Tobberone

joined 1 year ago
[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 6 points 9 months ago
[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It's banning new sales. Not pre-existing cars. Besides, used BEV prices are coming down too with 6 year old cars just coming down below 10k€. That's kinda important, as 2020 saw a big uptick in number of available models and cars sold.

So given that, why aren't you asking for a beat* up ICE-car today for anyone that can't afford one but needs one today?

And if you really need a car, you probably drive quite a bit and if so, you really should look at EVs anyways since the running costs are a good deal lower.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The negative reactions might be because your wording, to me, is a bit flame batey, as if this is a given negative.

As for non-EU manufacturer being able to invest in production equipment Europe might need if push come to shove on places not easily destroyed by the assumed enemy producing European designs? And in the process incentivise other countries to buy non-american equipment?

If a good chunk of the global military complex seems about to change supplier, I'd bet big on getting to be picked as the supplier of choice!

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

In a strictly economics/geopolitical view: It's a loan program, so long term it is net positive on interest alone. If the money is used to procure eu-made equipment, as is implied, it will bring manufacturing to EU and finance European R&D as well (where not säl of it will be used in only military applications) Short term it might affect the speed of rearmament which would be bad in an armed conflict. On the other hand, a bigger market will allow bigger investments, which might add production capacity sooner, so it might not add as much time as feared.

In short, it seems to achieve what the tariffs what touted to accomplish without all the drama and negatives associated with tariffs.

Morally it depends on your opinion of a states right to defend itself.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 2 points 10 months ago

This is Swedes, after all. Sweden started development on its system in the 1500s and has had plenty of time inveloping and complicating the system since. Heck, I've tried to get through the zoning process for 4 years now...

But I digress, there are those saying we will be able to fast pace building new nuclear as well, so clearly there are some severely delusional people here as well...

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Not touching AI, but for transport having 1 furnace will be more efficient than having 3000, so even in the US it would be a net positive.

As for China? They are installing more renewables than the rest of the world together atm. Sure, that can be said about any type of electricity generation idea, but they install more renewables than non-renewables too. I'd say they seem to be on target...

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Thanks. I'm saving that one for a rainy day when I need a pick-me-up.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 0 points 10 months ago

Not to mention that the added shade will help with moisture retention, which is another part of the reason why it is possible to increase crop yield when adding solar to a field.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's the message I got from this. They've taken vaccines, now they go for lighter stuff. What's next? Cancer treatments?

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 3 points 11 months ago

Oh, there is no need for the troll farm spreading the disinformation to be Irish... It could be based in any dictatorship wanting to sow division in democracies to weaken them. It's happened before.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I would have thought15 hours/day for charging should be enough? What am I missing in this equation?

In the south of Sweden there is a big push for fast chargers for heavy transport, but the work is hampered by the limited power available south of Gävle. North of that though, power is plentifull, so that at least, isn't an issue.

[–] Tobberone@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Aye. But I'm still happy those aren't ICE-only. It still speaks of a shift and it adds up in volume. Ironically, the 2 leading nations are both oil producers.

China is at 50%+ BEV this year for new sales. That's an eighth of the regrowth of fossil fuel this year, just in China. It will take some time, but it is happening.

What will happen on the fossil fuel market in Norway in five years? All of a sudden, the newest fossil fuel car is 6 years old. Where will they get fuel? Sure, in Oslo there will be some petrol stations to find yet. But what about in the scarcely populated half of Norway which is north of Trondheim? In an ironic twist, electricity will be the abundant, safe and available option. Ironic because that has been the argument against BEV for so many years. "Where will I find chargers up north?".

In a few years, chargers will be everywhere. Petrol will be in the big cities only.

view more: next ›