Quote from: giant_mtb on May 21, 2024, 06:54:36 PMMain difference being, oil was initially (and still is) relatively cheap compared to the millions/billions that would need to be invested into "renewable" resources to produce the same energy if everything is supposed to run on electricity.  As I've said before, as somebody who has lived in mine country their whole life...people think it's so simple and clean. But it's not.

This may or may not be something that resolves how energy is stored or how it's used, but does offer a glimpse at "new things" being discovered in the field of electronics.

New Breakthrough in Energy Storage – MIT Engineers Create Supercapacitor out of Ancient Materials

Two of humanity's most ubiquitous historical materials, cement and carbon black (which resembles very fine charcoal), may form the basis for a novel, low-cost energy storage system, according to a new study. The technology could facilitate the use of renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and tidal power by allowing energy networks to remain stable despite fluctuations in renewable energy supply.

The two materials, the researchers found, can be combined with water to make a supercapacitor — an alternative to batteries — that could provide storage of electrical energy. As an example, the MIT researchers who developed the system say that their supercapacitor could eventually be incorporated into the concrete foundation of a house, where it could store a full day's worth of energy while adding little (or no) to the cost of the foundation and still providing the needed structural strength. The researchers also envision a concrete roadway that could provide contactless recharging for electric cars as they travel over that road.

Futuristic, maybe, but with a bunch of turbines, or other future form of energy capture generating power that is stored in the highway?  Certainly not in my lifetime or likely yours, but no doubt other viable means of generating and storing and distributing electricity without robbing the earth of scarce materials will be found. 

Quote from: FoMoJo on May 21, 2024, 06:15:13 PMIt took about a 100 years to develop reasonably efficient I/C engines so you're probably right.  Future development in the areas of batteries and capacitors may be the key to viable EVs that will eventually replace I/C vehicles.

Main difference being, oil was initially (and still is) relatively cheap compared to the millions/billions that would need to be invested into "renewable" resources to produce the same energy if everything is supposed to run on electricity.  As I've said before, as somebody who has lived in mine country their whole life...people think it's so simple and clean. But it's not.

Quote from: giant_mtb on May 21, 2024, 05:41:04 PM100% EV adoption will never happen in our lifetime. Those who want 100% EV do not understand how mining (to make their EVs) works.

It took about a 100 years to develop reasonably efficient I/C engines so you're probably right.  Future development in the areas of batteries and capacitors may be the key to viable EVs that will eventually replace I/C vehicles.

Quote from: SJ_GTI on May 21, 2024, 02:30:01 PMI mean, I am also generally against tariffs and in favor of free trade, but China never had free trade with anyone. They always required non-Chinese car companies to do joint ventures with local companies, and then those local companies could go make their own cars separately at the same time. Now of course China is dominated by local companies.

I would certainly be against such tariffs on European, Korean, or Japanese cars (or Australian or even Vietnamese) but offering a barrier free market for cars built in China should have always been a non-starter. Its not about competition...competition from foreign companies is perfectly fine (hell I drive two German cars)...but China is not competing on a level playing field.

And to be fair I am not an expert on all this stuff...the above is just based on general knowledge and news coverage.

I believe this is a fair assessment. 

As for not being an expert, that does not disqualify you from having an informed opinion.  Anyways, experts are overrated.  They tend to disagree with one-another more than they agree and, in the end, they are usually proven wrong.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 21, 2024, 03:10:37 PMNO.

This was specifically and directly because the rest of the world was engaged in war in the 1940s and we (US & Canada) literally were the only factories left standing. The US then lent or gave money to the rest of the world to buy our stuff- and so we made lots and lots of stuff and sold it while the rest of the world rebuilt (or started building in China's case.

The innovation and technology which leapt ahead in the US while the rest of the "civilized" world was in rubble is pretty imbalanced.

We would still be working 70-80 hours work weeks without unions

Quote from: CaminoRacer on May 21, 2024, 04:38:50 PM100% EV adoption will take decades. Even after 100% of new sales are EV-only, there's still millions of gas cars on the road. Plenty of time to beef up power grids.

California, Texas, etc. have power grid issues unrelated to EVs that need to be solved anyway.

100% EV adoption will never happen in our lifetime. Those who want 100% EV do not understand how mining (to make their EVs) works.

100% EV adoption will take decades. Even after 100% of new sales are EV-only, there's still millions of gas cars on the road. Plenty of time to beef up power grids.

California, Texas, etc. have power grid issues unrelated to EVs that need to be solved anyway.

Quote from: Morris Minor on May 21, 2024, 07:20:08 AMBeef it up. Build it out to meet demand.

Tell that to California. The fifth largest economy in the world. That has to ask people to not charge their cars because the grid can't handle it when it's too hot outside.

Takes years and millions and millions (or probably billions if you want to not use fossil fuels) of dollars to do so. And where does that cost go? To the consumer. The majority of which can't afford a reasonable EV to begin with.

Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 21, 2024, 03:10:37 PMNO.

This was specifically and directly because the rest of the world was engaged in war in the 1940s and we (US & Canada) literally were the only factories left standing. The US then lent or gave money to the rest of the world to buy our stuff- and so we made lots and lots of stuff and sold it while the rest of the world rebuilt (or started building in China's case.

The innovation and technology which leapt ahead in the US while the rest of the "civilized" world was in rubble is pretty imbalanced.

That's a different scenario.  After the 2nd war conditions catapulted NA industry for the reasons you stated. 

In the early part of the century workers for companies like Ford were living in tenement houses provided by the manufacturer and not able to purchase the product they were building.  Prior to then, throughout the 18th and 19th century, manufacturers employed child labour where they could.  Unions existed in some form, but obviously not very effectively.

During the 1st war even, unions made some progress because of the demand for manufactured war products, but afterward when demand subsided, there was less bargaining power, but by then companies like Ford were offering better wages in order to reduce the appeal of unions; along with bludgeoning those still trying to form unions.  Of course the depression of the early 1930s up until the 2nd war pretty much killed a lot of manufacturing along with jobs so there was no point in actively trying to unionize much of the work force.

Unions only started to become more effective in the 1940s because of the demand, once again, for war products and, of course, afterwards in NA because of the conditions you mentioned.  The 1950's and 1960's were the prime eras for union growth, but then they got too greedy and manufacturers started looking for alternative labour sources.

This is my understanding in a nutshell but, as someone who was just getting into the job market in 1960, a union shop like GM or Ford, even Chrysler, looked very appealing...but I never did join up.   However, even though I worked in a non-union job, every time the union workers at GM, Ford or Chrysler got a new deal with a big pay increase, I did too; just to keep up with inflation.

Tariffs are just self-imposed economic sanctions.