pune wrote:

As I shared, I report, don't make facts. So let's see what happens in February, March etc.

I'm just asking you to clarify your comment as I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Germany saw a total of 179,247 new passenger cars sold in Jan 23 - Tesla accounts to just over 2% over those sales putting them in 12th place overall. VAG being in first seeing just over 41% of the German market share.

Strictly BEVs - VAG leads the sales with over 116,000 units sold compared to Tesla's 69963 placing Tesla in 2nd place for strictly BEV - if you include PHEVs then that number for VAG jumps up to over 213,000 units in the 2022 year total pushing Tesla to the 3rd position for plug-ins in 2022.

Planeflyer wrote:

.

Tesla may miss timetables but not specs . a lot of smart people including leaders like Mercedes said the semi was impossible

Actually Daimler had electric semis on the road before Tesla.

JJJ wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

.

Tesla may miss timetables but not specs . a lot of smart people including leaders like Mercedes said the semi was impossible

Actually Daimler had electric semis on the road before Tesla.

Bill Gates was claiming today that Semis are impossible, but then he has been wrong on multiple points.

pune wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

.

Tesla may miss timetables but not specs . a lot of smart people including leaders like Mercedes said the semi was impossible

Actually Daimler had electric semis on the road before Tesla.

Bill Gates was claiming today that Semis are impossible, but then he has been wrong on multiple points.

Musk has also been wrong on multiple points.

Do you have a link for the Gates claims? I just found some old quotes.

This was just couple of months ago when Musk released the 500 mile trip -

https://electrek.co/2022/12/02/watch-te ... -possible/

pune wrote:

This was just couple of months ago when Musk released the 500 mile trip -

https://electrek.co/2022/12/02/watch-te ... -possible/

Read you own source. It says that Daimler and Bill Gates said it wasn't possible in 2020. Technology is rapidly moving forward.

With a developed charging network for semis I suspect that a realistic 300 mile range, along with reserved charging would do great.

They are also ahead in making batteries, apparently cheaper than the Chinese -

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tesla-to- ... 355.0.html

QF7 wrote:

pune wrote:

I will ask so it's simple and categorical, do you believe that fossil fuels are the main cause for global warming not to mention all sorts of diseases. You can give an elaborate or a yes or no answer, upto you. Looking forward to that. Because EV's are part-answer to that, there are others but this is one of the main ones, and not just cars but transport fleets.

Fossil fuels are a large contributor, it’s true. But when you break that down further it turns out that transportation -in all its forms - is responsible for roughly a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions, and roughly another quarter comes from…

… electricity generation.

You’re not accomplishing very much if you drive an EV that is charged with coal-generated electricity.

Of course power generation is transitioning to greener methods and of course it’s a good thing for transportation to reduce its emissions. But we’re still a long way away from either generation or consumption being majority green.

This is why in Australia it’s been right for governments to fund infrastructure rather than personal purchase of vehicles.

But with an ever increasing proportion of power coming from renewables, and many able to charge their EVs via rooftop solar and even now to use some EVs as storage, the equation has flipped for new cars.

If only we could get supply.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

With a developed charging network for semis I suspect that a realistic 300 mile range, along with reserved charging would do great.

Not for OTR trucks. 300 miles is nowhere near enough and you'd need chargers at every space in rest areas and truckstops. That's unlikely to happen for decades. Also, 300 miles on flat terrain in moderate temperatures or 300 miles in the mountains or across deserts?

like I said, real range. 300 is 5 hours of driving at 60mph. A twenty minute break is not inappropriate after that long on the road.

Are we back to trucks again?

As per the other dozen or so threads - hydrogen is going to be a key player in long-haul trucking. Take the Rogers Pass here in BC - on average there are easily about 200-300 trucks going through there every hour, its only about a 100 mile trip, but it is a hilly, winding, narrow pass and it sees frequent closures for accidents, avalanche control or construction, so those delays need to be taken into account. You'll need a charging area on both ends, one in Golden and one in Revelstoke - the amount of land required to accommodate a couple of hundred of trucks, every hour, to sit there and charge before going through the pass is ridiculously massive not taking into account the amount of energy required to power all those chargers. Going East from Golden towards Calgary, that stretch is littered with National Parks, so putting massive charging facilities up there won't happen because they're National Parks and that would be a big no-no, so the next possibility would be 300km down the road once you come out of the mountains, so if your going Westbound, even if you leave Alberta with a full charge, you'll have no choice but to top up a charge in Golden. Adding charging stations west of Revelstoke would be even more difficult, you could maybe add a small one around Malakwa or Sicamous, but Salmon Arm or Vernon would be the only options for the next big ones which means even if you top up in Golden, you'd have to stop again in Revelstoke to top up again, thats a lot of time and money lost, then comes the legal questions for HoS, is charging considered off-duty or on-duty but not driving time?

