Ford Mustang Mach E Leak: Mustang goes Electric

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,643
You dont know that you dont know. the energy in ~8 lb container of gasoline is equivelent to about 800lbs of batteries. The routinely ignored inconvenient truth of E is that the economic/tech stack ups are massive compared to chemical energy for given amount of work output. the physics of battery weight and energy density all by itself negates any efficiency gains you can dream up. Keep dreaming till the subsidies dry up and the true costs crush your wallet. The E-suckers will be "SHOCKED".

Well it's settled, folks. Decades of R&D by thousands upon thousands of automotive engineers developing technology for companies who have pledged to replace their ICE cars with EVs within the next few decades has been completely crushed by "GreenLaser" from the internet. It was fun while it lasted.
 

Aurelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Messages
3,892
You dont know that you dont know. the energy in ~8 lb container of gasoline is equivelent to about 800lbs of batteries. The routinely ignored inconvenient truth of E is that the economic/tech stack ups are massive compared to chemical energy for given amount of work output. the physics of battery weight and energy density all by itself negates any efficiency gains you can dream up. Keep dreaming till the subsidies dry up and the true costs crush your wallet. The E-suckers will be "SHOCKED".
This is demonstrably false, but even then, this also ignores the reduced maintenance, the lack of oil, the much quieter operation...

Thankfully, your voice doesn't matter. You've already lost this fight. EVs will take over; you'll have no choice but to buy one at a certain point; you'll have to admit you were wrong, and we'll welcome you with open arms when you finally accept real science.
 

Randall Stephens

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
1,375
This is demonstrably false, but even then, this also ignores the reduced maintenance, the lack of oil, the much quieter operation...

Thankfully, your voice doesn't matter. You've already lost this fight. EVs will take over; you'll have no choice but to buy one at a certain point; you'll have to admit you were wrong, and we'll welcome you with open arms when you finally accept real science.
He'll be laughing in 30 years when he's making his own gasoline or diesel in his garage, and not paying a penny in federal or state taxes, because nobody sells gasoline anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
He'll be laughing in 30 years when he's making his own gasoline or diesel in his garage, and not paying a penny in federal or state taxes, because nobody sells gasoline anymore.
It’s impossible for the grid to support replacing every vehicle with an EV unless we were building numerous nuclear plants across the US right now. Which we aren’t. Most EV fans are anti-nuclear energy as well. So good luck.

This is my core issue with EVs. There is zero plan in place for the shifting energy burden. You can’t just stand up a nuclear plant overnight either. It takes decades.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
Well it's settled, folks. Decades of R&D by thousands upon thousands of automotive engineers developing technology for companies who have pledged to replace their ICE cars with EVs within the next few decades has been completely crushed by "GreenLaser" from the internet. It was fun while it lasted.
This pledge only exists because of government mandate.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
There are a lot less things you need to fix on an EV than on an ICE car. Even so, ICE cars are increasingly being designed to be more difficult to fix on your own as well. This is affecting everything, not just EVs, only with EVs you have a lot less you need to maintain.

As for me personally, I only buy used cars, I run those cars until they fall apart, and currently don't own an EV. My next car will be an EV though. It's a better design.

Further, my initial comment was in response to this BS notion that there is no net environmental benefit to EVs since fossil fuels are used in power generation. That's categorically false.
EVs really don’t have that much less to maintain. Let’s be honest here. You still have to deal with radiators, brakes, tires, suspension, and all the electronics. Engines and transmissions don’t fail that often these days, and on cheaper cars any competent mechanic can easily troubleshoot & repair them. And remember, the more expensive the EV the more motors you have to deal with burning out. Which seems to be fairly frequent with Teslas.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,325
Getting your EV charge from a gas or coal fired power plant is significantly more efficient than an IC engine. You still come out ahead environmentally.
No it doesn't. The first law of thermodynamics states this. Electric cars constantly switch from AC to DC and back which has a huge loss of energy. An electric car sitting for too long will lose energy. An electric car in the winter will lose energy. The transmission of electricity from the grind will lose energy. Gasoline sitting in your gas tank will not lose energy and gets converted to mechanical energy right away. The problem with gasoline is the transportation of that fuel, which does cost a lot of energy. In the end petrol is better used directly in an engine than in a power plant. For EV to be clearer it depends on a mix of nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro power sources to go along with the natural gas and coal plants we use.

