deicer

Just waiting for the uproar on pilotless vehicles....

Also, don't all U.S. military vehicles use the same fuel for simplified operations?

Just a lesson learned that how important it is to provide links to where the information comes from.

Interesting numbers that make you go hmmmm. And that's just in three months! https://www.cnn.com/travel/tsa-firearm-interceptions-airports-january-march-2024/index.html Over 1,500 firearms were intercepted at US airports from January to March – and the vast majority were loaded The Transportation Security Administration reports that its officers intercepted 1,503 firearms in carry-on bags at security checkpoints in US airports during the first quarter of 2024. That number runs very close with TSA interceptions in the first quarter of 2023, in which 1,508 firearms were intercepted, the agency said in a news release. Overall, 2023 set a record for the number of firearms uncovered by officers at security checkpoints. But there’s a shocking stat that has stayed the same – in both time periods, 93% of those intercepted firearms were loaded with ammo.

Any landing you can walk away from, especially when the anti-skid fails....

Like Boeing, it's the cost of doing business. (With no liability attached)

Articles like this are just excuses for not adopting to change. History shows that change will happen, whether old men yelling at clouds like it or not. It's just how much money can be made off of legacy technology before they are forced to make the changes. Along similar lines, have you seen the cellphone technology and prices that the rest of the world has? Why aren't we getting that as well, just like the EV's they are getting?

If you think the oil lobby in the U.S. has no influence, then why do they spend so much? https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying?cycle=All&ind=E01 Also, it's who they lobby... https://www.statista.com/statistics/788056/us-oil-and-gas-lobbying-spend-by-party/ Oil companies are amongst the most profitable, returning billions to investors. They are also the amongst the largest subsidized corporations in the world. Is this just a way for governments to reward the rich for their support as well? As for the drift to smaller vehicles, North America has always had a knee jerk reaction to price spikes. This makes the auto companies make substandard small vehicles to stop-gap the issue, but then they go back to pumping out big gas guzzling vehicles. What we need to see is like the Europeans have done, small efficient, good performing cars at reasonable prices. So you are right, we need to have European gas prices to get there. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-rise-despite-calls-phase-out-2023-11-23/ https://theconversation.com/fossil-fuel-subsidies-cost-canadians-a-lot-more-money-than-the-carbon-tax-226482 Every year, federal and provincial governments use taxpayer dollars to provide financial supports or tax breaks to fossil fuel companies These subsidies cost Canadian taxpayers at least $6.03 billion, or roughly $214 per taxpayer every year. Fossil fuel subsidies are a big problem across Canada. The federal government has spent $35 billion on the Trans Mountain oil pipeline and $275 million on a liquefied natural gas facility. The Canadian oil and natural gas sector also benefits from special tax breaks under the Income Tax Act. British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan give more than $2.5 billion in royalty reductions and tax exemptions to the fossil fuel industry every year. Ontario gives $500 million in tax breaks to aviation and agricultural fuels. Manitoba, Québec and the Atlantic provinces give similar tax exemptions to fuel and natural gas.

Seems surveys find otherwise. Average American does about 35 miles per day. So if you are commuting to work, you could fill/charge your EV weekly just like an ICE car. https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/average-miles-driven-per-year/

I can understand why they want tariff's on imports, however, why aren't they trying to develop and manufacture affordable ev's in the U.S.? If they are superior in their technical prowess and manufacturing, what are the Americans afraid of? Or is it just the lobby protecting the oil companies?

Ok, so it currently isn't 'viable'. So how do you keep moving forward to a better solution? The oil industry would love to have you still burning fossil fuels to great profits for them. As Raymond Alberta has shown on a small scale, net zero is achievable. My opinion is that you have to overcome the lobbying against renewables to gain momentum forward. North America is far behind the rest of the world when it comes to moving forward to renewable energy? Please explain that to me. https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/11-countries-leading-the-charge-on-renewable-energy/

In todays world with trade disputes going to court, how often do you really see 'punishing level' tariffs? Or is it just more fear mongering? Only one presidential candidate is currently proposing punishing tariffs. And here's the reality of U.S. tariffs currently... https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/industry-manufacturing/industrial-tariffs The United States currently has a trade-weighted average import tariff rate of 2.0 percent on industrial goods. One-half of all industrial goods imports enter the United States duty free.

New tech usually isn't 'economical', but it's part of the baby steps towards change and efficiency. The Swiss were trying it: https://newatlas.com/renewable-energy-heat-storage-empa/47334/ The British as well: https://www.icax.co.uk/thermalbank.html The Austrians: https://www.naratek.com/en/2022/heat-store-summer-use-winter It's science that is ever evolving.....

Yes, barriers slow rates of adoption. It's the people who put tariffs on goods and the reasons for it that are the greatest barrier. And much like corporations raising profits which causes inflation, which leads to increased interest rates which hurt consumers, tariffs don't hurt manufacturers directly because it is the consumer that pays them.

You are both correct, and wrong. Yes, that system was expensive, but it was the first of it's kind. It was a bold step to take. It doesn't state in the story what maintenance requirements it had, just that it had come to end of life. Like anything, mechanical or human. Yet like all ground breaking technology, refinements and improvements come fast and furious. What would be the cost today? Nowadays solar panels, and ground source heat pumps are within the financial reach of a lot of homeowners. Just look at the improvements on heatpumps. Cars in the 70's got 15mpg, yet cars today that are twice the size get 40mpg. Only if you maintain them though, and they too will eventually wear out. You can post all the negatives you want, but the only constant is change. Systems will change, systems will get more efficient, and I will throw in a big 'however'.... Corporations are addicted to profit so they don't want to make products that last forever. Just like the freezer in my basement that was built in the mid 70's and is still going strong. Compare that to appliances and cars built today. The ability is there, it's just that big money is making too much money off not changing to instigate change.

Not comparable. The reason I say that is that after reading that the Drake Landing system is failing, you have to realize that it was at end of life for the system, not because the system didn't work. They did get 25 years of good service out of it. Maintenance and replacement is the key to any working object. How well do airplanes work if not maintained?

What makes it even more interesting and humourous is that it's in Alberta. Oh the irony.....

Tariff's are another discussion altogether. Like all products, early adopters pay the premium for bragging rights.

A good analogy of where we are with regards to EV's is to look back at the price and availability of OLED TV's. The original Sony OLED was an 11" model that sold for $2500. Compare that to what you get for the same price today. It's only gonna take time....