> Pre-war EIA forecasts projected U.S. diesel prices would average $3.47/gallon in 2026. As of late March, the national average hit $5.37/gallon, roughly 55% above where it was expected to be.
Diesel prices will continue to rise so it's not clear what these farmers are actually signing up for.
I'll bet your math conveniently ignores the fact that the supply of petroleum is inherently limited and subject to disruption for political and other "non-material" reasons..
The mandates won't fix the fundamental physical & material problems so I'll repeat what I said. EVs are never going to work at the scale of ICEs, the numbers don't work out. Regardless of any political "incentives", there is only a finite amount of copper & only finitely many cars that can be made w/ that amount of copper which has to be extracted & processed using non-renewable resources.
> Regardless of any political "incentives", there is only a finite amount of copper & only finitely many cars that can be made w/ that amount of copper which has to be extracted & processed using non-renewable resources.
> the numbers don't work out
What are the numbers? Are we running out of any of those? Are we not recycling enough materials?
There is only a finite amount of aluminum and iron.
There is only a finite amount of everything on this planet my dude.
> has to be extracted & processed using non-renewable resources
Technically speaking these don't always have to be entirely non-renewable processes. But let's also think: when the copper windings on some EV's motor are toast it can be recycled pretty much infinitely. How many times does that gallon of gasoline get recycled?
Seems strange to have the copper be the thing so uniquely focused on.
You're so focused on like 200lbs of copper that will be in the car the entire life of the car and can then be recycled after the life of the car, being so extremely concerned about how its such a finite resource. Meanwhile you just ignore than a 25mpg ICE car over a 200,000mi life will burn ~48,600lbs of gasoline, none of which is recoverable, and is also a finite resource.
Which one should we me more concerned about using up? The one that's easily recyclable or the one that's not and will be consumed >240x as much?
> Current copper resources are estimated to exceed 5,000 million tonnes
That's ~50 billion EV cars worth of copper we roughly know about. There's probably more than that out there, we just haven't found it yet. It also just ignores all the copper we've already mined and is in the circular economy.
Copper is a widely recycled metal. Is there not enough copper on earth to replace all ICE cars with EVs? Can you post some sources? And those numbers you keep talking about so I can verify if your calculator is working alright.
I already posted the link. You are welcome to verify the details for yourself by following up on what you take to be articles of faith. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the numbers actually work.
You act like no one has ever seen propaganda before. An extraordinary claim that all of society neglected some simple math, (even at significant personal investment losses in many cases) needs a bit more than one video.
Your link is an oil industry shill saying asinine things like EVs are too expensive because they have welds in their manufacturing processes.
Mark Mills is the founder of The National Center for Energy Analytics. Where do they get their funding? Groups like the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Where do they get their funding? That's right, billionaire oilmen.
Dude is paid to throw out falsehoods and sow doubt and confusion on behalf of oil industry billionaires.
> The burden of proof is on you to explain why the numbers actually work
The burden of proof is on you to share actual data of your claims there's not enough copper for EVs not ramblings of paid liars on a YouTube video.
> following up on what you take to be articles of faith
Hilarious you're suggesting him asking for actual data is him relying on blind articles of faith while your video is just a man rambling without any actual hard facts in a video, saying lots of things that just on their face make little sense.
I didn't really ask for analogies & metaphors but you spent a lot of time not doing any of the math. It's a good thing I found your argument convincing though, now everyone else can look at this thread & convince themselves that EVs are viable b/c you presented very coherent evidence & arguments.
> but you spent a lot of time not doing any of the math
I actually did the math two hours ago in the other comment showing your point about copper is nonsensical.
Strange the oil man is so concerned about a recycleable metal that an EV uses 200lbs or less of compared to the 48,000lbs a similar ICE will burn in gas. Doesn't bother thinking about all the extraction issues with that or how that will be a finite supply.
Hilarious.
But sure, take the words of a guy paid millions to lie to you about this very topic who gave you no data at all over the actual data I gave below.
I've watched plenty of youtube videos, I'm not gonna watch a 10 minute video from somebody I've never heard of and treat is as a good source. It's bad form to post that here multiple times instead of just citing whatever actual published sources.
Especially when EV vehicles are already working and taking over the market.
> Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and a Strategic Partner at Cottonwood Venture Partners, an investment firm focused on technological advancements in oil and gas production
Global copper reserves are about 980 million tonnes, with 1.5 billion tonnes of identified resources and 2024 mine production of about 23 million tonnes.