Put gas in a generator and then use it to power an electric motor and you'll get less out of it than powering a gas motor with it.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
6,325
EVs really don’t have that much less to maintain. Let’s be honest here. You still have to deal with radiators, brakes, tires, suspension, and all the electronics. Engines and transmissions don’t fail that often these days, and on cheaper cars any competent mechanic can easily troubleshoot & repair them. And remember, the more expensive the EV the more motors you have to deal with burning out. Which seems to be fairly frequent with Teslas.
We're going to assume electronics don't normally fail because you shouldn't be buying cars from manufacturers who have frequent failing electronics. My Sega Genesis still works today, and so should most car electronics. Radiators in a EV are hardly as stressed as a gas car. Brakes are hardly used due to regenerative braking. Tires are the only equivalent to gas vehicles in terms of maintenance. Engines and transmissions do fail, especially if you don't own a Toyota/Lexus. A failed Tesla motor is no where near as difficult to replace compared to a gas engine. I just helped replace my friends Prius engine because he forgot to put oil in it, and we still needed an engine lift to remove it. A professional shop would drop the sub frame to get the engine out, which is crazy. They put in a large bar across the engine bay to hold it up while they remove the engine sub frame. Compared to a Tesla where you just drop the rear wheels to get to the motors.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,480
Nah, up here in Michigan I'd rather not lose up to half of the already terrible efficiency of Li batteries when it's cold out.

Amazing how well ICE vehicles compete considering how shackled they are by the government whereas EVs are given huge breaks.

Come up with a better energy storage medium and then we'll talk....oh wait, gasoline is already better. Even warms the engine up as a natural byproduct.
 

Ranulfo

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 9, 2006
Messages
2,975
the much quieter operation...

From 2018:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/06/new-law-combats-silent-menace-electric-cars

Screenshot 2021-10-08 at 12-27-27 New law to tackle electric cars’ silent menace to pedestrians.png


So get mp3 files of your favorite engine sound ready!
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,643
It’s impossible for the grid to support replacing every vehicle with an EV unless we were building numerous nuclear plants across the US right now. Which we aren’t. Most EV fans are anti-nuclear energy as well. So good luck.

This is my core issue with EVs. There is zero plan in place for the shifting energy burden. You can’t just stand up a nuclear plant overnight either. It takes decades.

This would be a problem if EV adoption was happening literally overnight. It isn't. They have plenty of time to design and build more power plants to address coming demand.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,643
No it doesn't. The first law of thermodynamics states this. Electric cars constantly switch from AC to DC and back which has a huge loss of energy. An electric car sitting for too long will lose energy. An electric car in the winter will lose energy. The transmission of electricity from the grind will lose energy. Gasoline sitting in your gas tank will not lose energy and gets converted to mechanical energy right away. The problem with gasoline is the transportation of that fuel, which does cost a lot of energy. In the end petrol is better used directly in an engine than in a power plant. For EV to be clearer it depends on a mix of nuclear, solar, wind, and hydro power sources to go along with the natural gas and coal plants we use.

Put gas in a generator and then use it to power an electric motor and you'll get less out of it than powering a gas motor with it.

I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of thermodynamics, particularly comparing the cycle for an internal combustion engine (Otto) vs your typical power plant. Most IC engines are around 25% efficient with much of their energy lost to heat, heat that is typically not put to any practical use other than for heating the interior during the winter. Power plants operate on more efficient cycles and can make better use of waste heat.
 

