US Elections (& Politics) :)
- Thread starter sdkid
- Start date
Oceanslider
Known around here
DID YOU KNOW??
This is a Tesla model Y battery. It takes up all of the space under the passenger compartment of the car.
To manufacture it you need:
--12 tons of rock for Lithium (can be extracted from sea water)
-- 5 tons of cobalt minerals (Most cobalt is made as a byproduct of
the processing of copper and nickel ores. It is the most difficult
material to obtain for a battery and the most expensive.)
-- 3 tons nickel ore
-- 12 tons of copper ore
You must move 250 tons of soil to obtain:
-- 26.5 pounds of Lithium
-- 30 pounds of nickel
-- 48.5 pounds of manganese
-- 15 pounds of cobalt
To manufacture the battery also requires:
-- 441 pounds of aluminum, steel and/or plastic
-- 112 pounds of graphite
The Caterpillar 994A is used for the earthmoving to obtain the essential minerals. It consumes 264 gallons of diesel in 12 hours.
Finally you get a “zero emissions” car.
Presently, the bulk of the necessary minerals for manufacturing the batteries come from China or Africa. Much of the labor for getting the minerals in Africa is done by children! If we buy electric cars, it's China who profits most!
BTW, this 2021 Tesla Model Y OEM battery (the cheapest Tesla battery) is currently for sale on the Internet for $4,999 not including shipping or installation. The battery weighs 1,000 pounds (you can imagine the shipping cost). The cost to replace Tesla batteries is:
Model 3 -- $14,000+ (Car MSRP $38,990)
Model Y -- $5,000–$5,500 (Car MSRP $47,740)
Model S -- $13,000–$20,000 (Car MSRP $74,990)
Model X -- $13,000+ (Car MSRP $79,990)
It takes SEVEN years for an electric car to reach net-zero CO2. The life expectancy of the batteries is 10 years (average). Only in the last three years do you begin to reduce your carbon footprint. Then the batteries have to be replaced and you lose all the gains you made in those three years.
That is why Elon Musk is getting into mining using revolutionary methods.
More Lithium is used in making grease and in medicine, so its not mined exclusively for just EV.
Cobalt is going to phased out, Tesla as started using cobalt free LFP batteries. The only advantage cobalt batteries had was it performed well in cold climate. This to has been solved in the newer LFMP. China which is the worlds largest EV and battery producer uses mainly cobalt free batteries.
The new Cybertruck uses less wires then a combustion engine car, thanks to 48v using POE ethernet communication (without the RJ45), to turn On and Off and control everything.
Oil rigs and oil well also uses electricity to pump oil from the well or from the deep sea by burning diesel or from grid. Its then transported by sea or via pipeline to the refinery using electricity produced by a diesel generator or from grid.
Lastly to produce 1 gal of gasoline, the refinery uses 5kwh of electricity. Its then shipped via diesel trucks to the pump. The pump dispenser again uses electricity to pump.
Where as electricity once produced travels at nearly the speed of light, the transport of which is free.
The batteries in cars don't fail at 10 year mark, it capacity drops to worst case 70%. These batteries are then used for energy storage, majority of the wrecked Teslas and Nissan leaf batteries are reused for EV conversions or energy storage.
While state of the art battery recycling plants are able to get back all of rare metals.
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Yep, this was expected, eh?
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Leo Hohmann: IMF Boss Says Governments Need to Impose Global Carbon Tax on Citizens to Punish Them for Using Energy | The Gateway Pundit | by Guest Contributor
This article originally appeared onLeo Hohmann’s Substack and was republished with permission.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Ssayer
BIT Beta Team
Apple and Google are probably spying on your push notifications
Push notifications, the dings you get from apps calling your attention back to your phone, may be handed over from a company to government services if asked. But it appears the Department of Justice won't let companies come clean about the practice.
If they get $5000 per person, then my wife and I are going down and park the car on this side of the border.
