Israel x Iran Conflict (95 Viewers)

Baalak chalti train mein chadne ka yahi nuksan hain . Jaana tha CST pahunche Thane.

When EVs become pre dominant around the world which is a matter of a decade or two what are you going to do with all that oil ?
How are you going to power the plants to produce that extra power that completely switching to EV will need?

I think oil will be relevant for decades still, and for non industrialized countries, for double that duration.
 
Hydrogen as in the fuel powering rockets ?
I never knew that was also considered a viable alternative to petrol.
In what spheres has it been implemented till now ?
Genuine question hai, i wish to know more.about hydrogen.
 
How are you going to power the plants to produce that extra power that completely switching to EV will need?

Power the plants ? As in ? I didn't get your question.

OTOH , powering EVs will require a huge amount of electricity which renewables like Solar , Wind Power , etc can contribute to a great extent.
I think oil will be relevant for decades still, and for non industrialized countries, for double that duration.
Check out the sales / imports / exports in / to industrialised / relatively industrialised countries as compared to non industrialised countries.

I'm venturing it should be at least 75% to 25% likely even more skewed towards industrialised / relatively industrialised countries.
 
Solar, is the fastest way to grow.
What about countries with monsoon? You can't depend on a power source that gets less efficient with clouds. The battery tech isn't there for storing the energy either.
I don't think the tech is there yet to make it scalable and accessible. Also, guess what's the current most viable way to produce commercial hydrogen?
 
Power the plants ? As in ? I didn't get your question.

OTOH , powering EVs will require a huge amount of electricity which renewables like Solar , Wind Power , etc can contribute to a great extent.

Check out the sales / imports / exports in / to industrialised / relatively industrialised countries as compared to non industrialised countries.

I'm venturing it should be at least 75% to 25% likely even more skewed towards industrialised / relatively industrialised countries.
The electricity currently being put in EV comes from fossil fuel burning plants. If everyone switches to EV, that demand for electricity will directly affect every Renewable production sources as well as non-petroleum fossil fuel sources.

Currently none of the non fossil fuel sources can produce power in the quantity and reliability needed. Also, switching to EV would need a maybe redesigning of modern life. The fill and forget model of petrol has to discarded in favour of plan and charge model.
 
What about countries with monsoon? You can't depend on a power source that gets less efficient with clouds. The battery tech isn't there for storing the energy either.

I don't think the tech is there yet to make it scalable and accessible. Also, guess what's the current most viable way to produce commercial hydrogen?
Sodium ion battery is already a reality in china with multiple battery makers. In India Reliance is getting ready to manufacture it after it bought a EU company.
 
If people have not noticed americans are no longer in the game to establish a government. They are in eradicating the current regime and leaving it to the dogs. They will let the dogs fight it among themselves and Later aftersome time they will leash the dog which has won the battle.
Very intelligent observation! I have been paying attention for past few years, the kind of people who rise to the top in the western countries tend to be absolutely despicable humans. You will be hard pressed to find a politician in any western country who has even the semblance of ethics. We are heading towards a dark future for those of us who wish remain human.
 
The electricity currently being put in EV comes from fossil fuel burning plants. If everyone switches to EV, that demand for electricity will directly affect every Renewable production sources as well as non-petroleum fossil fuel sources.

Yes there would be a trade off there. You switch to EV from ICE as part of a nationwide policy & consumption of fossil fuel powered plants will increase.

So will plants powered by renewable power sources & Nuclear power including neo fuel sources like hydrogen.

Currently none of the non fossil fuel sources can produce power in the quantity and reliability needed.

Answered this above.

Also, switching to EV would need a maybe redesigning of modern life. The fill and forget model of petrol has to discarded in favour of plan and charge model.

We're already into a 5 min full 100% charge mode . Charging time will further decrease plus you will have stations which swap batteries which will probably be sold as a plan to consumers. All such schemes & much more would be worked out. Never discount human ingenuity in this regard. These problems aren't insurmountable merely challenging.
 
