Walhman is possible the worst shill on Tesla there is but this is about the worst bit of misinformation there has ever been put forth on Tesla (that I'm aware of) and for some reason this is pegging sponsored search: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4160351-tesla-model-3-costs-charge-gasoline-car Not surprising given sponsored search (dishonest as opposed to honest) is an even greater conflict of interest than the bribe based censorship/spin based preemptive filtering ever present veto that is sponsored media- lobbying is made possible by sponsored media and the public is expected to fund it. Now even the sponsor filter is filtered for with paid SEO. Can you imagine how radical a force for the good honest search would be- especially with a semantic component? AI good or bad will hit search first- nothing more powerful than the questions we ask. But honest search would also tear lies like what Walhman is putting out apart.
Walhman is on about a theme petrol has been trying to push but its in the most dishonest format I've ever seen- its like the new face of climate change denial its so supid, these are the ironic new Luddites, they take axes to EV and smash them on freeway dividers and fund the broadcast of lies. The underlying lie here isn't new, its just more belligerent than ever. The message is that petrol isn't a helpless total welfare case that has placed the world solidly on the road to serfdom now for decades. The like here is a variant of saying that petrol retail cost somehow matters when it goes low in a way that perpetuates or helps petrol- that again it isn't a helpless brittle broken total subsidy case. That ICE and petrol and its supply can can compete or recover when that is impossible. The number he should be working with for an electric is 3 cents a kwh and dropping and he should do his math right and stop trying to push the myth that people won't have access to their own roof tops, because the petrol scam doesn't want it. Even with out that petrol will never make economic sense or be competitive. Petrol's time was up 70s years ago- it played a vital role up to that point but by the time nuclear hit we should moved on and certainly by 50 years ago we should have been done with it.
We have to keep in mind that petrol fuel energy is impoverishing the globe and has been for a long while (even as other tech has been lifting things, the drag is becoming way too much) but also that there is a solid orders of magnitude overnight replacement that some economies are starting to take advantage of and it will give them an insurmountable strategic advantage. Petrol is a toxic 1.2 trillion dollars a year in revenue (about 1% of gross global product) that takes a 10 trillion dollar totally destructive bite out of the global economy (imagine burning down new houses just to rebuild them and calling that economic activity) even before its totally destabilizing debt is added in and the cost of its bailouts phony petrol wars and financial collapses. So again that's 1.2 trillion in revenues, 1.6 trillion in direct state subsidies and 6-7 trillion in externality costs but that doesn't include the destabilization of the financial sector with its bad debts covering stranded assets- stranded to 75% politically stranded and close to 100% economically as green is way way under parity now
cont
Walhman is on about a theme petrol has been trying to push but its in the most dishonest format I've ever seen- its like the new face of climate change denial its so supid, these are the ironic new Luddites, they take axes to EV and smash them on freeway dividers and fund the broadcast of lies. The underlying lie here isn't new, its just more belligerent than ever. The message is that petrol isn't a helpless total welfare case that has placed the world solidly on the road to serfdom now for decades. The like here is a variant of saying that petrol retail cost somehow matters when it goes low in a way that perpetuates or helps petrol- that again it isn't a helpless brittle broken total subsidy case. That ICE and petrol and its supply can can compete or recover when that is impossible. The number he should be working with for an electric is 3 cents a kwh and dropping and he should do his math right and stop trying to push the myth that people won't have access to their own roof tops, because the petrol scam doesn't want it. Even with out that petrol will never make economic sense or be competitive. Petrol's time was up 70s years ago- it played a vital role up to that point but by the time nuclear hit we should moved on and certainly by 50 years ago we should have been done with it.
We have to keep in mind that petrol fuel energy is impoverishing the globe and has been for a long while (even as other tech has been lifting things, the drag is becoming way too much) but also that there is a solid orders of magnitude overnight replacement that some economies are starting to take advantage of and it will give them an insurmountable strategic advantage. Petrol is a toxic 1.2 trillion dollars a year in revenue (about 1% of gross global product) that takes a 10 trillion dollar totally destructive bite out of the global economy (imagine burning down new houses just to rebuild them and calling that economic activity) even before its totally destabilizing debt is added in and the cost of its bailouts phony petrol wars and financial collapses. So again that's 1.2 trillion in revenues, 1.6 trillion in direct state subsidies and 6-7 trillion in externality costs but that doesn't include the destabilization of the financial sector with its bad debts covering stranded assets- stranded to 75% politically stranded and close to 100% economically as green is way way under parity now
cont