Another anti-Green argument bites the dust.

One of our resident Green is an Impossible Dream fossil fuel apologists around here assured us all that there could not be an affordable electric truck – only fancy electric cars for fancy city people.

36 thoughts on “Another anti-Green argument bites the dust.

        1. It’s a leather-like material that isn’t animal skin. In some applications it’s supposed to be better wearing than real leather. And you’d want it if you don’t consume animal products.


  1. It’s encouraging, but note that the base model cost doesn’t mean much. With mid level trim, it’s about $9K more than gas but that’s still a big improvement over previous electrics.

    The 230 mile range is reasonable but is that with heat or AC? Does a load reduce it much?

    Still, good for Ford. A truly cost competitive electric is an accomplishment.

    Of course, you do realize it runs on coal, right?


      1. Nope.

        At best natural gas. But wind and solar will never make up even 25% of base load, and nuclear will take decades to bring online, especially since the same people who oppose fossil fuel also oppose nuclear.

        So, for the foreseeable future, that added electricity demand for electric vehicles will come from fossil fuel.


        1. The sun provide more total energy each day that the entire world uses in a year.

          Capturing and utilizing that source is just starting to heat up. I think that when we learn how to do so we can call ourselves smart.

          Until then, those who make fortunes denying that route and burning a limited resource will do their best to disparage and delay.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. You will be charging your electric vehicle at night.

            The biggest problem with solar is that we don’t have the means for grid level storage. That, and the fact that we would have to strip mine the planet for enough materials for the batteries limit wind and solar to about 25% of our needs.

            Nuclear is the solution but environmental lawyers make that too expensive.


          2. Think outside the box. We are really just starting out. Technology can reall do wonders over time. Shoot, we figured out how to make the whole globe a dead zone with Nukes, maybe we can figure out how to tap a virtually limitless source of energy at our doorstep.

            So long as you are stuck in negative feedback from the fossil fuel industry, you mind is shut tight.

            In just a few decades, battery, solar panel, cars, appliances, factories have improved efficiencies by many fold. This was not accomplished by people who still think the Model T technology is still the wave of the future. Right now, the internal combustion engine principle hasn’t change since invented. Oh sure, it has better this and that, but the idea is just the same. Controlled explosions of fossil fuel to turn a flywheel.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. We covered this here a while back

            Biden’s Not-So-Clean Energy Transition

            The materials for the required batteries do not exist, and even getting a good start would devastate much of the planet. Remember that the good mining sites have already been taken. Pursuing poorer deposits means stripping more land.

            Nuclear is the answer, but the greenies aren’t interested. Until we abandon this fantasy of wind and solar we won’t do what really can work.


        2. “But wind and solar will never make up even 25% of base load”

          Says the fellow who said that there was not possibility of an affordable electric pick-up. And that was, what, a couple of months ago?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Technology and economics are not static. And that Wall Street Journal piece distorted the underlying UN report which identified these minerals challenges AND made clear that they are not insurmountable.

            It is INEVITABLE that in the not too distant future human civilization will be run non-fossil fuels. The ONLY question is how soon will we get there. So, best to stay away from the word “never.”

            Liked by 1 person

        3. …”never make up even 25% of base load,”…

          You can keep saying that all you want. But I am surprised a man of science doubts the possibilities so completely out of hand.

          There are some folks who used to believe that we would never set foot on the moon (some still don’t believe we have), or land and communicate with a scientific platform on Mars or reach the farthest pasts of our galaxy. They have all been proven wrong.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. The technology isn’t the problem.

            The required resources and the economic realities are.

            How do you provide backup power for more than 25% of base?

            Where do you get enough lithium, nickel and cobalt for batteries to store power in the day?


          2. You have previously endorsed nuclear and I agreed with that. All of a sudden it doesn’t come into play in your argument.

            AND as the technology advances the resources required could also change. I’ll use the mRNA vaccines as a reference point.


          3. It’s a different problem. Even if we could suddenly have enough nuclear to power all the electric cars, mass conversion to electrics would destroy the planet getting the needed nickel, cobalt and lithium.

            I like electric cars, I think it would be nice to have one for trips to the store and such,

            But that doesn’t change the resource problem.


    1. It CAN run on coal, but it can also run on wind or sunlight. And it does not have to come from the grid. Farmers used to have small windmills to pump water. Why not a small windmill to keep Old Betsy the eTruck charged up? Or a solar array on the chicken coop?

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Hey kids, lets go camping. Now with the extra load we can get maybe 3 hours of driving before we have to find a place to charge up for an hour or so, depending on who we have to wait in line for, then back on the road for 3 more before charging again. I sure hope they have ice cream and hotels wherever that is cause it could take a really long time provided the wind blows. Sorry we can’t go very far so why not just not go and camp in the back yard instead. That way we won’t get bored driving around looking for a place to charge or really getting screwed by running out of juice in the middle of nowhere. You can’t carry any electricity in a can you know.


      1. LOL, a little testy aren’t we. Fact remains that they don’t go far before needing a lengthy charge time. Like gas pumps, there will be lines but a LOT longer. In addition solar and wind can’t keep up to demand so electricity has to come from a reliable source. Then the real kicker is CHINA owns most of the precious metals needed for those batteries.You guys really don’t think things through do you?


        1. Not testy, Just pointing out that you were missing something that was in the story.

          Not a big deal. I’ve grown accustomed to you missing obvious things like the nose on your face.


          1. So in a nut shell, you can’t dispute my statements so you play “Paul” insult games. Figures…


          2. Man you just don’t get it. I pointed out that a network of charging stations nationwide are part of the equation. A complete show of ignorance on your part to not see what I am saying.

            Oh, wait. Blindness is one of your MANY issues.

            Again, methink you doth protest to stupidly.


          3. You ought to leave me out of it. You have no idea what kind of restraint it takes to stay reasonably polite with someone like you. All the stupidity, drooling hatred, bigotry and ugliness of Trump in one uncivil package.

            Liked by 1 person

  3. For Adam, you aren’t listening to reason. I dont care about a charging station network. It doesn’t do anything to cure lengthy charge times every 3 hours no matter how many stations you have. Again, there will be lines that make that a REALLY long time. Quit hiding behind the shiney coin and throwing insults like Paul.

    For Paul, I am so shaking in my boots from your empty threats. Thanks for the laugh though.


    1. I am not threatening you, Bob.

      I am trying to hold up a mirror to help you achieve the beginning of wisdom – Know thyself.”

      I am also stating a fact – your ugly manner of posting and your constant name-calling does provoke the urge to respond in kind – an urge best suppressed but often very compelling.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Insults, moi? Now that is a huge laugh coming from the likes you!!! I just don’t put up with your trash. Adam says GFY…


    2. Your imagination, which usually is 45 related, is non-existent when it comes to possibilities.

      You don’t want an electric vehicle, don’t buy one. I do recommend a hybrid for you in the future.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s