HockeyJon

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,643
EVs really don’t have that much less to maintain. Let’s be honest here. You still have to deal with radiators, brakes, tires, suspension, and all the electronics. Engines and transmissions don’t fail that often these days, and on cheaper cars any competent mechanic can easily troubleshoot & repair them. And remember, the more expensive the EV the more motors you have to deal with burning out. Which seems to be fairly frequent with Teslas.

Incorrect. They are much simpler and have far fewer moving parts. Auto dealerships don't want EVs to take over specifically because they provide for less lucrative service options and also make it harder to rip customers off.

EVs don't start and stop with Tesla. Tesla has had known manufacturing deficiencies for years. This isn't a fault of the technology, it's a Tesla issue.
 

Endgame

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
866
This would be a problem if EV adoption was happening literally overnight. It isn't. They have plenty of time to design and build more power plants to address coming demand.
Heck, it gives more time for rooftop solar in addition to power plants. Before I fired up a bunch of computers for distributed computing for Covid research, I was annually producing a surplus with panels on half my house. With panels on the other half of the house, a bi directional charger and a car with a 100kwh battery, I could possibly never need to pull from the grid.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
Heck, it gives more time for rooftop solar in addition to power plants. Before I fired up a bunch of computers for distributed computing for Covid research, I was annually producing a surplus with panels on half my house. With panels on the other half of the house, a bi directional charger and a car with a 100kwh battery, I could possibly never need to pull from the grid.
People have ran the numbers and the demand can not be met with renewables. You need fossil fuels or nuclear. Nuclear plants take nearly two decades to build. We aren’t starting that process now and the federal government wants every vehicle to be EV in a decade.

I think people are going to be hit hard by grid prices in the coming years, and the reality is that the average person will be priced out of owning/operating vehicles.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,480
People have ran the numbers and the demand can not be met with renewables. You need fossil fuels or nuclear. Nuclear plants take nearly two decades to build. We aren’t starting that process now and the federal government wants every vehicle to be EV in a decade.

I think people are going to be hit hard by grid prices in the coming years, and the reality is that the average person will be priced out of owning/operating vehicles.
Just imagine the grid we could have if we stuck with nuclear. Must be nice in France.
 

Endgame

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
866
People have ran the numbers and the demand can not be met with renewables. You need fossil fuels or nuclear. Nuclear plants take nearly two decades to build. We aren’t starting that process now and the federal government wants every vehicle to be EV in a decade.

I think people are going to be hit hard by grid prices in the coming years, and the reality is that the average person will be priced out of owning/operating vehicles.
What numbers are those? The last article I saw was that 80-85% of the grid could be moved to renewables by 2030, and the rest by 2050 without using nuclear or biofuels.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...5/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewable-energy

The issue is not technological, it’s a matter of lack of will.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,480
What numbers are those? The last article I saw was that 80-85% of the grid could be moved to renewables by 2030, and the rest by 2050 without using nuclear or biofuels.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vo...5/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewable-energy

The issue is not technological, it’s a matter of lack of will.
That plan is already shot. Says by 2020 all new house appliances would be electric. Step 1 is failed already.

It's not "lack of will", it's just not feasible. The consumer isn't buying into it.

*Edit* Further reading even admits it's all a pipe dream.
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,267
Just imagine the grid we could have if we stuck with nuclear. Must be nice in France.

It'd be terrifying, and it's not nice. France, like everyone else has no end to end solution for dealing with the waste, and are just kicking the can down the road like everyone else has been doing for the past 70 years. The current solution is to store it on site for as long as possible and when space runs out, find the biggest sucker you can, or poor people that can't fight back to dump your waste on /COUGH Italy, China /COUGH. People keep talking about "but molten salt reactors!" - they don't exist on a commercial scale and will probably never exist because money. Cheaper to keep kicking that can down the road, or bury it.

Don't need another Fukushima, Chernobyl or Windscale. And the power plants are not the most dangerous part of the process either, nuclear contractors are responsible for some of the worst environmental disasters in history. Look no further than United Nuclear and their Church Rock mill that irradiated thousands of square miles across multiple US states and Mexico. Contractors also like abandoning things like radio therapy units and leave them derelict to cause mass poisoning incidents when poor people unknowingly break them apart for scrap.

