Lets solve the energy crisis.

 Gasoline is expensive right now. I expect it to get slightly cheaper between now and the next election, then zoom upwards again, at least briefly.

If you are like most Americans, the talking heads on TV pushing electric cars are flipping idiots. They are expensive. VERY expensive. And if we had the money to buy an electric car, the price of gasoline wouldn't be hurting us that bad, anyway.

So, what are the alternatives? There are a few.

You could get a used hybrid; at first glance, the cost of a used Prius isn't that bad; they go for about the same as a "normal" car of the same age. 

But the problem here is twofold. First, older cars start requiring more and more service and repair -usually- and Hybrids are fairly complex; you can't take it over to your brother-in-law who fixes cars in his spare time for most of the possible problems it might have. The BIG problem, though, is that batteries wear out; after 7 years of use, most electric cars require at least a partial battery replacement.

Guess what the cost is to put a new battery pack into a 8 year old Prius? Around $3000, but as much as $5000. If you are a Nissan CVT driver, that won't sound too crazy, but it kinda is.

You could go Old-Skool weird, and go with a Propane or Woodfuel car. And that is possible, but it's a true PITA in a lot of ways, and in my opinion should be restricted to hobbyists or Post-Apocalyptic scenarios, only.

I would say "Hydrogen", but the Toyota Mirai is new, costs $50,000 so the same problem as a new electric, really. Plus, you can only fuel it in California.

oh, wait. there IS an Alternative!

The image I'm trying to show you is for a 2004 Mazda RX-8 RE. A variant of my favorite Rotary Rocket, the RE is a Limited Production vehicle that ran on Gasoline OR Hydrogen, based on a switch in the drivers compartment.

Unlike modern Hydrogen vehicles, it burned Hydrogen instead of using a Fuel Cell; this worked because Rotary Engines are damn near perfect Hydrogen burners, the switch just changed which fuel tank was being used, and the vehicle ECM. In 2007, Mazda shipped 30 of these off to a Norwegian research facility for use as fleet vehicles.

In H burning mode, The car ran off it's 110 liter, 2.4kg hydrogen tank; it only had 107HP in H mode, which is OK as long as you have that Gasoline switch to flip it back into Rocket Mode.

Here is the interesting part: There was a engine change in 2006, but the 2004-2005 RX-8 you see rolling down the road? it has the Hydrogen burning engine. it's the same. All you would need to make it burn H is the H injector (easy, simple), the Switch and the ECM (going to have to talk Mazda into releasing it, I think). oh, and the H tank.

But wait! where will you get Hydrogen???

well, for $1600 you can get a home Hydrogen generator that use Lye reduction process from fuelcellstore.com, which would make enough to fill up your tank in about 3 hours, for about $6. You would need to compress it to higher density, but that's neither hard nor expensive.

So...can you twist a wrench? looking for yet another way to illustrate the superiority of Rotary Engines? Your Sister just got a all electric car and you want to make her shut up about the environment?

for less than $10,000 (depending on the cost of getting that ECM, which honestly might be a snap or cheap, I don't know), you could have a True Sports Car that is so green you can drink the crystal clear water which is it's only exhaust product in H mode (disclaimer: don't drink it, it's going to have crap from the gas usage, also), that you fill up with stuff you can literally make yourself + electricity...which ALSO has a switch to put it in RWD drift monster mode.

update: I used this post to autogenerate a video, see it at

https://ai.invideo.io/watch/NGqAc5DQE8c

Trust the Science.

 Have you thought about how...stupid that phrase is? "Trust the Scientist" is ok, but "Trust the Science" isn't. Science doesn't require trust.

As someone with a lot of eclectic education, and even wider experience in primarily technology oriented fields, I don't have to trust science; we're on a first name basis, and I pretty much know how it works. While my primary expertise would be in Electronics, Computer Science, Physics, Geography, Weapons Systems, High freguency Physics, High frequency communications, CAD, VR... if you look at my mix of College Credits from classes and those awarded for experience at least, But As I'm not an Idiot, OR an Insect (RAH!, RAH!, RAH!), I can <gasp> usually work my way through topics that involve fields of science I don't specialize in! 

Disclaimer: I have no college level credits that involve "English Grammar". I used to Hate Grammar Nazis; I've grown and now just laugh at them with Loathing.

 When I first started to deconstruct what was behind most gun control arguments it blew my mind how superstitious they (generally) are.  In their worldview Guns are inherently BAD. And it's not like a tool in any way, because they are designed and built only to kill. If you are around one, apparently it will infect you with death cravings.

