Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > aus.science > #128 > unrolled thread

a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire

Back to article view | Back to aus.science

Contents

  a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> - 2023-03-08 03:02 +0100
    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-08 13:40 +1100
      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-08 15:22 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> - 2023-03-08 16:00 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-08 17:47 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 07:50 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 08:11 +1100
            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 08:14 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2023-03-09 07:21 +1000
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 08:41 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:37 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:43 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:17 +1100
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 14:20 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:48 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-09 23:30 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 10:56 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:18 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:40 +1100
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 13:30 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:02 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 17:01 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:34 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 09:33 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:47 +1100
                  Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:01 +1100
                    Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 14:07 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 15:59 +1100
                      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Keithr0 <nothing.to.see@here.com.au> - 2023-03-09 16:27 +1000
                        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 20:19 +1100
                          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 22:59 +1100
                            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-10 12:42 +1100
                              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-10 13:53 +1100
                                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-10 14:32 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 10:48 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire alvey <Patty.O.Furniture@Coast.org> - 2023-03-08 23:58 +0000
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2023-03-09 12:46 +1100
      Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-08 16:08 +1100
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2023-03-08 19:40 +1000
        Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 09:02 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:08 +1100
            Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 11:23 +1100
              Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> - 2023-03-09 12:15 +1100
                Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> - 2023-03-09 13:58 +1100
          Re: a Tesla is a death-trap in a California wildfire Noddy <me@home.com> - 2023-03-09 12:18 +1100

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#162

On 9/03/2023 1:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean 
>> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. 
>> In fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous 
>> in the last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their 
>> economy would collapse and along with it their power.
>>
>> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
>>
> A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes 
> downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they may 
> still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but large 
> numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't afford to 
> use them.

I don't imagine they can afford to do a lot of what they claim they're 
capable of now, but then you're talking about a country that locks their 
people into their own homes and welds the doors shut. This is a 
totalitarian regime that, for the most part, survives on the fear they 
instil into their populace. Financial constraints obviously play a role, 
but the fear of being put to death for "Treason" is also a significant 
motivating factor in their people's willingness to tow the party line.

For the most part I think the average Chinese couldn't give a flying 
fuck about their government and wish they would just go away, and it's 
clear from what's happening in Hong Kong that Chinese government policy 
is *not* very welcome outside of China.

China needs to look at what happened to the former Soviet Union as a 
great example of how state run "muscle flexing" doesn't work, and if 
they're not careful they'll end up going broke and collapsing just like 
the Soviets did.

-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#165

On 9/3/2023 3:02 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 1:30 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/3/2023 12:40 pm, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>> Just because they're a communist/socialist state country doesn't mean 
>>> they're any less reliant on a viable economy as much as anyone else. 
>>> In fact their need to export in order to survive has become enormous 
>>> in the last 20 years, and if that were suddenly taken away their 
>>> economy would collapse and along with it their power.
>>>
>>> Despite their sabre rattling to the contrary....
>>>
>> A large well equipped military is very very expensive, if economy goes 
>> downhill with it goes the ability to support a large military, they 
>> may still be able to afford to have lots of military personnel but 
>> large numbers of ships and planes won't be of much use if they can't 
>> afford to use them.
> 
> I don't imagine they can afford to do a lot of what they claim they're 
> capable of now, but then you're talking about a country that locks their 
> people into their own homes and welds the doors shut. This is a 
> totalitarian regime that, for the most part, survives on the fear they 
> instil into their populace. Financial constraints obviously play a role, 
> but the fear of being put to death for "Treason" is also a significant 
> motivating factor in their people's willingness to tow the party line.
> 
> For the most part I think the average Chinese couldn't give a flying 
> fuck about their government and wish they would just go away, and it's 
> clear from what's happening in Hong Kong that Chinese government policy 
> is *not* very welcome outside of China.
> 
> China needs to look at what happened to the former Soviet Union as a 
> great example of how state run "muscle flexing" doesn't work, and if 
> they're not careful they'll end up going broke and collapsing just like 
> the Soviets did.
> 


Our biggest defence is that we are a long way from anywhere so any 
invasion of Australia is going to be very costly and will require a lot 
of logistics, getting boots on the ground and keeping them supplied will 
never be easy and it will be very costly.
I think Trev is being overly pessimistic, I can't think of a single 
reason why the Chinese would want to invade us, its a lot cheaper to buy 
resources such as iron ore than to invade and take it.
If there is a war over Taiwan and we support the US Australia will be 
the least of their worries when the US has the ability to turn the whole 
of China into a smoldering wasteland in a very short time, they 
certainly have the capability.
I find it very unlikely that something that major will ever happen when 
there can be no winners, everyone will loose and even the Chinese can 
see that.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142

On 9/03/2023 8:21 am, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 7:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:

>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
>>
>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>> oil for our needs.
>>
> Australia is a very big place to blockade.

