Let’s just face the facts

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

RE: Let’s just face the facts

peter67 · Guru

Seriously Buzz, you keep getting away from the core proposition of the OP's post as has been mentioned above. No one is arguing against EV's in the FUTURE. RD and others are just trying to point out the bleeding obvious...with the currently available technology we have they are not commercially or environmentally possible or responsible. Research institutes are stuffed full of proper propeller heads madly seeking an answer to this because it will make them all rich rich rich basically. Politicians are yet to sit down with the real brainacs doing the research and even remotely absorb some of the facts, that or their spin doctors won't let them.

Peter_n_Margaret · Guru

peter67 wrote:
...with the currently available technology we have they are not commercially or environmentally possible or responsible.

That is your opinion. I think you are 100% wrong.

No point arguing the toss though because it will happen irrespective of what either of us think.

"Bring it on"

Cheers,

Peter

Buzz Lightbulb · Guru

peter67 wrote:
Seriously Buzz, you keep getting away from the core proposition of the OP's post as has been mentioned above. No one is arguing against EV's in the FUTURE. RD and others are just trying to point out the bleeding obvious...with the currently available technology we have they are not commercially or environmentally possible or responsible. Research institutes are stuffed full of proper propeller heads madly seeking an answer to this because it will make them all rich rich rich basically. Politicians are yet to sit down with the real brainacs doing the research and even remotely absorb some of the facts, that or their spin doctors won't let them.

Am I really getting off topic. The OP encourages contribution, which I am doing. The trouble is that the OP only provides one side of the story. I'm providing the other side.

If everybody was limited to only providing information that agrees with the OP then they're a lot of previous topics that don't comply.

Regarding the arguments about the pollution caused by mining the minerals used in batteries. That's the fault of the government where the minerals are mined. I would expect that if the minerals were mined in Australia, and Australia does have a lot of rare earth minerals used for batteries, etcetera, that the government would enforce more environmentally friendly restriction on that mining operation and the problem is mitigated.

Or is this also off topic because it's not agreeing with the OP?

What about those mentioning taxes and economic understanding? I don't think that was mentioned in the OP. Should they be criticised for their posts?

The topic is 'Let's just gave the facts' and yet the so called facts are wrong. I've been criticised for not calling out racial comments but now I'm criticised for pointing out misinformation and providing an alternative opinion. What are the rules?

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 22nd of March 2022 09:37:42 AM

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Tuesday 22nd of March 2022 09:42:43 AM

Rob Driver · Guru

peter67 wrote:
Seriously Buzz, you keep getting away from the core proposition of the OP's post as has been mentioned above. No one is arguing against EV's in the FUTURE. RD and others are just trying to point out the bleeding obvious...with the currently available technology we have they are not commercially or environmentally possible or responsible. Research institutes are stuffed full of proper propeller heads madly seeking an answer to this because it will make them all rich rich rich basically. Politicians are yet to sit down with the real brainacs doing the research and even remotely absorb some of the facts, that or their spin doctors won't let them.

It is certainly heartening to see that there are others that arent against the technology but arent blind to the consequences of us, as a country, rushing into it.

Apart from the drivel that has been posted as a distraction there has been some good posts with good sound info.

Normal participants on here can easily identify who has contributed sensibly and I am sure that they also note the constant repetitive rubbish that is dragged up even though in this topic no one has denied us as a country, developing and adopting the technology for EVs and for lowering carbon emissions.

A government of any country with a serving term of a maximum of 4 years can not possibly make and then introduce any policy without the decision being influenced dramatically by the next elections results. This topic is a perfect example whereby the group making all the noise may influence a policy decision when in actual fact it may not be the wish of the majority and worse still may be extremely detrimental to our financial future.

As you put it peter67 we have the decision from a bunch of *propeller heads* determining important decisions that govts make due to misleading and misguided social pressure.

-- Edited by Rob Driver on Tuesday 22nd of March 2022 12:26:23 PM

Papou · Senior Member

Some Very Interesting reading for sure about saving the planet , Green energy ex but we forget to mention in our haste to save the Planet from some sources we forget about aall those Nukes in Storage waiting to destroy not only the Planet but us also.
Prime example of a Dictator whos nation is propably broke .
Propably afraid of being toppled by his own regime if the case was true , and what a great idea is is for him to Create a way of not only eliminating those that may need the Counties assistance in time to come but light himself as a Hero in the process..
Applogise if ive responded to two seperate Topics but i tend to think we Humans are so suseptible to Brainwashing lol..