Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

This is what happens when someone makes sweeping claims without looking at the complete evidence. At least do your homework before speaking with such confidence. Since you've raised these issues, let's examine the facts. You claimed that E20 reduces mileage by 15–20%. But your own calculation contradicts that claim....

18,037 görüntüleme • 5 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

#WATCH | Delhi: On ethanol, Vikram Gulati, Country Head and Executive Vice President (Corporate Affairs and Governance) of Toyota Kirloskar Motor, says, "...I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the fuel. For example, if you look at it from the automotive sector, there is a lot of myth that if you use E20 blended fuel, vehicles will get damaged. It's a myth. It doesn't happen this way. There's a lot of myth about the amount of mileage loss or the fuel efficiency loss. Yes, there is some fuel efficiency loss, no doubt. But it is not so big as it is being made out to be...E85 and E100, that is, 85% ethanol and 100 % ethanol, are not meant for regular cars. It is meant for a different type of technology, which is called a flex fuel vehicle. This vehicle can take any mix of ethanol. So people need not worry. E20 is the standard fuel that will be available, and it is compatible with old vehicles and new vehicles. All vehicles sold after 1st of April 2023 are fully materially compliant with E20. And people need to be reassured that in 2021, before we went into E20, there was a very detailed scientific study done by the leading automobile testing agency in the country, which is ARAI (Automotive Research Association of India). It clearly established that the possible damage to cars and two wheelers which are old is not there. It's very insignificant. And it also established that the fuel efficiency loss is to the extent of 2 to 4 per cent, not significant." On ethanol, he says, "As per the latest statistics from the government, the program so far has helped save 1.9 trillion rupees. Out of that, 1,60,000 crores has gone to farmers. So in the case of India, it's not only helped us to in some way mitigate the energy crisis, but it's also helped us to help the farmers...The reason why not just India, but many other countries are doing it is for energy security, for the agrarian economy, as well as for fighting climate change and environmental purposes."

ANI

546,197 görüntüleme • 11 gün önce

THE E20 DEBATE: FACTS VS HYPOCRISY. HERE'S AN UNDENIABLE FACT: The E20 programme did not begin under the Modi government. Ethanol blending was approved years earlier, during the UPA. The difference is in execution. Blending remained stuck at roughly 1–1.5% for years before accelerating significantly under the NDA. So, let's first get the politics out of the way. If ethanol blending was acceptable in principle then, why is it suddenly portrayed as anti-people now? Now, let's look at the arguments being presented by critics: CRITICS ARGUMENT 1: E20 FUEL IS BEING PUSHED BY NDA TO KEEP SUGAR CANE FARMERS HAPPY. There's no doubt Ethanol is creating an additional income stream for sugarcane farmers. But governments have always handed out subsidies or incentives to farmers. + MSP exists for 23 crops. Sugar cane farmers get SAP or State Advised Price. + Fertiliser subsidies. + Cheap or free electricity. + Irrigation subsidies. + Procurement policies. If these benefits to farmers are accepted as legitimate public policy, why is E20 policy being targeted in isolation for market distortion? CRITICS ARGUMENT 2: ETHANOL PRODUCTION IS WATER CONSUMING. Yes, sugarcane consumes a great deal of water. But so do + Paddy cultivators. Just look at the tumbling water tables in Punjab, Haryana. + AI and data centers. + Semiconductor manufacturing. + Steel and cement production. The question is not whether something uses water, but whether the benefits justify the costs. Again why are critics holding E20 alone to a test that they don't set for others? CRITICS ARGUMENT 3: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT MAKE E20 MANDATORY. LEAVE IT TO CHOICE. We're in a democracy and choice matters. But governments routinely make decisions that we, the people have no choice but to accept. + Taxation rates + Emission norms. + Fuel quality standards. + Safety regulations. + Identity Proof. These are often choices imposed to achieve broader national goals. Shouldn't E20 should be judged in the same way? Here's how E20 usage serves NATIONAL INTEREST: + India imports 85–90% of its crude oil. E20 seeks to address that by replacing up to 20% of petrol volume with domestically produced ethanol, helping diversify the fuel mix and reducing import costs. + With E20 NDA estimates saving Rs 1 lakh crore in foreign-exchange. CRITICS ARGUMENT 4: COST OF CAR ENGINE WEAR AND TEAR, MILEAGE INEFFICIENCY OUTWEIGHS BENEFITS. It is true that Ethanol has about 34% less energy per litre than petrol. But because E20 contains only 20% ethanol, the overall energy content of the fuel falls by roughly 4%–7%. So at 5% a car that gives 20 km/L on pure petrol will give 19km/L. But usage also improves air quality. Which increases longevity in humans and lowers healthcare costs over time. That is s fair trade-off. CONCLUSION: Every policy is a trade off. E20 isn't perfect. But if agricultural subsidies, procurement, irrigation policy and fuel regulations are accepted as legitimate public policy, then judge ethanol using the same yardstick.