Woooho $10000 free! I have been practicing my "Espanol y'all" he is my Santa hero teaching me the Lingo!
Woooho $10000 free! I have been practicing my "Espanol y'all" he is my Santa hero teaching me the Lingo!
tigerwillow1
Known around here
Rewording this to including energy content:
Lastly to produce 115,000 BTU of energy (as 1 gal of gasoline), the refinery uses 17,060 BTUs (as 5 kWh of electricity), for a 6.7x increase of available energy! It's then economically shipped via diesel trucks to the pump. The pump dispenser again uses a pittance of electricity to pump.
So is the power company scamming everybody with this charge? My Subaru can go 500 miles with $3/gallon gas for this amount of free transport.
I'm not trying to engage in an EV debate. Just giving examples of different ways to spin the various talking points to make it look the way the presenter wants it to look.
BTU wise gasoline is huge, but the efficiency of a internal combustion engine is at best 30%, all the energy burnt is wasted as heat where little goes to mechanical motion.
So has a heating source any day fossil fuel will be better then electricity.
But for mechanical motion, today's PMSM motor used in modern EV have a efficiency of 95% and even at crawl speed 500 rpm to 1000rpm they have a efficiency of 85% or more.
There is a reason trains, ships that run on diesel still use electric motors for actual propulsion. They use fuel to generate electricity.
So has a heating source any day fossil fuel will be better then electricity.
But for mechanical motion, today's PMSM motor used in modern EV have a efficiency of 95% and even at crawl speed 500 rpm to 1000rpm they have a efficiency of 85% or more.
There is a reason trains, ships that run on diesel still use electric motors for actual propulsion. They use fuel to generate electricity.
tigerwillow1
Known around here
Like I said, I'm not jumping into the debate, but pointing out how the talking points can and are spun many directions.
tigerwillow1
Known around here
Speaking of spin, in Hannity's recent Trump interview, he asked Trump "“Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight, you would never abuse power as retribution against anybody?" "
Trump responded: “Except for day one I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.” , followed up by "No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator.”
Which the deep stated owned AP spins into
Trump declines to rule out abusing power to seek retribution if he returns to the White House
Of course all of the brainless dem droids will just read the headline and file it away in their memory as verified fact.
Trump responded: “Except for day one I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.” , followed up by "No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator.”
Which the deep stated owned AP spins into
Trump declines to rule out abusing power to seek retribution if he returns to the White House
Of course all of the brainless dem droids will just read the headline and file it away in their memory as verified fact.
bigredfish
Known around here
You can tell its election season, Republicans actually grew a set of balls for something for a change.
Senate Republicans Block Biden Ukraine Aid Despite Warning Over 'Direct Conflict With Russia'
Senate Republicans Block Biden Ukraine Aid Despite Warning Over 'Direct Conflict With Russia' | ZeroHedge
Senate Republicans Block Biden Ukraine Aid Despite Warning Over 'Direct Conflict With Russia'
Senate Republicans Block Biden Ukraine Aid Despite Warning Over 'Direct Conflict With Russia' | ZeroHedge
bigredfish
Known around here
So if we dont send another 100 $Billion they'll lose and its OUR fault...
Uhm, they've already lost and its the US fault it even started..
Janet Yellen Joins Zelensky In Saying US Would Be "Responsible For Ukraine's Defeat"
Janet Yellen Joins Zelensky In Saying US Would Be "Responsible For Ukraine's Defeat" | ZeroHedge
Uhm, they've already lost and its the US fault it even started..
Janet Yellen Joins Zelensky In Saying US Would Be "Responsible For Ukraine's Defeat"
Janet Yellen Joins Zelensky In Saying US Would Be "Responsible For Ukraine's Defeat" | ZeroHedge
bigredfish
Known around here
Oceanslider
Known around here
leftist Newsweek forgets to mention the peace around the world under President Trump's leadership. No Afghanistan pullout fiasco , no Ukranian war, no Israeli war (actually he got the nations in the middle east to come together sign a peace plan)
Impeach that sonofabitch already...