BTW, ask a pro gun-control liberal what the point of a standing army is; it's funny. you get, maybe 40% of the time "Armies are a waste of money, they are evil and not all that good at it, like guns they are designed to kill, and are very inefficient at it.", a little less often, you'll get "to stop bad people from making us do bad things, and make bad people stop doing bad things" which I have to admit is close.

The word deterrent is simply not in the Liberal Dictionary.

 The "logical" arguments they quote are invariably based on either badly manipulated data, or are outright lies; see: current CDC statement about causes of death in children and compare that to Department of Justice (you know, real & official) statistics. This is because the leadership of the CDC is mainly made up of members of the Liberal Cult. Most liberal FACTS on gun control are easily proven lies, I'm absolutely serious. One big talking point from 4 or 5 years ago was how guns in a household were more likely to kill family members than be used in a defensive manner; it took a very, very long time to dig the "science" on that one up, it was a Massachusetts study of ONLY families with individuals convicted of violent crime. Really. I've yet to come across a statistic or study that isn't taken way, way out of context or deliberately misconstrued,. from pro-gun control liberals. 

disclaimer: pro-gun liberals don't appear to do this, or the opposite; I'd half way expect it, but, no. Kinda sane, except for the ones who think all conservatives have Klan hoods in their closets.

 it's a Cult. 

The majority of the things they scream about loudest are things they have been told they should be screaming about. <proselytizing>.

They have FAITH in what their leaders tell them. Unquestioning belief.

If you dare to question their articles of FAITH, you are BAD.

If you aren't a member of their FAITH, you are sub-human.

If you resist conversion, you are BAD.

If you actually do examine the data, and come to a different conclusion, you are a Heretic. 

Guns are inherently bad.

When their leaders make a mistake, they didn't; or:

When their leaders make a mistake, it's because of BAD PEOPLE, or:

When their leaders make a mistake, they don't acknowledge it & try not to even think about it. 

When their enemies have a success, it REALLY means it's a trick, or,

An enemy success is a direct persecution of them; the enemy didn't actually "succeed", the Liberals just had a setback.

If one of their core leaders has mountains of evidence that they have lied, stolen, murdered, sex crimes, bribery, sold out, whatever? it's Not True, it's attacks from the enemy, or regardless, it's "no big deal".

It's for the greater good. They know better. The Ends Justify the Means.

As a Old, non-liberal ( but with a few liberal points of view, with a Traditional Midwestern Christian upbringing, I've got experience of Cultists; I already covered the science. Liberals are mainly anti-science Cultists with one primary problem; they simply do not realize it.

Co-vid. when it came up, I read scientific papers as they became available, including the ones that were almost immediately suppressed for political reasons. With my background and a tiny bit of research, I mostly understand those papers. If you take a Random sampling of 100 Liberals and 100 individuals who share my creed and say whatever they are they aren't liberals (based on me having done JUST THIS over the last 2 years), you will find almost twice as many non-liberals who have made some effort to try and understand the biochemistry and mechanics of what was going on with Covid, as opposed to "trusting the science" which, as I mentioned, is Having Faith in their religious leaders for most liberals.

Most conservatives, btw, do the same thing, but very, very few are doing it blindly. Yes, you have the "Trust Trump" conservatives that have FAITH in Trump, but most have decided to believe what their leaders have told them, because the religion & faith slot in their lives is usually already got something in it (mostly Christianity, if you missed the context). A lot of them distrust "scientists" because, well, they are almost always wrong. 

The problem in this, is that it's almost NEVER what the actual scientist says that is wrong; its the interpretation of what a scientist has said as mangled by the media or a politician that is the LIE.

lets, see, highlights: We don't appear to be in a Ice Age. If you live in the Maldive Islands, have you been swimming for the last 4 years? Did the last of the arctic ice melt in 2013 like Gore said?

Honestly, scientists (well, maybe one or 2 crackpots or jokers) didn't say this shit. politicians did. Scientists said things on the line of "we don't fully understand the data, and some of our datasets are not fully trusted, but based on our current model, in the worst case scenarios, the arctic could be Ice Free by 2013" 

(I've read the damn studies, ok? anyone who doesn't "believe" in Climate Change is just a fucking Moron; anyone who is certain we understand how the climate works and exactly what impact mankind has had on that climate is ALMOST as big of a fucking moron.)

As a thought Experiment, take any liberal talking point and replace "Science" with "Religion".