Nuclear is not safe, nor will it ever be safe. Not saying fossil fuel is without problems, but oil spills aren't disasters that last longer than the human race has existed.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,609
It'd be terrifying, and it's not nice. France, like everyone else has no end to end solution for dealing with the waste, and are just kicking the can down the road like everyone else has been doing for the past 70 years. The current solution is to store it on site for as long as possible and when space runs out, find the biggest sucker you can, or poor people that can't fight back to dump your waste on /COUGH Italy, China /COUGH. People keep talking about "but molten salt reactors!" - they don't exist on a commercial scale and will probably never exist because money. Cheaper to keep kicking that can down the road, or bury it.

Don't need another Fukushima, Chernobyl or Windscale. And the power plants are not the most dangerous part of the process either, nuclear contractors are responsible for some of the worst environmental disasters in history. Look no further than United Nuclear and their Church Rock mill that irradiated thousands of square miles across multiple US states and Mexico. Contractors also like abandoning things like radio therapy units and leave them derelict to cause mass poisoning incidents when poor people unknowingly break them apart for scrap.

Nuclear is not safe, nor will it ever be safe. Not saying fossil fuel is without problems, but oil spills aren't disasters that last longer than the human race has existed.

Nuclear is safe. We have the ability and means and knowledge to reuse waste, either by reenrichment or alternative reactor designs that can burn fissile products molten salt reactors, I'm talking fast neutron reactors.
Due to hippies, politicians, and antiproliferation agreements, we can't reenrich, and we can't get new reactors built that burn waste products from other reactors.

Read up. You're out of date. And also, Finland has basically solved the waste issue since the politicians can't serve society.
 
Last edited:

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,267
Read up. You're out of date. And also, Finland has basically solved the waste issue since the politicians can't serve society.

No. YOU read up. You don't get to dismiss the worst nuclear disasters in history just because they happened decades ago. "oh don't worry about those hideous disasters that still exist today. they happened long ago and don't matter anymore."

Finland didn't solve crap. If they did, people in Bikini Atoll would be able to eat locally grown food without risk, and the Navajo in New Mexico wouldn't be perpetually growing up with weird cancers and birth defects. Just another example of pro-nuclear's self serving interests at the expense of everyone else.
 

StormNobleheart

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
188
I was excited at first when I heard about Ford making an electric Mustang. Finally, something cool to compete with Tesla. Then, I saw that it was a flipping crossover instead of a sport coupe. Nuclear is the way to go to increase energy output for the power grid. Very efficient energy source and can be built very, very safe. I worked near one most days when I was in the Navy.
 

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
No. YOU read up. You don't get to dismiss the worst nuclear disasters in history just because they happened decades ago. "oh don't worry about those hideous disasters that still exist today. they happened long ago and don't matter anymore."

Finland didn't solve crap. If they did, people in Bikini Atoll would be able to eat locally grown food without risk, and the Navajo in New Mexico wouldn't be perpetually growing up with weird cancers and birth defects. Just another example of pro-nuclear's self serving interests at the expense of everyone else.
You’re opinion is dated, and talking about nuclear tests doesn’t help it.
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,267
You’re opinion is dated, and talking about nuclear tests doesn’t help it.

I mean you can just keep proving my points, but it's not winning you any. Pretty hilarious you think nuclear disasters are opinions, and the fact you think that Church Rock was a nuclear test shows how much you don't know/don't care. It was a mining operation. But failed nuclear tests don't get to brushed under the proverbial rug, just another example of not caring about anyone.

Nuclear energy has a dark future when such grossly incompetent people are running the show, but that's been the status quo from the beginning.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,274
I saw one of these on the road a few days ago and.. oof. I'm all for the proliferation of electric vehicles, and I'd like to see American car companies succeed and thrive in this space. But WTF, Ford?