Not to mention that the treehuggers would complain about them "spoiling the view". I was a long time Appalachian Trail Conference member. I quit because they were all for windpower until someone in New England put up a windfarm within sight of the trail and they went ballistic.

pune wrote:

This was just couple of months ago when Musk released the 500 mile trip -

https://electrek.co/2022/12/02/watch-te ... -possible/

What about the source where you claim he said that today?

pune wrote:

Bill Gates was claiming today that Semis are impossible, but then he has been wrong on multiple points.

Our local bus service has been testing BEVs on one run over the last couple of years and are going ahead with the purchase of more BEV buses - they had a bit of a media event to make the announcement the other week, so the bus pulled up to the bus loop to charge before heading out on the next run but the pantograph wouldn't lower and they couldn't get it charged, so the bus ended up doing one more trip and had to get swapped out for a diesel for the rest of the day.

While I see a very realistic future for BEV buses, one has to admit the timing of that is pretty darn funny.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

This was just couple of months ago when Musk released the 500 mile trip -

https://electrek.co/2022/12/02/watch-te ... -possible/

What about the source where you claim he said that today?

pune wrote:

Bill Gates was claiming today that Semis are impossible, but then he has been wrong on multiple points.

Yes, his link said that Bill Gates actually said it in 2020. My reply to that effect was deleted. Lots of things can (and do) change in three years, especially in a technology that is having billions of dollars invested in it.

QF7, agree and that’s why am a Tesla owner and investor. W castings, motors, software defined vehicle,FSD, AI they are taking the risks the current leaders never would do.

No other company has the capability to benefit more from the trend towards evs.

It’s not for nothing that the model Y and 3 were both among the top 10 vehicles sold last year.

I should have added that Tesla’s innovation extends to a software defined design and mfg process which allows them to upgrade the vehicle at an unprecedented pace

Planeflyer wrote:

I should have added that Tesla’s innovation extends to a software defined design and mfg process which allows them to upgrade the vehicle at an unprecedented pace

Both on the money. They don't cry about others like Toyota's been doing. The sheer hypocrisy by Toyota and its chief scientist is mind-boggling. He bought a Tesla Plaid or something, has 300 miles range and says his family uses only 30 miles, so it's a waste. On the other hand, we have posters here on the forum itself who want 1000-1500 kms. per charge otherwise they would have range anxiety. And of course, are worried about cold and whatnot.

And remember all these companies had almost 2 decades headstart over Tesla, so if they wanted to, they could have killed the competition even before it was born. But they were greedy and it is what it is.

@PlaneFlyter, FWIW, the last I heard they are planning a single Gigapress for the whole body, should make construction even more cheap while adding to body strength. This may first be tried with their new 2 or whatever sub 20k car they are hoping to launch, we should know more details on 1st March 2023.

pune wrote:

On the other hand, we have posters here on the forum itself who want 1000-1500 kms. per charge otherwise they would have range anxiety.

Who said that?

pune wrote:

But they were greedy and it is what it is.

How were they "greedy"?

pune wrote:

The sheer hypocrisy by Toyota and its chief scientist is mind-boggling.

What hypocrisy? He is 100% correct - there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to personal transportation, there just isn't.

pune wrote:

He bought a Tesla Plaid or something, has 300 miles range and says his family uses only 30 miles, so it's a waste.

Well yeah, isn't that common sense? If your main use for a vehicle only requires a more efficient set up, using a vehicle that has a power plant that requires more energy to operate doesn't make sense. It's no different using a Ford F350 for a 30 min commute when a small Econo hatchback would do the same job more efficiently and that is the whole point he tried to make. His Model 3 is a great car, but it's more than what he needs - enter other options that are better suited for his personal needs. That's not a difficult premise to understand.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

On the other hand, we have posters here on the forum itself who want 1000-1500 kms. per charge otherwise they would have range anxiety.

