Not really socialist though.
Norway is.
Canât be 100% sure about Sweden and Finland but the Fins i have met give off the vibe of having socislist leanings. Not sure if they are outliers or if they are representative of the Finnish population.
Sweden, i have no idea
In a socialist country, the government owns the means of production and there is no private enterprise. This is not true of any Scandinavian country:
2 Likes
Thatâs history of mankind since the times when the first big cities were built, and the concentration of wealth started to gather pace (roughly 6â000 years ago). Since then, there has never been any exception to that rule.
More pertinent question would be how do you get them to reduce their emissions? They certainly arenât doing it wilfully.
I believe Toro grew up on the Canadian prairies, Alberta as I recall.
1 Like
Even less socialist
You could say thatâŚ
To be fair, Saskatchewan has a proud social democratic tradition, but their current politics skew rather more rightward.
Are the means of production entirely in the hands of the state? No.
Are there private companies doing business? Yes.
Canada is not socialist.
Words matter.
Alberta is quite ânot socialistâ.
EVâs you say, huh? yeahâŚfuck that.
Electric car shock: Ontario man told new battery would cost more than $50,000 | Globalnews.ca.
Honestly, he should not have been shocked. The 60k/176k difference is confusing in the story, but those batteries simply are not going to last longer than 5 years of near-daily use. Even the warranties specify that they will deliver 80% of range in that period - in practice Teslas drop significantly after about 2 years. The entire technology is basically designed around North American lease terms. A six year old battery driven normal distances (+/-20k kms per year) is worthless, and that is more or less what he discovered. They can last longer than the warranty period, but once they get below the 80% level, the crystalline structures can degrade very quickly. he got 12000 past what amounts to the expected lifetime.
Now youâve created a culture of throwaway vehicles. how fucking stupid is that?
Meanwhile, a 1990 Honda Civic you can buy for a couple thousand and just keep changing the parts on it as they fail. burns very little fuel, bulletproof for maintenance
itâs fucking comically short-sighted. rediculous.
they could have just made fucking Zenn cars.
1 Like
You donât actually have to throw away the vehicles, but batteries have a very finite lifetime. Anyone who has owned a cellphone knows that. Other maintenance is usually going to be fairly low as well. From an emissions point of view, the ~2 tonnes of CO2e necessary to produce a battery is not that significant. Your 1990 Civic will emit that much C02 in about 10,000 km, +/- depending on which model. But the new lithium-ion battery wonât ever be cheap, there wonât ever be such a thing as an electric âbeaterâ car.
Ultimately, Musk has got enormously wealthy peddling the fantasy that private electric cars can allow us to be environmentally responsible without making significant social/infrastructure changes.
1 Like
how much CO2 is used to manufacture the entire vehicle? having to replace it every 6-7 years, enormous amounts of energy to do that. nevermind, unless you have access to clean power then youâre basically just doing this
You donât need to replace the entire vehicle though. Emissions to manufacture the balance of the vehicle are not much different from conventional vehicles, the trade-off is batteries versus the fuel consumption.
From an emissions point of view, the configuration in that photo is still actually cleaner than most vehiclesâŚbut it definitely isnât going to solve climate change.
1 Like
well Iâm not going to spend $50k to replace a battery on a $50k vehicle. thatâs just throwing bad money after bad money. Iâm going to take a fuel-efficient vehicle and maintain it as long as I can. Because the three Râs are âreduce, re-use, recycleâ, not âreplaceâ
if you have a physics background, youâll understand that the energy that reaches the tires to propel that vehicle forward is incredibly diminished from the time that is hits the combustion chambers of that generator in the form of fuel. the transformation from fuel to electricity, into a series of transformers to be transferred the battery cells, to then be sent through to the electric motors⌠itâs an incredible energy loss.
thereâs nothing efficient about having to run a petroleum generator to charge an electric vehicle⌠
I understand Carnotâs theorem just fine. The experiment below has been replicated ad nauseum, and was used to drive Teslaâs corporate defence of their Harris Ranch charging station.
The transformation of fuel to electricity has about a 70% loss rate, but the electric motor is far more efficient that the internal combustion engine. On a well-to-wheel basis, only conventional diesel vehicles ever really come close (as in the experiment above), and in fact can reach higher efficiencies.
However, to your point about nothing efficientâŚwell, yeah. When the difference is 10% or the like, the electric vehicle simply isnât doing what people think it is, which was exactly the case for the Harris Ranch charging station.
1 Like
I agree with elements of both arguments.
What is frequently overlooked is the amount of energy to actually produce petrol is huge. A refinery uses enough energy to power a city.
For me we need different fuels for different applications.
For shipping electricity will never be efficient, here we need biofuels from biomass. They donât need to be pure and can resemble more of a bio diesel.
Similarly long haul flights will never be electric. These require highly pure energy dense fuels. hydrogen etc
With many regions green electricity is anticipated to be abundant and cheap. At the moment benifits are not transformational for cars and the environment. In 10-15 years I think it will be with new technology options associated with battery technology.
3 Likes