I don't even know what to compare it to, it looked like a plastic car. It didn't ooze cool - the kind where it would hit you immediately before you even know or recognize the brand. It had none of that. I hope I'm just the asshole that lacks taste and everyone else likes it and buys it.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
3,055
This is demonstrably false, but even then, this also ignores the reduced maintenance, the lack of oil, the much quieter operation...

Thankfully, your voice doesn't matter. You've already lost this fight. EVs will take over; you'll have no choice but to buy one at a certain point; you'll have to admit you were wrong, and we'll welcome you with open arms when you finally accept real science.

Lack of oil... now thats funny, electric motor still needs lubrication and they have buttloads of plastic in them to help keep the car lighter... yeah oil isn't going anywhere.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2006
Messages
4,064
I am looking to lease one of these (2021 or 2022 model) in the next few months. I think leasing these is the smart plan as I am expecting the residual value to be trash in 3 years and let the dealer eat the loss due to constant advances in EVs over the next decade, until we get solid state batteries that can fully recharge in minutes.

EV is the future and ICE is the past. I would bet that in 15 or so years, it will be difficult to get an ICE car from any major manufacture.

Munro and Associates have a tear-down series on this car on YouTube. I advise anyone who would like to know what is good and bad on this car, take a watch. Munro and Associates are experts in the Automotive industry BTW, in case you all aren't aware.

The only future nuclear has is either in fusion or small modular reactors. Big fision nuclear is dieing because of NIMBY and cost (and several other reasons).

Lack of oil... now thats funny, electric motor still needs lubrication and they have buttloads of plastic in them to help keep the car lighter... yeah oil isn't going anywhere.
But you only need to change the lubricant in these every 150k miles (or 10 years) and they are SUPER simple inside. If you want to know what actually makes up the Mach-E, watch the tear-downs where they literally take it down to the body in white.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,609
No. YOU read up. You don't get to dismiss the worst nuclear disasters in history just because they happened decades ago. "oh don't worry about those hideous disasters that still exist today. they happened long ago and don't matter anymore."

Finland didn't solve crap. If they did, people in Bikini Atoll would be able to eat locally grown food without risk, and the Navajo in New Mexico wouldn't be perpetually growing up with weird cancers and birth defects. Just another example of pro-nuclear's self serving interests at the expense of everyone else.

As I mentioned, hippies getting in the way. Emotional folks who are unable to apply logical thought. The past IS the past. And weapons testing sites have absolutely zero to do with an energy production discussion.
Your Finland comment shows your complete ignorance of the topic and that you're simply an emotional screecher. Educate yourself on advancements and we can continue this conversation at a later date.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,480
As I mentioned, hippies getting in the way. Emotional folks who are unable to apply logical thought. The past IS the past. And weapons testing sites have absolutely zero to do with an energy production discussion.
Your Finland comment shows your complete ignorance of the topic and that you're simply an emotional screecher. Educate yourself on advancements and we can continue this conversation at a later date.
Some just can't understand that yes, Nuclear requires attention to detail. Both in design and maintaining. Somehow the USN operates moving nuclear plants without failures, like there's a standard that should be held. No, instead we should plaster over thousands upon thousands of square miles of the environment we're supposed to care about with endless solar panels and wind turbines. Then on top of that use massive banks of Li batteries that are just waiting to produce some spectacular flash fires.

Sometimes ease of use leads to sloppy quality. At least nuclear makes people stand on their toes and actually care.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,609
Some just can't understand that yes, Nuclear requires attention to detail. Both in design and maintaining. Somehow the USN operates moving nuclear plants without failures, like there's a standard that should be held. No, instead we should plaster over thousands upon thousands of square miles of the environment we're supposed to care about with endless solar panels and wind turbines. Then on top of that use massive banks of Li batteries that are just waiting to produce some spectacular flash fires.

Sometimes ease of use leads to sloppy quality. At least nuclear makes people stand on their toes and actually care.

Bingo.
 

GiGaBiTe

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 26, 2013
Messages
2,267
As I mentioned, hippies getting in the way. Emotional folks who are unable to apply logical thought.