A conventional car uses about 23 kg of copper and a battery-electric car about 83 kg, a difference of roughly 60 kg per vehicle.
With more than 17 million EVs sold in 2024, that implies about 1.4 million tonnes of copper embodied in those vehicles, or about 1.0 million tonnes more copper than comparable conventional cars would have used; applying the same assumptions to the current global passenger-car fleet implies roughly 120 million tonnes total or 87 million tonnes incremental copper for an all-BEV fleet.
Separately, the IEA says that under today’s policy settings and announced projects, copper faces an implied 30% mined-supply shortfall in 2035, while expanded recycling could reduce new mine needs for copper by about 35% by 2050.
Peak oil production was in 1970 so I don't know what to tell you other than it's basic physics. You should look into something called EROEI (energy return on energy invested). You might find it useful for your next argument about the viability of EVs.
I don't know what to tell you. ICE cars are doomed, it's basic physics. They depend on something that is a finite resource that you agree peaked a long while ago. They're well along their way to complete failure. And yet while we'll still have the copper to recycle into new motors we won't have more oil. But here you are telling me we're going to run out of copper despite lots of sources telling you that's absolutely nonsense, but you'll believe it because some guy in a YouTube video told you "that's just basic physics, there's only so much copper, gotcha!"
> You should look into something called EROEI (energy return on energy invested).
I'm very familiar with it. As easy supplies of oil are getting used up the EROEI of oil is falling. It takes a lot of energy to transport and refine all those tar sands after all. It takes a lot of energy to cryogenically transport LNG around the world. And once you burn it, you need yet another shipment of it around the world. Meanwhile the EROEI of modern renewables is often even exceeding natural gas plants. I don't know what to tell you other than it's basic physics.
You might find actually reading sources other than the oil and gas industry lobbyists enlightening on the topic. Quit asking the Altria group if you should quit that smoking habit and go talk to an actual doctor. And before you brush that off, it's exactly what you're doing. You're asking an oil industry insider if you should bother looking into buying less oil. Of course he's going to tell you nothing else makes sense, keep buying oil.
You should look at actual facts with real figures for your next argument about EVs instead of claiming there's not enough copper. I'm sorry you've swallowed so many obvious lies by these guys.
That's right, once you've realized an EV charged from solar power will have a higher EROEI than a gas car fueled from oil sands and corn juice "the discussion has run its course", and that gasoline has a finite time of economic usefulness rapidly approaching "this discussion has run its course".
I dunno what to tell you, it's just basic physics. Unless you're paid millions from the oil industry, in which case it's suddenly very complicated.
It's useful for only distinguishing the smart AI from deterministic scripts and humans (we don't want either). We are convincing OpenClaws to create api keys for free (we have a free tier specifically for those agents). So it's basically marketing blog post - but for OpenClaws
You can't run a data center on solar or wind (even w/ batteries included). Everything they're building runs on gas & coal like what Musk got running for xAI.
You can and _must_ if you want competitive costs. Musk famously overpaid in order to get speed of deployment.
I was reading geohot's musings about building a data center and doing so cost effectively and solar is _the_ way to get low energy costs. The problem is off-peak energy, but even with that... you might come off ahead.
And that dude is anything but a green fanatic. But he's a pragmatist.
That’s because Rs let NIMBYs and the fossil fuel lobby call the shots, and Ds let NIMBYs and degrowthers call the shots. I bet China isn’t powering their datacenters with gas turbines
That's not what they're doing. They're directly modifying the IR to convert it into a tracing JIT. The final artifact is a binary w/ no IR. The problem is of course not introducing any subtle bugs in the process b/c they'd have to prove the modification they're making do not change actual runtime semantics for the final binary artifact.
Our fork of LLVM does add a pass, amongst other changes, but we also have to do things like change stackmaps in a way that breaks compatibility. Whether stackmaps in their current incarnation are worth retaining compatibility for is above my pay grade! So some of our changes are probably upstreamable, but some might be considered too niche for wider integration.
And we collectively decided that it's fine, you don't actually need to be able to solve 1234×5678 in your head.
But I am not sure you can compartmentalize the specific skill we can out-source to AI. I would not agree with "you don't need to be able to think in your head."
Right, which is why people make bad money decisions in everyday scenarios. People don't pull out their calculator at the grocery store, but they also never had to get good at doing simple math in their head due to the calculator.
> do add(do mul(do num(0.5), do exp(do add(do num(1.0), do mul(do num(2.0), x)))), do exp(do mul(x, x)))
reply