Hey Max Green,
There's a difference between myself and people like your who are practicing members of the climate religion.

I'm happy to support things which are better for the environment...
- But there's a 'clause' in my approach to it -
That 'clause' is this:
I WONT SUPPORT 'cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

I don't support shutting down the coal plants.
You lot want to shut down the old ways and send us back to the stone-age in order to increase the cost for consumers (and profitability of suppliers) in order to fund the new technology, which isn't here yet.

All this new technology, consumers are already paying for it.

You lot want to shoot the horses and burn all the buggy's before the motor vehicle is properly invented.
You lot with the 'green religion' are essentially Joseph Menglers, drunk on your own 'Green religion'.

When you get all excited and start parading the benefits of people eating synthetic franken-slop and being fed through a tube, that's when you expose yourself as being of unsound mind and a danger to the rest of us.

(Anybody willing to glue themselves to a road may well belong in a mental institution, and many of you think on theseterms.
Pro-climate-change-terrorists, with an 'End's justifies the means' attitude.

Whilst I'm happy to support things that are better for the environment, I absolutely oppose climate targets, mandates, foreign treaties - anything that wishes to create artificial supply shortages (for profit) or place the decisions in the hands of foreign unelected bureaucrats, like the Klaus Schwab's of this world.

If you think I support these things, or that I will be happy eating mealworms and house-crickets, then I've got a big pile of tyres and a jerry can full of diesel I'd like you to come look at.

You people only think in terms of what's best for the planet, and forget about what's best for the people in regards to the cost of living, not impacting their lives in an adverse manner and for the people to live in dignity.

You lot are drunk on the climate religion, whereas I'm more pragmatic and practical in my approach.

I support this lithium truck idea not simply because it may be better for the environment.
I support it because it has the potential to lower transport costs, lower the cost of living AS WELL AS the environmental aspects, which are merely an added bonus.

That said I agree with the others, we should be utilising rail-freight more, that's what it was built for.

AC,
I don't really care what you oppose. You're in that sad old generation that just don't trust 'the experts' or the immense body of scientific enterprise that climate science represents. Deniers trot out words like 'Green religion' to try and disguise their stubborn psychological aversion to reality. Investment in a certain view of the world or industry makes them predisposed to this - sheer stubbornness locks in blindness.

Fortunately education has improved since your tired old generation's day. Youngsters can tell you about Joseph Fourier's discoveries in the 1820's, and Eunice Foote later on. They can tell you about Fourier devices analysing CO2 and other gases trapped in a Fourier Device. They can tell you that estimating the average climate is easy with the Radiative Forcing Equation, but that analysing where all that extra heat is going to go is still throwing up nasty surprises as the ocean warms and moves extra energy around.

But you just shrug your shoulders and snort in ignorance. Who cares? You guys are dying off anyway. The world is moving on.

hey Max Green,
As I said, you lot are 'Joseph Mengler's'...
- So drunk on your chosen discipline that you've taken things way too far.
- Then you want to control the minds of anyone else that doesn't think just like you.
And like I said, I'm not against things that are better for the environment.

As for the kids I see, teenagers can't even count a handful of shrapnel, or read and write properly
If they know the things you claim it's because they're being indoctrinated to it starting in grade 1.

I know this for a fact, my girlfriends daughter is in grade 2 and being taught how to specifically 'manipulate' others to reduce, reuse, recycle.
Gotta start while they are young hey...

This is how the how green 'enterprise' works. First you get some new start-up organisation to put out a glowing report on how wonderfully green their new product is going to be. They highlight all the supposed pros of new 'break-through' and skim over or just don't even mention any potential cons.

Next you get some media outlet that is completely on board to publish an utterly uncritical 'analysis' of the new product and they again don't ask any probing questions.

Then you rely on the green cultists to fall hook line and sinker for the whole thing. Still no critical questions are asked. For example, in this case it might be worthwhile to know how much the new trucks are going to cost and how many multiples of the on-board batteries are required to allow for the swap overs at the 500km zones? Is it 3 times (12 batteries) or 4 times (16 batteries) and who pays for that? 10 times? Perhaps someone should ask how much the infrastructure to charge the batteries in regional communities would cost.

So now its all in place. The green movement is on-board and already sold, irrespective of cost. So when the project becomes a reality and the economics don't work, the demands for subsidy start because they've already decided the environment can't live without the new technology, cost be damned.

Its how we end up lumbered with the Snowy 2.0 white elephant. Sell it as a cost-effective solution to the renewables problem. Then by the time the real costs come in - in this case in the region of 10 times the original estimate - those who fancy themselves followers of The Science are already locked in by their fantasies.

Welcome to the world of net zero.

In the meantime China. India, Turkey etc are building coal plants like they're going out of style - which they're not.

Hi Max,

I like to see things operating to see how the cost predictions stack up. I am all for technical innovation and advancement, but only if it is beneficial.

The presentation of the e-truck looks impressive, but what are the assumptions for the cost estimates? For example, you might need several batteries per vehicle, and if a renewable energy powered mining operation were envisaged, you would need to consider the cost of 24/7 renewable energy generation and backup diesel generation. My guess is that if you were to consider a the cost of setting up such a system the economic benefits might not be as enticing, although I acknowledge that some mining sites could have a local geography that could make the renewable energy option attractive.

With nuclear power you have a capacity factor of over ninety percent and a potential for a long lifespan of the power stations. It is a far better generating option if you want to electrify transport.