It is.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#141

On 9/03/2023 8:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of 
>>> sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners 
>>> will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>
>> I doubt it.
>>
>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
>> use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making 
>> our own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel 
>> here if the need arose.
>>
>>
> 
> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.

Yeah, I don't think so.

> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough oil 
> for our needs.

No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of our 
current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means that fuel 
would become limited, and certainly much more expensive, but we wouldn't 
be left without it.

This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to do 
something like that again we could.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#145

On 9/03/2023 9:33 am, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 8:14 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 8:11 am, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>>> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of 
>>>> sea freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners 
>>>> will be the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
>>>
>>> I doubt it.
>>>
>>> We still produce oil in this country, and while most of the petrol we 
>>> use here is imported we only do so because it's cheaper than making 
>>> our own. We could start our own production up and make our own fuel 
>>> here if the need arose.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **The pitifully small amount of oil we produce will go straight to 
>> emergency services and defence. Consumers will not get a single drop.
> 
> Yeah, I don't think so.
> 
>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>> oil for our needs.
> 
> No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of our 
> current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means that fuel 
> would become limited, and certainly much more expensive, but we wouldn't 
> be left without it.
> 
> This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to do 
> something like that again we could.
> 
> 

**I knew someone would bring up WWII. Australia's population was MUCH 
smaller and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less reliant on fossil fuels back then. We 
were desperate enough to make oil from shale deposits (very, VERY 
expensively). The comparisons with how things were 80 years ago and 
completely irrelevant.

Make no mistake: ALL available oil will be dedicated to essential 
services and the military.

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#152

On 9/03/2023 9:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:33 am, Noddy wrote:

>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>> oil for our needs.
>>
>> No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of our 
>> current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means that 
>> fuel would become limited, and certainly much more expensive, but we 
>> wouldn't be left without it.
>>
>> This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to do 
>> something like that again we could.
>>
>>
> 
> **I knew someone would bring up WWII. Australia's population was MUCH 
> smaller and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less reliant on fossil fuels back then. We 
> were desperate enough to make oil from shale deposits (very, VERY 
> expensively). The comparisons with how things were 80 years ago and 
> completely irrelevant.

Not in the slightest.

It's relative. We were using far less fuel back then, but we were also 
producing far less as well. We've had rationing before, and if we had to 
resort to those days again we would. look at the Covid restricted world 
we've just emerged from for example. 5 years ago had you told anyone 
that we would have a world wide pandemic that would see us all be locked 
down like rats in our own homes people would have thought you were a 
complete nutbag and moved to have you committed. Yet there we all were 
doing exactly what we needed to do in order to get by.

It's not something that we've never done before, or are incapable of 
ever doing again.

It's that simple....

> Make no mistake: ALL available oil will be dedicated to essential 
> services and the military.

The only "mistake" being made here is your overly simplistic view on how 
you perceive things would play out in such as scenario in my opinion.

In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely surround 
and cut off this country from the outside world are absolutely zero. We 
have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the world, and as 
powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an impenetrable "wall" 
all the way around this country is entirely beyond their ability. This 
isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.

Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and 
synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on 
imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not 
capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that 
we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd be 
unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.

In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it" 
predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.






