> Up until recently, global population was doubling about every 40 years.
>>> This wasn't enough for many politicians, who view a stable population
>>> as a major disaster. In some areas, they've gotten the doubling time
>>> down to 25 years. Nothing we can do will keep up with exponential
>>> growth, and encouraging still more growth will only hasten the coming
>>> of the real disaster.
>>
>> Global population is falling in many places.
>
> s/Global/Local/ - the global population is over 8 billion and rising
> fast, despite pockets where it has leveled off. And in those areas
> the politicians are having fits and trying to get it rising again.
>
>> we are not limited by energy, but by agriculture and water resources.
>>
>> Do9nt be hand-wavey. Look at te facts. This is about as many humans as
>> the planet can sustain.
>
> That's my point. We have more people than we can reasonably handle
> already. No amount of conservation is going to help if population
> keeps rising as fast as the ruling classes want it to. It's simple
> math - cut per-capita consumption in half while doubling the population
> and you're right back where you started.
>
> Nuclear might solve our energy problems - in the near term at least -
> but you still need to find food, water, and living space (Lebensraum?)
> for the teeming masses.
>

Note that living space is also not a constraining factor. Water
desalination is dependent on energy, so solve energy and you solve water.

In terms of agriculture, we are currently in a process of global greening,
so we will be able to get bigger harvests. Add to that all the interesting
science surrounding GMO, better chemicals, fertilizers, perhaps farming
the ocean floor etc. and there is no need to worry.

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>> Lacking that, I think perhaps that the people who do not like the
>> direction of linux might rally behind one of the BSDs. The problem there
>> is the HW support, but that could in theory be improved with more money
>> and more funded developers.
>
> I don't think the BSDs get much money/helpers. That
> COULD change, esp if Linux decomposes like we kinda
> expect.
>
> But would the same chain of events happen again ?
> Once something becomes prominent, seems profitable,
> the same psychologies kick in. One of those
> "human things". With Linus as "king" the Linux
> kernel and ownership rules, we have remained
> fairly consistent to "The Vision" - but how many
> LIKE Linus are out there ???

Yes! This is exactly my point. As you pointed out, there are plenty of
options, but for a new linux to happen this strange alchemy of
technology _and_ person _and_ timing need to happen I think, and that is
very difficult to consciously engineer.

I think the closest to Linus we have is Theos influence in the OpenBSD
project.

I really would like to see a different file system in OpenBSD, otherwise
it does seem like a nice candidate. FreeBSD does receive (or did at
least) some suppor from Netflix and Netapp I think, but I don't know if
that is still happening.