Oh? You apply logical thought? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

The past IS the past. And weapons testing sites have absolutely zero to do with an energy production discussion.

Yes, we can continue a discussion once you learn reading comprehension and not conflate nuclear testing and energy production. You seem to think Church Rock, NM was a nuclear test, despite being told twice that it was a uranium mining disaster. You may also want to move to said location, or really anywhere near there to expose yourself to the past, seeing as that it doesn't matter anymore, according to you. That Caesium-137, Strontium-90 and Lead-210 and 1,100 tons of waste uranium ore totally won't harm you today, because after all, it was 40 years ago. Those isotopes totally don't last that long, totally. I'm sure you'll be absolutely fine drinking the water, there's nothing bad in it :rolleyes:

Sometimes ease of use leads to sloppy quality. At least nuclear makes people stand on their toes and actually care.

That is a good joke.

Read up on nuclear contractors and how many criticality whoopsies and radioactive excursions have happened. United Nuclear is a good place to start, but Atomic Energy of Canada is another good one. Building faulty radio therapy machines and covering it up, leading to death and permanent injury to patients from massive radiation overdoses due to said faults. Or the Siemens radio therapy unit abandoned by the manufacturer in Thailand, and forgotten about by the Thai Atomic Energy Commission. It eventually ended up in the scrap market, where its source was broken apart and exposed almost 2000 people to deadly radiation and killed/permanently maimed several.

The list is endless. Nuclear doesn't make people care, just makes people dead. Usually the poor, but sometimes people thinking they're getting legitimate treatment and die instead.
 

alxlwson

You Know Where I Live
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Messages
8,609
Oh? You apply logical thought? I haven't seen any evidence of that yet.



Yes, we can continue a discussion once you learn reading comprehension and not conflate nuclear testing and energy production. You seem to think Church Rock, NM was a nuclear test, despite being told twice that it was a uranium mining disaster. You may also want to move to said location, or really anywhere near there to expose yourself to the past, seeing as that it doesn't matter anymore, according to you. That Caesium-137, Strontium-90 and Lead-210 and 1,100 tons of waste uranium ore totally won't harm you today, because after all, it was 40 years ago. Those isotopes totally don't last that long, totally. I'm sure you'll be absolutely fine drinking the water, there's nothing bad in it :rolleyes:



That is a good joke.

Read up on nuclear contractors and how many criticality whoopsies and radioactive excursions have happened. United Nuclear is a good place to start, but Atomic Energy of Canada is another good one. Building faulty radio therapy machines and covering it up, leading to death and permanent injury to patients from massive radiation overdoses due to said faults. Or the Siemens radio therapy unit abandoned by the manufacturer in Thailand, and forgotten about by the Thai Atomic Energy Commission. It eventually ended up in the scrap market, where its source was broken apart and exposed almost 2000 people to deadly radiation and killed/permanently maimed several.

The list is endless. Nuclear doesn't make people care, just makes people dead. Usually the poor, but sometimes people thinking they're getting legitimate treatment and die instead.

Funny you mention reading comprehension, when you yourself are suffering from a lack of it.

Neutrons are scary, I get it. We've made mistakes. We know how to not make those mistakes, but believe it or not, politicians and people like you are in the way. Read up on fast neutron reactors. Read up on reenrichment. Read up on antiproliferation agreements and how they are directly responsible for the nuclear waste stockpiles.
Nuclear energy production is clean and safe in our Era. We really do need to let SCIENCE do it's thing and get emotional hippies and politicians out of the way.

I can't speak to your medical device things. I've never once heard about these incidents. So I'll educate myself. You should do the same on the topics I mentioned.
 
Last edited:

Mchart

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 7, 2004
Messages
5,580
Anyways, that "Mustang" is dog ugly, nuff said.
IMO all the current EVs are ugly. Of course, I think most modern cars are ugly anyways. For me personally, cars peaked in the early 2000s. Everything after became too digital and the styling went to trash.

All my nice cars are 20+ years old at this point, and I keep a cheap Hyundai as the daily.
 
Top