Who said that?

pune wrote:

But they were greedy and it is what it is.

How were they "greedy"?

pune wrote:

The sheer hypocrisy by Toyota and its chief scientist is mind-boggling.

What hypocrisy? He is 100% correct - there is no "one size fits all" when it comes to personal transportation, there just isn't.

pune wrote:

He bought a Tesla Plaid or something, has 300 miles range and says his family uses only 30 miles, so it's a waste.

Well yeah, isn't that common sense? If your main use for a vehicle only requires a more efficient set up, using a vehicle that has a power plant that requires more energy to operate doesn't make sense. It's no different using a Ford F350 for a 30 min commute when a small Econo hatchback would do the same job more efficiently and that is the whole point he tried to make. His Model 3 is a great car, but it's more than what he needs - enter other options that are better suited for his personal needs. That's not a difficult premise to understand.

Just see 'Who killed the Electric Car' that itself will tell you. It names all the companies and competitors who actually did murder of a technology, otherwise we could have got them in the year 2000 itself. Have you seen it ??? If not, see it. If already seen, then you know. I can wake people who do not know but not those who are pretending to sleep.

And btw there are too many threads where people here have shared it won't work for them until you have 1000-1500 kms. on a single charge. Apparently, they do large distances every now and then. Although most people have no issues.

See if the gentleman wanted a car just for 30 minute commute, there are n number of micro cars. I can understand if it was somebody who is outside the industry that they didn't or couldn't make a good choice. But somebody who's a chief scientist and works for a car company, so either he's dumb or he thinks others are dumb. If he can't make rational choices for his own transportation then he is supposed to guide a company or the industry per-se. This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.

And such people have high-level contacts about everything so it just doesn't make sense.

pune wrote:

Just see 'Who killed the Electric Car' that itself will tell you. It names all the companies and competitors who actually did murder of a technology, otherwise we could have got them in the year 2000 itself. Have you seen it ??? If not, see it. If already seen, then you know. I can wake people who do not know but not those who are pretending to sleep.

LOL - "Woke", you're "asleep" - dude get in line with that garbage ideological nonsense. Seriously, take a number - its a long line.
I've been following the car industry for well over 40 years and have seen all kinds of new technologies emerge, resurge and trends come and go - I've got a pretty good handle on the history of the EV and the industry and market itself.

pune wrote:

And btw there are too many threads where people here have shared it won't work for them until you have 1000-1500 kms. on a single charge. Apparently, they do large distances every now and then. Although most people have no issues.

Well, I'd like to see where someone said that so please post the comment - just as I'd like you to post your source on Bill Gate's comment on electric trucks being impossible that he made today.

And yes, some people do need to do large distances frequently. Where I live in Canada, that is very common - just because most people don't have to doesn't mean all people don't have to - and they need a vehicle that best suits their needs, not the needs of others.

pune wrote:

See if the gentleman wanted a car just for 30 minute commute, there are n number of micro cars. I can understand if it was somebody who is outside the industry that they didn't or couldn't make a good choice. But somebody who's a chief scientist and works for a car company, so either he's dumb or he thinks others are dumb. If he can't make rational choices for his own transportation then he is supposed to guide a company or the industry per-se. This is nothing but blatant hypocrisy.

And such people have high-level contacts about everything so it just doesn't make sense.

Oh, I see - he's "dumb". Maybe you should actually go back and listen to what he actually said before you make more ridiculous comments.

And this is why its so hard to have a serious discussion with you - Gill Pratt openly and repeatedly admits that he loves his Tesla and thinks its overall a great car, and if he worked for Tesla and made those comments, you'd be kissing his ring agreeing that Tesla needs to make a smaller car for smaller commutes - but because we works for Toyota, you just can't accept what he says because he works for Toyota - and that's where your arguments always fail because they're based on ideology and not on rational or principle.

It's very simple. An ordinary person could just type "EV Micro cars" and he would get cars that are 30/50 whatever his thing is. There are also bikes which are similar. This is what a reasonable intelligent person would do. Let's say somehow that person still is not satisfied with the answers he gets, there are countless boards for EV's.