Last edited:
bigredfish
Known around here
Sue The Bastards: Taibbi's Take On Federalist, Daily Wire Vs. The US State Department
Sue The Bastards: Taibbi's Take On Federalist, Daily Wire Vs. The US State Department | ZeroHedge
........... In late October, the liberal anti-establishment investigative site Consortium News filed a historic suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Industries, describing a state-funded effort to label, defame, and stigmatize “media organizations that oppose or dissent from American foreign and defense policy.”
Now, a pair of conservative media outlets, The Federalist and The Daily Wire, have filed a bookend suit to match the Consortium News action. This time the defendant is the Global Engagement Center, the State Department organization ostensibly dedicated to countering “foreign state and non-state propaganda.” Much as Consortium News alleged the Pentagon funded Newsguard to censor its critics, the Federalist/Daily Wire action alleges the State Department sponsored Newsguard and the U.K.-based Global Disinformation Index as “censorship enterprises” targeting domestic speech, in direct violation of its charter.
Although the 1947 Smith-Mundt Act barring agencies like the State Department from engaging in propaganda at home was “modernized” through legislation passed in 2012, the broad ban on intelligence or diplomatic services meddling in the domestic news landscapes remains. Even the “modernized” Smith-Mundt Act declares bluntly that no State Department funds shall be “used to influence public opinion in the United States.” Additionally, as the Federalist/Daily Wire action cites, the law governing State Department conduct, 22 U.S. Code § 2656, says unequivocally that its mandate is limited to “matters respecting foreign affairs.” For the State Department to fund organizations that up and down-rank domestic media organizations is a ludicrously obvious no-no.
“The State Department’s mandate to administer foreign affairs is clear, making its role in the censorship scheme doubly unlawful,” says Margot Cleveland, serving here as the New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney representing The Federalist and The Daily Wire.
What is the alleged “censorship scheme”? The suit outlines a number of issues, but the most damaging appears to involve the use of GEC as a mechanism to funnel money to various censorship-by-proxy organizations. One of those groups is NewsGuard, which in a recent press release said a goal of its subscription-based “credibility assessment” services is to “systemically defund sources of harmful misinformation.”
I reached out to NewsGuard about this passage. If the company licenses a “whitelist” of “legitimate” sites with the express goal of cutting off “revenues to fake news sites,” aren’t they effectively engaged in a blacklisting service whose real aim is to target what it considers illegitimate sites? Is there any reason, I asked, that this service should not be described as blacklisting? The company hasn’t responded, as yet.
GDI, meanwhile, says one of its goals is to “defund disinformation” and uses what it seriously calls a Dynamic Exclusion List — the most badly creepy euphemism since the Obama administration dubbed its “kill list” the “Disposition Matrix” — to bleed news outlets deemed “morally reprehensible” or lacking “redeeming social value” of ad revenue. The company also drew up lists of “least risky” and “riskiest” news outlets that seem to contradict its stance that it does not target “information about which reasonable parties may agree, such as varying political views.” Notice any patterns below?
Highlighted above are both the plaintiffs in this case and unusual entries on the “least risky” side. Now-dead Buzzfeed blazed real trails in disinformation by publishing the Steele Dossier, which it knew was not only “unverified,” but “contains errors.” Meanwhile there are interstate gas stations whose lavatory wall writings are more reliable than HuffPost, which for years now has been jumping on obvious fake news tales like the pee tape with the enthusiasm of a dog humping a leg:
The oldest-in-America New York Post, which published a correct Hunter Biden laptop expose by Miranda Devine, was deemed riskiest according to GDI. Meanwhile, papers that published the absolutely bogus lie that the report that the “alleged” laptop was “possible” Russian disinformation, or even had to publish corrections on that score, were put on safe island. Here for instance is an NPR fine-print oopsie:
NPR is also racking up a fairly extensive record of reports relaying official statements later proven incorrect, like that all 13 of the Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island were killed or that “breakthrough infections might not be a big transmission risk.” I asked GDI if it only counted non-official errors when it computed its reliability scores. They too have yet to comment.