What about countries with monsoon? You can't depend on a power source that gets less efficient with clouds. The battery tech isn't there for storing the energy either.

I don't think the tech is there yet to make it scalable and accessible. Also, guess what's the current most viable way to produce commercial hydrogen?
Most people don't know this, but Ladakh and western Tibet are literally best spot on earth for solar power : it's rainshdow area and very high up , so virtually 0 cloud cover most of the year. Aka, one of the highest insolation hours anywhere on the planet.
Secondly, it's a dry, non sandy desert with little to no vegetation. One of the main practical concerns of power generation is cleaning and maintaining your power generation core. Be it nuclear or solar or hydrocarbons. Trouble with solar is, it's power generation surface is YUUUGE so at any given time you are removing dirt and branches from some panels, fixing up the rusted ones, etc.
Well in Ladakh moisture is so low and vegetation so sparse that maintainable costs are like amazing.

Ladakh plains alone can power like 40% of India at western power consumption levels. But ultimately solar is a low density power generation scheme is it's biggest roadblock to becoming mainstay: solar ultimately is least power dense in terms of Sq m of land used to generate power. While it is plentiful and relatively easy and reliable way to make power for big countries, it's low power density and higher maintainance load is it's biggest turn off factors.
 
Usa has a far worse problem brewing than civil war: Latino demographic bomb. Within 2050 pretty much all the states usa won from Mexico, except Utah, is gonna be 50%+ Latino. And that is checkmate, because then we will push through referendum and Latinos are almost certain to seperate. This would create an america-2 in north America ( enlarged mexico), that will be permanent power check on usa. That is the plan and that plan can be delayed but not stopped.
Y would Latinos seperate
 
It has nothing to do with your articulation. I just don't agree with your basic premise.

Namely:

Yet within less than 35 years , the US is on the brink of losing its premium status in the world.

I think they are working toward eliminating challenges to their hegemony and I think China's window is rapidly closing.

We will see though, I'm not sure the human condition actually allows for unipolarity.
 
Y would Latinos seperate
Racism and Spanish worship. They don't like speaking English and much rather would be a rich Mexico than rich anglo-america. I am not saying that it means they will join Mexico, but what uses to be Spanish empire colonies/Mexico and now is usa, will begin separatism in 25-50 years. The whites know this, which is why Trump is coming down as a hammer with ice to reduce Latino population by a couple of million. But it won't help, since Latinos are already double digit in % ( 11-14% iirc) and have far higher birth rates than whites, plus illegal immigration cannot be stopped, it's whack a mole that you lose over long term and best Trump can hope to accomplish in his term is kick the problem down another generation.

This is reality of north American geopolitics: The American empire has Latin huns at the gate and they have already settled the American empire enough to be more than 1 in 10 and rising fast due to 2x greater birth rate. Especially in these Mexico adjacent states they are already well above 33% of population.
This is geometric progression math, where 33% can become 80% in just 50 years, if they have 2x the growth rate of the 60% demographic and all their numbers are in tens of millions.

In the battle of demographics, math reigns Supreme and here math is decisive. California, Nevada, new Mexico, Arizona, Colorado & Texas will be 50%+ Latinos by 2050 and most likely Florida too. This is a significant % of us territory and though agriculturally challenged, it is resource rich and still number in tens of millions and is most definitely a viable nation on its own.

The us puzzle will be broken from within. Not outside. Because those of us who re here know, usa is basically a frontier slaver land culture trying to pretend really hard it's a bastion of tolerance and multiculti, like India or Thailand or Iran, but it is at its core, very racist and very dog eat dog ultra capitalist. And differences are already accreting in the us of a to break it up.
 
Also pro tip: When south western usa breaks away, it won't be a race war in reality or polls as Latinos vs whites. It will be rich whites who wanna rule but can't in Washington or stand to gain more from new country that will lead the charge.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Replies

Optimize your PC & Mobile

Premium Web Hosting

Featured Content

One stop Shop for Geeks

Trending Threads

Back
Top