And we are forgetting a very important fact, he's a chief scientist at a major Automotive company. So he gets all sorts of offers and information. He has to, that is part of his job profile. He has to know what the competition is doing. In fact, he is supposed to be expert in Robotics and whatnot and somehow we are supposed to take a leap of faith that he is unable to figure out his transportation issues. And it isn't as if he's short of money.

Now if I bought something that had more than I wanted, then I would be glad because that thing/product will be future-proof. Is there any machine that you can think of that has something more that is of no use.

Mazda CEO just changed his tune today saying there is no need of long-range EV's

https://www.team-bhp.com/news/long-rang ... zda-us-ceo

Probably because they don't have enough raw material like Tesla or the Chinese who have got mining as well as recycling bits in place.

For the record just doing 'electric vehicle range' gives 256 odd matches in which you will certainly find people who have said that they want more range and they want it cost earth.

This I had shared over a year back -

https://cleantechnica.com/2022/06/04/ho ... ev-makers/

I did notice that you he-hawed but didn't say that you have seen that production or not. If you had, you know all the villains. General Motors made EV1 and literally scrapped as they were scared that they would become popular. They even tried to buy people. You can also see -

https://www.ev1.org/

This tells you for one and all. For somebody who has been following the car market for 40 years (your words, not mine) don't seem to have much knowledge otherwise wouldn't have said what you did.

pune wrote:

It's very simple. An ordinary person could just type "EV Micro cars" and he would get cars that are 30/50 whatever his thing is. There are also bikes which are similar. This is what a reasonable intelligent person would do. Let's say somehow that person still is not satisfied with the answers he gets, there are countless boards for EV's.

And we are forgetting a very important fact, he's a chief scientist at a major Automotive company. So he gets all sorts of offers and information. He has to, that is part of his job profile. He has to know what the competition is doing. In fact, he is supposed to be expert in Robotics and whatnot and somehow we are supposed to take a leap of faith that he is unable to figure out his transportation issues. And it isn't as if he's short of money.

Now if I bought something that had more than I wanted, then I would be glad because that thing/product will be future-proof. Is there any machine that you can think of that has something more that is of no use.

Once again, go and actually listen to what his comment was. Then, take a pause and listen again. Pause again, and slowly think as to what he actually said and what the context of his comment is.

pune wrote:

I did notice that you he-hawed but didn't say that you have seen that production or not. If you had, you know all the villains. General Motors made EV1 and literally scrapped as they were scared that they would become popular. They even tried to buy people. You can also see -

https://www.ev1.org/

This tells you for one and all. For somebody who has been following the car market for 40 years (your words, not mine) don't seem to have much knowledge otherwise wouldn't have said what you did.

And what exactly did I say?

I really like what they shared as the tag line of the site - GM, Chevron and CARB killed the sole NiMH EV once, will do so again. That in itself explains the whole story and this should also answer your questions about people being greedy. Chevron for e.g. didn't want anybody manufacturing batteries and sued Toyota so that batteries couldn't be manufactured. From the site -

Toyota’s EV-95 batteries are still running Toyota RAV4-EV cars more than 20,000 miles per year, and for over 100,000 miles so far. But no more EV-95 batteries can be made, after Chevron sued Toyota.

The story starts from 1990, not even 2000, just tells you how much we just lost because these auto companies were greedy, and losers were ordinary people.

Hell, if there wasn't global warming or Tesla hadn't made the roadster or thought of doing an EV company. He had got lots of cash from PayPal, he simply could have retired as many millionaires and billionaires do. But he did, and then with the whole production hell thing, apart from his twitter fiasco, he has done o.kish. And even in that, he tried to back out but found he couldn't.

pune wrote:

I really like what they shared as the tag line of the site - GM, Chevron and CARB killed the sole NiMH EV once, will do so again. That in itself explains the whole story and this should also answer your questions about people being greedy. Chevron for e.g. didn't want anybody manufacturing batteries and sued Toyota so that batteries couldn't be manufactured. From the site -

Toyota’s EV-95 batteries are still running Toyota RAV4-EV cars more than 20,000 miles per year, and for over 100,000 miles so far. But no more EV-95 batteries can be made, after Chevron sued Toyota.

The story starts from 1990, not even 2000, just tells you how much we just lost because these auto companies were greedy, and losers were ordinary people.

I didn't ask you for the Cliff Notes, I asked you "what exactly did I say"?