Sue The Bastards: Taibbi's Take On Federalist, Daily Wire Vs. The US State Department | ZeroHedge
........... In late October, the liberal anti-establishment investigative site Consortium News filed a historic suit against the United States of America and Newsguard Industries, describing a state-funded effort to label, defame, and stigmatize “media organizations that oppose or dissent from American foreign and defense policy.”
Now, a pair of conservative media outlets, The Federalist and The Daily Wire, have filed a bookend suit to match the Consortium News action. This time the defendant is the Global Engagement Center, the State Department organization ostensibly dedicated to countering “foreign state and non-state propaganda.” Much as Consortium News alleged the Pentagon funded Newsguard to censor its critics, the Federalist/Daily Wire action alleges the State Department sponsored Newsguard and the U.K.-based Global Disinformation Index as “censorship enterprises” targeting domestic speech, in direct violation of its charter.
Although the 1947 Smith-Mundt Act barring agencies like the State Department from engaging in propaganda at home was “modernized” through legislation passed in 2012, the broad ban on intelligence or diplomatic services meddling in the domestic news landscapes remains. Even the “modernized” Smith-Mundt Act declares bluntly that no State Department funds shall be “used to influence public opinion in the United States.” Additionally, as the Federalist/Daily Wire action cites, the law governing State Department conduct, 22 U.S. Code § 2656, says unequivocally that its mandate is limited to “matters respecting foreign affairs.” For the State Department to fund organizations that up and down-rank domestic media organizations is a ludicrously obvious no-no.
“The State Department’s mandate to administer foreign affairs is clear, making its role in the censorship scheme doubly unlawful,” says Margot Cleveland, serving here as the New Civil Liberties Alliance attorney representing The Federalist and The Daily Wire.
What is the alleged “censorship scheme”? The suit outlines a number of issues, but the most damaging appears to involve the use of GEC as a mechanism to funnel money to various censorship-by-proxy organizations. One of those groups is NewsGuard, which in a recent press release said a goal of its subscription-based “credibility assessment” services is to “systemically defund sources of harmful misinformation.”
I reached out to NewsGuard about this passage. If the company licenses a “whitelist” of “legitimate” sites with the express goal of cutting off “revenues to fake news sites,” aren’t they effectively engaged in a blacklisting service whose real aim is to target what it considers illegitimate sites? Is there any reason, I asked, that this service should not be described as blacklisting? The company hasn’t responded, as yet.
GDI, meanwhile, says one of its goals is to “defund disinformation” and uses what it seriously calls a Dynamic Exclusion List — the most badly creepy euphemism since the Obama administration dubbed its “kill list” the “Disposition Matrix” — to bleed news outlets deemed “morally reprehensible” or lacking “redeeming social value” of ad revenue. The company also drew up lists of “least risky” and “riskiest” news outlets that seem to contradict its stance that it does not target “information about which reasonable parties may agree, such as varying political views.” Notice any patterns below?
Highlighted above are both the plaintiffs in this case and unusual entries on the “least risky” side. Now-dead Buzzfeed blazed real trails in disinformation by publishing the Steele Dossier, which it knew was not only “unverified,” but “contains errors.” Meanwhile there are interstate gas stations whose lavatory wall writings are more reliable than HuffPost, which for years now has been jumping on obvious fake news tales like the pee tape with the enthusiasm of a dog humping a leg:
The oldest-in-America New York Post, which published a correct Hunter Biden laptop expose by Miranda Devine, was deemed riskiest according to GDI. Meanwhile, papers that published the absolutely bogus lie that the report that the “alleged” laptop was “possible” Russian disinformation, or even had to publish corrections on that score, were put on safe island. Here for instance is an NPR fine-print oopsie:
NPR is also racking up a fairly extensive record of reports relaying official statements later proven incorrect, like that all 13 of the Ukrainian soldiers on Snake Island were killed or that “breakthrough infections might not be a big transmission risk.” I asked GDI if it only counted non-official errors when it computed its reliability scores. They too have yet to comment.
bigredfish
Known around here
The Navy: Dead In The Water?
