I’ve been an Automotive Technician for a couple decades now and I can safely say combustion engines have way more parts that fail and if you can use a youtube video to diagnose your ICE (very rarely is this possible) then you’re smart enough to do the same with an EV.
There is way less parts on an EV and they are way easier to fix.
Anyone can replace the windscreen. It’s not any different on an electric vehicle.
I’m surprised you’re surprised that others are surprised… because no one is surprised about this.
Russia invaded Ukraine. You know… like the Nazis did in WW2.
Russia is playing the part of the Nazis.
If Musk really wants to prevent escalation then he should help the US and it’s allies stop Russia from invading other countries as they have been doing for decades.
Russia is starting total war. Musk is helping them continue by preventing efforts to stop Russia.
Nope, Starlink was already in use. Musk used his position as CEO of Starlink to cut off service to Ukraine. But only long enough to interrupt a counter attack on the Russian fleet. Once the opportunity had passed he had it turned back on.
His intentions are obvious.
The Ukraine military was already using starlink. Starlink agreed to provide their service to the Ukraine military as a US military contractor with the US paying the bill.
So they can do that because they have already done that.
The US has committed to defending and replenishing Starlink because they’ve been doing that by protecting the antennas and replacing them as they get attacked.
Again. Starlink already agreed to be used in Ukraine and at the time that Musk interrupted service to the Ukrainian military it had been in use for a long time.
Musk only interrupted service long enough to prevent the counter attack on Russia. Then agreed to turn it back on after the opportunity for a counter attack had passed.
Seems pretty obvious that Musk stepped in to help Russia as a traitor to the US.
What does this race bait have to do with Elon Musk?
We are calling him a traitor for having Starlink turned off in Ukraine to protect Russia from a counter attack.
What fossil fuel will they import in the next 10-20 years that it will take to make the nuclear plants?
Nuclear and renewables shouldn’t be opposed. Ideally we would have both. The problem is we needed to stop burning fossil fuels a long time ago so we don’t have another 10-20 years to keep burning fossil fuels while we wait for nuclear plants to be made.
The fossil fuel industry knows that if we take the nuclear ONLY route that we will continue to burn their fuels for decades longer. So they lobby to support that option, hoping that a lot or some of the nuclear plants will never even get finish like we’ve seen happen so many times.
In addition to that, countries don’t have infinite money to spend on energy. So any amount of the budget spent on nuclear will mean less spent on solar and wind. Solar and wind are the only sources that can be deployed fast enough to allow us to avoid extinction.
If we don’t replace fossil fuels now we go extinct. It’s really that simple.
It’s takes 10-15 years to make a new nuclear plant. If you choose nuclear without renewables you would have to burn so much fossil fuels while waiting for your nuclear power to become ready that the human race would be extinct before you have a decarbonized energy grid.
What does a sinking oil tanker have to do with anything? That’s just whataboutism. Nuclear waste, nuclear disasters and sinking oil tankers are all bad.
“Radiations” can absolutely “erase life”. You don’t think radiation can kill living things? That statement makes it clear you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Besides, It takes 10-15 years to make a new nuclear power plant. If you really care about sinking oil tankers and climate change you’d realize that we don’t have that much time.
Don’t get your climate science from politicians. Listen to climate scientists instead.
All cars break. That’s why they all come with warranties.