If you knew then you knew who the greedy people were, all those against EV, GM, Nissan,Toyota the list goes on and on. They still want gas but they are seeing an erosion that people by themselves are getting EV as long-term costs are less and it's far cheaper to run. If we can do it in India, then other countries particularly which are known as 'advanced' should be able to do lot more better.

pune wrote:

If you knew then you knew who the greedy people were, all those against EV, GM, Nissan,Toyota the list goes on and on. They still want gas but they are seeing an erosion that people by themselves are getting EV as long-term costs are less and it's far cheaper to run. If we can do it in India, then other countries particularly which are known as 'advanced' should be able to do lot more better.

Stop deflecting and please quote what it is that I exactly said. Thank you.

I see you don't want to talk about how these big companies killed EV and how Elon single-handedly made it back. The only 'deflection' is that people don't want to take responsibility and be like the dodos. Even when I asked you a straight question about Chevron you are eager to duck and talk about everything else but that. Why do you have love for those people who only think about themselves and not progress and in fact inhibit progress even when it's made.

pune wrote:

I see you don't want to talk

I want you to quote exactly what it is that I said.

pune wrote:

Even when I asked you a straight question about Chevron you are eager to duck and talk about everything else but that.

Please show me where you asked this question.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

I see you don't want to talk

I want you to quote exactly what it is that I said.

You said you have seen all kind of technologies merge and have been following the car industry and also know what EV industry is and size etc. But haven't made any prophecies or anything in that regard. If you are an expert would be glad to see a prophecy or two of where you think the industry would be say in 2025. And by this I mean numbers. As an expert and observer for over 40 years, surely you have better than most people able to tell what the numbers would be. For e.g. what would be the share of full ZEV (no hybrids, no hydrogen) in 2025 worldwide.

Surely as an expert you can share a prediction or two.

Btw, did you get who the 'greedy' people are or does it still need substantiation ???

AABusDrvr wrote:

pune wrote:

AABusDrvr wrote:

We also lived through the great snowmageddon of 2021. I always keep the vehicles above 75% full, and will fill everything (including a few gas cans for the generator) before a weather event.

Since we have gas heat and appliances, and a real, wood burning fireplace, we were able to keep at least a few rooms in the house a reasonable temperature. I feel for the people building new homes without gas and real fireplaces.

The infrastructure is no where near ready to support a transition to electric everything.

We just ordered a full size SUV with a wonderful 6.2L V8 engine, I fully intend to drive it until I can no longer buy gasoline.

That is your choice. Just don't say was not told, we all suffer consequences of our choices.

In other news, Jim Farley CEO has shared they need to work more to reduce weight of car. Most other CEO's are not as forthcoming, exception was VW CEO who was removed last October.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zjiMC2GT1M

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/04/busi ... index.html

So while it's easy for lot of people say X is Tesla-killer, harder to prove.

Erstwhile VW Boss, Herbert Deiss who pointed similar issues and was booted out. Probably Jim Farley will get the same boot

The consequence of my choice will be enjoying a vehicle much more capable than any EV sold here today. I will indeed enjoy that.

Per the article you posted, 90% of Europe is still buying ICE powered cars, and here in the US, it's closer to 94% of vehicles sold are ICE. The death of the ICE powered vehicle is still a long way off.

The death of ICE vehicles in Europe is around 2035 by this time most EU countries will have stopped selling new ICE vehicles. In Norway ICE is dead 2025.

pune wrote:

You said you have seen all kind of technologies merge and have been following the car industry and also know what EV industry is and size etc.

Here is my actual comment:

ACDC8 wrote:

I've been following the car industry for well over 40 years and have seen all kinds of new technologies emerge, resurge and trends come and go - I've got a pretty good handle on the history of the EV and the industry and market itself.

I thought the context was pretty clear, but maybe its because English isn't your first language, but you really seem to have this habit of taking something that is being said and making ridiculous assumptions of what the actual context is.

pune wrote:

But haven't made any prophecies or anything in that regard.

Why would I make "prophecies"?

pune wrote:

If you are an expert would be glad to see a prophecy or two of where you think the industry would be say in 2025.

I never claimed to be an expert, but I'm flattered that you think so highly of me.

pune wrote:

And by this I mean numbers. As an expert and observer for over 40 years, surely you have better than most people able to tell what the numbers would be. For e.g. what would be the share of full ZEV (no hybrids, no hydrogen) in 2025 worldwide.