-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160

On 9/03/2023 12:01 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 9:47 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 9:33 am, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>>> OTOH: We can produce plenty of electricity. We can't produce enough 
>>>> oil for our needs.
>>>
>>> No, we don't, but we are capable of producing roughly one third of 
>>> our current daily needs from our own domestic supplies. That means 
>>> that fuel would become limited, and certainly much more expensive, 
>>> but we wouldn't be left without it.
>>>
>>> This country got through WWII with fuel rationing, and if we had to 
>>> do something like that again we could.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> **I knew someone would bring up WWII. Australia's population was MUCH 
>> smaller and MUCH, MUCH, MUCH less reliant on fossil fuels back then. 
>> We were desperate enough to make oil from shale deposits (very, VERY 
>> expensively). The comparisons with how things were 80 years ago and 
>> completely irrelevant.
> 
> Not in the slightest.
> 
> It's relative. We were using far less fuel back then, but we were also 
> producing far less as well. We've had rationing before, and if we had to 
> resort to those days again we would. look at the Covid restricted world 
> we've just emerged from for example. 5 years ago had you told anyone 
> that we would have a world wide pandemic that would see us all be locked 
> down like rats in our own homes people would have thought you were a 
> complete nutbag and moved to have you committed. Yet there we all were 
> doing exactly what we needed to do in order to get by.
> 
> It's not something that we've never done before, or are incapable of 
> ever doing again.
> 
> It's that simple....
> 
>> Make no mistake: ALL available oil will be dedicated to essential 
>> services and the military.
> 
> The only "mistake" being made here is your overly simplistic view on how 
> you perceive things would play out in such as scenario in my opinion.
> 
> In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely surround 
> and cut off this country from the outside world are absolutely zero. We 
> have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the world, and as 
> powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an impenetrable "wall" 
> all the way around this country is entirely beyond their ability. This 
> isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.

**How many places can an oil tanker disgorge it's cargo in Australia?

Do you honestly imagine that China cannot track oil tankers bound for 
Australia?

If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker 
operator will not comply?

I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can very 
easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will, 
unless there is a change of leadership in China.

> 
> Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and 
> synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on 
> imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not 
> capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that 
> we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd be 
> unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.
> 

**AFAIK, we have two oil refineries left.

> In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it" 
> predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.

**We'll see. When the Republicans take office in the US, we'll be fucked.


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#164

On 9/03/2023 2:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 12:01 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> In the first instance, the ability of the Chinese to completely 
>> surround and cut off this country from the outside world are 
>> absolutely zero. We have one of the biggest unbroken coastlines in the 
>> world, and as powerful as the Chinese military may be putting an 
>> impenetrable "wall" all the way around this country is entirely beyond 
>> their ability. This isn't Taiwan we're talking about here.
> 
> **How many places can an oil tanker disgorge it's cargo in Australia?

There's a few, but they're all a long way from China :)

> Do you honestly imagine that China cannot track oil tankers bound for 
> Australia?

They can track them, sure. A 10 year old kid with internet access can 
track a ship anywhere in the world.

> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker 
> operator will not comply?

That depends. What's China threatening to do if they don't? Sink the 
vessel? What kind of international turmoil do you think the Chinese 
sinking an unarmed merchant vessel would cause?

> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track.

So what?

  China can very
> easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will, 
> unless there is a change of leadership in China.

And how exactly are they going to do that? They have no authority in 
international waters, so the *only* way they could enforce a blockade 
would be by military means which would be in breech of every 
international law in the book and turn many countries against them.

>> Secondly, our ability to produce our own fuels, both fossil and 
>> synthetic, has never been adequately tested. We've relied heavily on 
>> imports purely for economic reasons, but that doesn't mean we're not 
>> capable of producing our own fuels should the need arise. I doubt that 
>> we'd be able to meet our current requirements, but I also doubt we'd 
>> be unable to produce enough to get by with restrictions.
>>
> 
> **AFAIK, we have two oil refineries left.

Again, so what? There is nothing preventing us from building more if we 
need them, and even with those two we *still* produce around a third of 
our daily demand.

>> In other words, I don't believe your "end of the world as we know it" 
>> predictions are anywhere near as accurate as you like to think they are.
> 
> **We'll see. When the Republicans take office in the US, we'll be fucked.

You watch too many movies :)


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#166

On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:

> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker 
> operator will not comply?
> 
> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can very 
> easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely will, 
> unless there is a change of leadership in China.

Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south, 
then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south before 
you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is very large 
and a long way from China.

I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west 
will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand, and 
Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does today.

-- 
Clocky on programming 18 Feb 2022
"What, you copy and paste code into a sketch in Arduino, select the 
libraries to include, modify it a bit and hit program"

Clocky on NASA 18 Mar 2022
"Oh, and btw... if you worked for NASA how is it thay you are seemingly 
oblivious to Commodore Amigas used at NASA"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#167

On 9/03/2023 5:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> 
>> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the tanker 
>> operator will not comply?
>>
>> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can 
>> very easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely 
>> will, unless there is a change of leadership in China.
> 
> Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south, 
> then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south before 
> you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is very large 
> and a long way from China.
> 
> I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west 
> will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand, and 
> Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does today.

The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into the 
origins of Covid have already had people looking in that direction. 
Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new manufacturing giant 
as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms and endless supply of 
cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with the arrogance of the Chinese.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#168

On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 5:27 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 1:07 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If China tells a tanker to turn around, do you imagine that the 
>>> tanker operator will not comply?
>>>
>>> I'll say again: Tankers are big, slow and easy to track. China can 
>>> very easily cut off our supply of oil. And I believe it very likely 
>>> will, unless there is a change of leadership in China.
>>
>> Head south by southwest from the gulf until you are 32 degrees south, 
>> then turn west and you are at Freemantle. A little further south 
>> before you turn west and you get to Melbourne. The Indian ocean is 
>> very large and a long way from China.
>>
>> I'm sure that the Chinese government realise that a war with the west 
>> will wreck their economy and there are nations like India, Thailand, 
>> and Vietnam who would love to take on the production that China does 
>> today.
> 
> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into the 
> origins of Covid have already had people looking in that direction. 
> Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new manufacturing giant 
> as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms and endless supply of 
> cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with the arrogance of the Chinese.
> 
> 
Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for pretty 
much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does eventually 
replace most of our trade with China.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#170

On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into 
>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that 
>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new 
>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms 
>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with 
>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>
>>
> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for pretty 
> much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does eventually 
> replace most of our trade with China.

Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see themselves 
as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be as fucking 
arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no choice but to 
deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.

That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that 
they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap 
labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem 
hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and take 
their business somewhere else.

China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking 
to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there is 
absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other parts 
of the world....




-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#171

On 10/3/2023 12:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
> 
>>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into 
>>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that 
>>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new 
>>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms 
>>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with 
>>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>>
>>>
>> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for 
>> pretty much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does 
>> eventually replace most of our trade with China.
> 
> Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see themselves 
> as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be as fucking 
> arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no choice but to 
> deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.
> 
> That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that 
> they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap 
> labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem 
> hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and take 
> their business somewhere else.
> 
> China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking 
> to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there is 
> absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other parts 
> of the world....
> 
> 

Agree and the sooner it happens all the better.
India should also be a lot easier to deal with, they are a democratic 
country with the same Westminster system as ours, certainly don't think 
it will be totally easy without any issues but a lot easier going than 
China.

-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#172

On 10/03/2023 1:53 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 10/3/2023 12:42 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 9/03/2023 10:59 pm, Daryl wrote:
>>> On 9/3/2023 8:19 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> The recent "affront" China has faced over calls for an enquiry into 
>>>> the origins of Covid have already had people looking in that 
>>>> direction. Within 10 years I expect India will emerge as a new 
>>>> manufacturing giant as multi nationals look to their welcoming arms 
>>>> and endless supply of cheap labour as they get sick of dealing with 
>>>> the arrogance of the Chinese.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Our Prime Minister and many others are in India at the moment for 
>>> pretty much the reasons you just said so hopefully India does 
>>> eventually replace most of our trade with China.
>>
>> Yeah, I think the Chinese need to be really careful. They see 
>> themselves as being this unassailable manufacturing giant that can be 
>> as fucking arrogant as they like in the belief that the world has no 
>> choice but to deal with them on whatever terms they see fit to demand.
>>
>> That may be so in the short term, but they fail to appreciate that 
>> they're not the only country on the planet with an abundance of cheap 
>> labour and if they keep pissing the rest of the world off as they seem 
>> hell bent on doing then the rest of the world will just pack up and 
>> take their business somewhere else.
>>
>> China needs to bear in mind that it was foreign multinationals looking 
>> to exploit cheap labour that made them what they are today, and there 
>> is absolutely nothing stopping that process being repeated in other 
>> parts of the world....
>>
>>
> 
> Agree and the sooner it happens all the better.

Absolutely. Fuck China and everything it stands for as far as I'm 
concerned.

> India should also be a lot easier to deal with, they are a democratic 
> country with the same Westminster system as ours, certainly don't think 
> it will be totally easy without any issues but a lot easier going than 
> China.