The Navy: Dead In The Water? | ZeroHedge
.......... Conclusion: All of these factors outlined above make it clear that our Navy is in extremis. There are not enough ships to do the mission nor enough manpower to man the ships optimally. Deployments are too long, and our people and ships are wearing out. Recruiting is stagnant. Too few ships, not enough people, not enough shipbuilding, or repair capacity have us on the brink of mission failure. To put the size of the Navy in perspective, when this officer went aboard ship in 1970 to conduct anti-submarine patrols looking for Soviet ballistic missile submarines, the Navy had 792 battle force ships in commission. We now have 291. Then we had a cold war against one adversary, the old Soviet Union. Today we have adversaries all over the world and are trying to perform the mission quoted above with a tiny fraction of the ships we had decades ago. As a maritime nation with treaty allies all over the world coupled with our dependence upon the sea for 90% of the commerce that keeps our economy running, it is a travesty that such neglect of the Navy has occurred. Who is at fault for this neglect? Congress is ultimately at fault as it holds the power of the purse. However, it is incumbent upon senior Navy leaders to make the case for the right size Navy. The CNO and every other Navy flag who testifies before Congress should be sounding the alarm about the imminent failure of the Navy to perform its mission now in “peacetime” with multiple hots spots in Europe, the Middle East, and in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, and even more importantly in the next actual fighting war. Someone long since should have laid his stars on the table to make the point to politicians that we need more ships and more manpower for the survival of our nation. Our way of life and our very lives are at stake if we do not rebuild our Navy to an adequate size to perform its vital worldwide mission.
The Navy: Dead In The Water? | ZeroHedge
.......... Conclusion: All of these factors outlined above make it clear that our Navy is in extremis. There are not enough ships to do the mission nor enough manpower to man the ships optimally. Deployments are too long, and our people and ships are wearing out. Recruiting is stagnant. Too few ships, not enough people, not enough shipbuilding, or repair capacity have us on the brink of mission failure. To put the size of the Navy in perspective, when this officer went aboard ship in 1970 to conduct anti-submarine patrols looking for Soviet ballistic missile submarines, the Navy had 792 battle force ships in commission. We now have 291. Then we had a cold war against one adversary, the old Soviet Union. Today we have adversaries all over the world and are trying to perform the mission quoted above with a tiny fraction of the ships we had decades ago. As a maritime nation with treaty allies all over the world coupled with our dependence upon the sea for 90% of the commerce that keeps our economy running, it is a travesty that such neglect of the Navy has occurred. Who is at fault for this neglect? Congress is ultimately at fault as it holds the power of the purse. However, it is incumbent upon senior Navy leaders to make the case for the right size Navy. The CNO and every other Navy flag who testifies before Congress should be sounding the alarm about the imminent failure of the Navy to perform its mission now in “peacetime” with multiple hots spots in Europe, the Middle East, and in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, and even more importantly in the next actual fighting war. Someone long since should have laid his stars on the table to make the point to politicians that we need more ships and more manpower for the survival of our nation. Our way of life and our very lives are at stake if we do not rebuild our Navy to an adequate size to perform its vital worldwide mission.
Fireworks as usual, the only reason to watch the debate is Vivek, taking down the establishment puppets. Can't wait on how the media will spin this as a Haley victory. The debate moderators gave Haley a chance to respond to the corruption charges that Vivek accused her of but Haley refused. So its actually true.