Again, never claimed to be an "expert" but for 2025, we'll be close to where we are today. There will be more EV options by various manufactures. There will also be more hybrids, plug-in hybrids and people will continue to buy what best suits them, and this will vary from region to region. As for "numbers", sorry, but I'm not going to even bother entertaining such an asinine request.

pune wrote:

Surely as an expert you can share a prediction or two.

Where did I every claim I was such?

pune wrote:

Btw, did you get who the 'greedy' people are or does it still need substantiation ???

I believe the correct question would be, "Do you understand why EVs haven't been successful in the past?" And yes, I do - I understand all the factors that were involved, not just cherry picking one factor to suit your narrative.

Kiwirob wrote:

In Norway ICE is dead 2025.

And Norway will continue to drill and produce oil for the rest of the world - how many blocks are they selling this year? Almost 100 isn't it?

You do have to admit, there is a sense of irony there. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing Norway or anything, but one does have to admit, it is a bit ironic.

Just for the heck of it, I was playing around on Tesla's website. Our Federal Government gives up to a $5000 rebate on BEV and Plug-in Hybrids, the Provincial Government also gives up $4000 in rebates - depending on your income. Bummer, I make too much money, no Provincial rebate for me, just the Federal one

ACDC8 wrote:

Just for the heck of it, I was playing around on Tesla's website. Our Federal Government gives up to a $5000 rebate on BEV and Plug-in Hybrids, the Provincial Government also gives up $4000 in rebates - depending on your income. Bummer, I make too much money, no Provincial rebate for me, just the Federal one

You should talk to your Oil pals, they gets trillions in subsidies every year. I am sure you are gonna ignore that or you will say about all the 'factors'

https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fue ... port-finds

If anybody wants to talk about subsidies or capping off subsidies, it should be the oil industry, they make trillions in profits, hardly pay any tax. And still people talk on their behalf . Not to mention the numerous diseases people get while drilling (radiation) as well as when you are inhaling the fumes, all known and medically proven and all info. a search engine away.

pune wrote:

You should talk to your Oil pals,

Actually, I do on a daily basis. Glad they still have employment up there - I do miss the lifestyle and the money, but I'm doing pretty OK with my current job. The shifts sucked, barely got any sleep - but working 2 weeks with 1 week off was great, and the food and lodging were great too. Plus the flights in and out of the oil sites, that was a total blast. Oh well, I think spending 5 years up there was enough, was time to move on.

pune wrote:

they gets trillions in subsidies every year.

Yeah, you brought this up on the other page (and other threads) - did I ever argue they didn't? I'm not sure what you want me to say, are you expecting me to "condemn" them? Subsidies are a fact of life in almost every industry, the job I have right now is one of the highest publicly funded industries in the Province - and is heavily subsided by several levels of Government and taxpayer. But if you want to talk about subsidies, one of the biggest contributors to Norway's EV success were royalties paid by every barrel of oil they sold an continue to sell.

pune wrote:

I am sure you are gonna ignore that or you will say about all the 'factors'

I didn't ignore it last time, or the time before that, or the time before that when you keep bringing it up. But the difference between you and me, is that I understand that automotive and transportation is a bit more complicated than watching a little YouTube video and what succeeds and what doesn't succeed is contributed by several factors, political, economic, environmental, technological constraints, production constraints, consumer trends, etc.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

You should talk to your Oil pals,

Actually, I do on a daily basis. Glad they still have employment up there - I do miss the lifestyle and the money, but I'm doing pretty OK with my current job. The shifts sucked, barely got any sleep - but working 2 weeks with 1 week off was great, and the food and lodging were great too. Plus the flights in and out of the oil sites, that was a total blast. Oh well, I think spending 5 years up there was enough, was time to move on.

pune wrote:

they gets trillions in subsidies every year.

Yeah, you brought this up on the other page (and other threads) - did I ever argue they didn't? I'm not sure what you want me to say, are you expecting me to "condemn" them? Subsidies are a fact of life in almost every industry, the job I have right now is one of the highest publicly funded industries in the Province - and is heavily subsided by several levels of Government and taxpayer. But if you want to talk about subsidies, one of the biggest contributors to Norway's EV success were royalties paid by every barrel of oil they sold an continue to sell.

pune wrote:

I am sure you are gonna ignore that or you will say about all the 'factors'

I didn't ignore it last time, or the time before that, or the time before that when you keep bringing it up. But the difference between you and me, is that I understand that automotive and transportation is a bit more complicated than watching a little YouTube video and what succeeds and what doesn't succeed is contributed by several factors, political, economic, environmental, technological constraints, production constraints, consumer trends, etc.

In all that you forgot buying politicians and lobbying, which is what happened and continues to happen however much you deny. If something is constrained, why is it constrained, because somebody made it so. If the same people had invested their energy into it in the 1990s instead of thwarting every time history would have been much different. We would have lot more cleaner air and healthier people for sure.

pune wrote:

In all that you forgot buying politicians and lobbying, which is what happened and continues to happen however much you deny. If something is constrained, why is it constrained, because somebody made it so. If the same people had invested their energy into it in the 1990s instead of thwarting every time history would have been much different. We would have lot more cleaner air and healthier people for sure.

No, I didn't - its right there:

ACDC8 wrote:

what succeeds and what doesn't succeed is contributed by several factors, political, economic, environmental, technological constraints, production constraints, consumer trends, etc.

Also, where did I "deny" anything? You can't just pretend someone said something to create a discussion point, it doesn't work that way.

Pune, plz identify the subsidies you claim the oil industry receives.

Planeflyer wrote:

Pune, plz identify the subsidies you claim the oil industry receives.

This paper may be helpful in answering your question https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/ ... ies-466004

Thanks, and that is apart from the oil spills, for example the 2010 BP Horizon Oil Spill. Think only yesterday or day before they agreed to compensate some. They had record profits, and screw the climate.

https://gizmodo.com/bp-backtracks-clima ... 1850084748

No surprise they took over a decade to own up to their responsibility, after being named, shamed and everything.

https://en.mercopress.com/2015/10/06/bp ... -oil-spill

Of course, they are 'a different kind of business' so please don't ask any uncomfortable or awkward questions </irony off>

And Exxon and other oil companies knew from 1950's and 1960's that their products will make global warming.

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abk0063

Apart from the science, it includes memos from executives from Exxon and others, that in itself should be damning enough

Of course, they continue to spread FUD but that's par for course for people now. .

pune wrote:

Thanks, and that is apart from the oil spills, for example the 2010 BP Horizon Oil Spill. Think only yesterday or day before they agreed to compensate some.

The compensation agreements have been in place for a number of years already. Some payments have already been paid out and others are being paid out in instalments over a specific timeframe and some still have to be agreed upon. It involves several parties and the litigation process is a bit more complex than simply writing a cheque.

ACDC8 wrote:

pune wrote:

Thanks, and that is apart from the oil spills, for example the 2010 BP Horizon Oil Spill. Think only yesterday or day before they agreed to compensate some.

The compensation agreements have been in place for a number of years already. Some payments have already been paid out and others are being paid out in instalments over a specific timeframe and some still have to be agreed upon. It involves several parties and the litigation process is a bit more complex than simply writing a cheque.

Just so people know and because it's in public domain, at that point in time, BP denied taking all or any responsibility for the oil spill. In their words, it was the drilling platform, not us. And there have been far more oil spills and it's so common that media has stopped reporting it.

https://www.history.com/speeches/bp-ceo ... -oil-spill

pune wrote:

Just so people know and because it's in public domain, at that point in time, BP denied taking all or any responsibility for the oil spill. In their words, it was the drilling platform, not us. And there have been far more oil spills and it's so common that media has stopped reporting it.

https://www.history.com/speeches/bp-ceo ... -oil-spill

Doesn't matter - they've been fined and compensation has been/is being paid.

Talking about oil spills. Have you ever been to the Athabasca River in Northern Alberta? It flows right through one of the worlds largest oil deposits and every day, a natural discharge of oil gets carried away by the river into lakes and eventually the Arctic Ocean.

For companies, it is easy to pass the buck, even if they have done it 1000 times or more, doesn't matter.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-heal ... il-spills/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/new ... Delta.html

As was shared above, it is all a 'natural' consequence of things. Hence even if Shell says 1000+ oil spills in 5-6 years, not a big deal right </sarcasm off>

pune wrote:

For companies, it is easy to pass the buck, even if they have done it 1000 times or more, doesn't matter.

Sure it matters.