Yep. The transition would take some time, and I'm not sure that you or I 
will live long enough to see it effectively implemented, but it would 
definitely be a positive move and one that would provide for a far more 
stable future than what we have now.


-- 
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#146

On 9/3/2023 7:50 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 3:22 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
>>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
>>> container. 
>>
>> Bit more than that. I've had petrol that's been stored for over 2 
>> years that's been fine. It lasts even longer if you use a fuel 
>> stabiliser.
>>
>> I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer.
>>
>> Diesel storage is about the same as petrol.
>>
>>> Maybe 2 years. A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ 
>>> years. A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar 
>>> PV array, whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>>
>> Lol :)
>>
>> You live in a strange fantasy world. You can get far enough away from 
>> a disaster on a jerry can of fuel regardless of whatever you happen to 
>> drive, and refilling it to keep it fresh once a year isn't a big deal. 
>> Use the old fuel in your mower and refill the container with fresh 
>> fuel for your escape.
>>
>> Assuming, of course, this kind of fantasy situation ever arises which 
>> is highly unlikely :)
>>
>>
> 
> **You could substitute 'zombie apocalypse' for a Chinese blockade of sea 
> freight to and from Australia. When/if that occurs, EV owners will be 
> the only vehicles travelling anywhere.
> 
Doubt that, we do have oil but we import because ours isn't economically 
viable, if we had no choice to use our own it could be done despite it 
being expensive.
It would also take time to become available so there might be short term 
supply issues.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#148

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tu92hi$p0fa$1@dont-email.me:

> 
> You live in a strange fantasy world. 

O the irony...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#157

On 9/3/2023 10:58 am, alvey wrote:
> Noddy <me@home.com> wrote in news:tu92hi$p0fa$1@dont-email.me:
> 
>>
>> You live in a strange fantasy world.
> 
> O the irony...

Indeed it is!



-- 
Xeno


Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
       (with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#132

On 8/3/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>> escape the apocalyse.
>>
> 
> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
> container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer. 
> Maybe 2 years.

Depends on how its stored, diesel needs to be sealed without any air and 
then it will last a very long time, I've also used petrol that was 5yrs 
old without a problem but its variable.

  A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years.

A rather wild guess, batteries can last a long time if stored correctly 
but 10yrs is a more realistic guess.

> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV array, 
> whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
> 

Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and 
lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge unless 
you have a very big solar system.
The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in a 
vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.


-- 
Daryl

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#134

In aus.science Daryl <dwalford@westpine.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and 
> lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge unless 
> you have a very big solar system.
> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in a 
> vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.

Musk can steal a nuclear electricity generator from a space mission
that his SpaceX company was commissioned to launch prior to the
apocalypse, strap it to the back of his EV, and drive on forever.

-- 
__          __
#_ < |\| |< _#

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#140

On 8/03/2023 4:08 pm, Daryl wrote:
> On 8/3/2023 1:40 pm, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 8/03/2023 1:02 pm, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> I bet Elon has a diesel pickup with long-range tanks to
>>> escape the apocalyse.
>>>
>>
>> **I've been thinking about that. Let's say the zombie apocalypse 
>> happens. No more refined oil. Petrol lasts about 1 year in a sealed 
>> container. I am uncertain, but I guess Diesel will last a bit longer. 
>> Maybe 2 years.
> 
> Depends on how its stored, diesel needs to be sealed without any air and 
> then it will last a very long time, I've also used petrol that was 5yrs 
> old without a problem but its variable.
> 
>   A battery pack will last a lot longer. Prolly 20+ years.
> 
> A rather wild guess, batteries can last a long time if stored correctly 
> but 10yrs is a more realistic guess.

**Which is WAY longer than oil.

> 
>> A survivalist will be able to charge his Tesle via his Solar PV array, 
>> whilst the fossil fueled vehicles become useless.
>>
> 
> Certainly possible to charge an EV from solar but EV's need lots and 
> lots of power so it could take a very long time to fully charge unless 
> you have a very big solar system.
> The sort of portable solar panels that a survivalist could carry in a 
> vehicle would take weeks to charge an EV.
> 
> 

**When China blockades Australian sea lanes, we will have no oil. What 
will we run our cars on?

-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | aus.science

csiph-web