Rahul Shivshankar

259,389 görüntüleme • 9 gün önce

Bret Weinstein cuts straight to the chase: "We are going to have an endless battle in which those of us who see what we believe is clear evidence of some kind of election rigging or fraud are faced with indignation from a vast array of people portraying themselves as more rigorous and careful who say, 'Where is your evidence? Where exactly is your evidence that there was something wrong with this election?' And we are gonna be caught in the following predicament. No piece of evidence is sufficient to establish that case. And the sum total of all of the evidence contains true things and false things. So it is also no good. So the question is, can you logically deduce that something has gone wrong? I believe you can easily. Can you prove it? No. And not being able to prove it means that the election will proceed. It will be validated by all of the structures, including the courts. And that means that those who take on the power that derives from these elections will be the result of whatever process we just went through, whether it was an election that happened to be anomalous through organic means, or it was the result of some kind of fraud or election rigging. That is not an accident. That is not an accident. And the point that I wanna make primarily is the primary evidence against elections that look like this being organic is not actually in the trickle of evidence that we are actually able to see, the moment by moment vote count that does something strange during the night when some large tranche of ballots is suddenly counted or something like that. The evidence is in the structure of how the elections are actually carried out. These elections are designed to allow fraud that cannot be detected and will not be prosecuted. And that's really the thing that we must focus on." Bret Weinstein

The DarkHorse Podcast

695,191 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

Who Won? Elon Musk Debates Don Lemon Over the Impact of DEI Programs Lemon repeatedly said, “There’s no evidence” that DEI programs are lowering medical standards, a comment Elon Musk believes is a “false statement.” Who is right? Musk calls on Community Notes to settle the score. LEMON: “There was a repost of Ben Shapiro that you claim that DEI is killing people. Specifically, you point to medicine. You claim that DEI programs are putting people at risk. Do you really believe this to be true? And what evidence do you have to support it?” MUSK: “What I was referring to there was that if we lower the standards for doctors, if the test for a doctor is lowered, then the probability of them making a mistake and killing someone is obviously going to be higher.” LEMON: “Wait, say that again. I’m not sure I understand what you said. I want to make sure I understand what you’re saying.” MUSK: “Yes. If the status for passing medical exams and becoming a doctor, especially something like a surgeon, if the standards are lowered, then the probability that the surgeon will make a mistake is higher. They’re making mistakes in their exam. They may make mistakes with people — and that may result in people dying.” LEMON: “What evidence do you have, though, that they’re lowering the standards? There is no evidence of that.” MUSK: “I believe there is.” LEMON: “There’s no evidence of that, Elon. What is the evidence?” MUSK: “I believe they have literally lowered the standards at Duke University, and that is what the article was referring to. You are saying they have not lowered the standards?” LEMON: “There’s no evidence about lowering standards. And I think that there is —” MUSK: “I believe that is a false statement you’re making.” LEMON: “Okay, well, we’ll figure it out.” MUSK: “The interesting thing is, when this is posted on the X platform, there will be a whole bunch of things that rebut what you said and what I said. And so people can then make their own decision, based on the replies and the rebuttals and the community notes.”

The Vigilant Fox 🦊

5,538,066 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce

David Friedberg: Michael Burry’s Datacenter Math is Wrong “I actually think Michael Burberry's got this wrong.” “What Michael Burry is saying is that all of these hyperscalers have extended their depreciation schedule or the useful life of their data centers by roughly 2x, which cuts the operating costs in half when they report it in earnings. And so it's making their earnings inflate.” “So he's claiming they're cooking the books. Google first made this change in Q1 of 2021, where they said the servers are now going from 3 to 4 years. Separately in 2021, Google took networking equipment from 3 to 5 years. And then in 2023, they took it from 5 to 6 years.” “And so this is a result of this effort where they went in and did an analysis. So what happened?” “What happened in the data centers is that the data centers transitioned from being primarily data storage and data transfer systems, where you would use hard drives and RAM and memory to store data and then transmit it back out, to being data processing centers because of the AI boom.” “So as AI became more important in the data center, more of the dollars that are going into data centers were allocated towards chips from data storage, which initially was hard drives.” “And then suddenly, when you put these processors in to process the data to do AI, the majority of the spend and the majority of the energy is going towards the processors.” “I made some calls and I checked around with some other friends, and everyone says the same thing: that these 7-8 year old TPUs and GPUs that are sitting in the data centers are still being used and they're being used at 100% utilization.” “So that actually justifies and validates the depreciation schedule being much longer versus shorter.”

The All-In Podcast

304,297 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce