That is a well known economic theory. It's a version of the Efficient Market Hypothesis. It's actually a very old idea. It's probably been around since prehistory when people were mocking the idea of using round things to roll along the ground to carry heavy loads because, if it was worthwhile, people would already be doing it. It should be noted that progress usually happens despite people who think like that, not because of them.

I mean, your whole premise only works in an "all other things being equal" scenario, where the state of technology is static. That simply is not the case. Technology has advanced and is continuing to advance. The practical range and the charging/battery swap technology for such transportation choices is better now than in the past shows clear signs that it will be better in the future.

You're a bit out of date. They're already a thing. What is being experimented with at this point is the longer range ones. You're coming off as the guy who desperately wants to be right about heavier than air travel being impossible when companies like Wright, Fokker, and Sopwith were already competing on commercial sales.

I would say that you're like Lord Kelvin, except that, despite his massive hubris, he had some pretty impressive laurels to rest on and you do not appear to. He is a good example of someone who prominently insisted that heavier than air flight was impossible, and still refused to change his mind with extant flying aircraft right in his face figuratively speaking. I imagine also that, much like Kelvin, you'll move the goalposts as you go. Kelvin went gradually from completely impossible to claiming eternal impracticality without actually admitting that his position had changed.

You should look up what a bunkering port is. It's one of those points along the way that you seem to think fossil fuel powered ships don't have.

As serviscope_minor already pointed out, a lot of those ports already exist. They also don't need to be that big. The number of containers that need to be unloaded/loaded is a pretty small and fast job compared to fully loading/unloading container ship. Let's not pretend that ships don't already need massive infrastructure for loading/unloading. The biggest requirement really is the power supply. Obviously it varies by ship, but around typical would be a 50 MWh set of battery containers. Any single ship on the kind of route we're talking about will stop there maybe every 3 to 4 days. So, if we add around 10% to that, it comes to about 570 kW to 750 kW per ship. That's not really that much for a large massive industrial/commercial location. At US usage rates, that's about to 460 to 600 homes worth. Basically in the range of a factory on the smaller side of average. Sure, it increases as it needs to service more ships, but that just increases the economies of scale for the other equipment.

You appear to be claiming that such infrastructure is not necessary for existing cargo ships. I'm going to point it out in your other post below as well, but you might want to look up what a bunkering hub is. In any case, as I pointed out already, existing electric cargo ships currently have a sweet spot at around 930 miles but future ones are looking like they will have even greater range. The thing about that though, for the route you're suggesting, is that you can do it with those ships with just a little more range, and there's no practical reason you couldn't do that by adding just a few power containers to boost the range and sacrifice a little cargo space. 930 miles might be the sweet spot, but they can go further.

In what way do they indicate I did not? Be specific.

What effect do you think that's supposed to have on me? I know that none of that is true, and you know that I know that. So what is the point of saying it? We're not 5 year olds on the playground (well, I know I'm not, anyway). Crowing about your imagined victories like that just doesn't affect grownups. If you have an actual point to make, go ahead and make it and then we can discuss it rationally.

You are seriously deranged and, as I have pointed out, apparently functionally illiterate since you quite clearly have not actually read my posts.

You're very obviously either just trolling or insanely stupid at this point. You haven't supported any of these claims so far.

Very much not. You just seem to have trouble grasping that this involves exchanging one set of industries for another and the new set is actually less resource intensive than the old set.

I've seen your questions. You're clearly not trying to understand anything, you're just generating "content' to flood the zone with bullshit. It is truly ironic that someone who appears to think that asking grok questions constitutes "research".

I am not a fanboy for rich men, or politicians, etc. I'm also not apparently dissociating like you appear to be and carrying on both sides of the conversation in my head. Try to get a grip and make an actual point.

A few tons worth of lubricant over their entire lifetime yes. Of course, since it is almost 100% reused/recycled, it's hardly an issue, not to mention being effectively a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of fossil fuel the turbine displaces. As for the materials "too costly to recycle" I assume you mean the blades? Also a drop in the bucket compared to the oil displaced. However, your information is outdated. For old blades, they are being ground up and re-used in materials like concrete or used whole as structural components. For new blades, they have developed materials that can be recycled and also processes that can even work on recycling old blades.

Well, aside from taking a land route, current electric cargo ships are practical at about 930 miles, with future versions projected to be economical at about 3000 miles. Currently, delivery by ship from Costa Rica to Florida is bit over 1000 miles, so a stop would be required for a battery swap. That would require a battery swap station along the route. Technically the ideal location would probably actually be in Cuba geographically speaking, but there are obvious issues there. So somewhere on the Yucatan would make sense. Maybe Cozumel or Morelos. A slightly longer route that goes East of Cuba instead would also be practical with current electric cargo ships with a battery swap stop in Jamaica. Of course, the practical range extensions for longer routes are coming, so going from Costa Rica directly to, for example, Tampa will soon be quite practical. After that, trucking typically takes over.

For other ports, like San Diego or northern ports on the East Coast, up and coming 3000 mile range ships would be able to handle any of those ports. Even without that range though, stopping at multiple ports for battery swaps is a perfectly manageable system.

There is of course the question of the source of power. Some of the stops like Jamaica currently rely pretty heavily on imported fossil fuels for power generation. However, they have started to realize how vulnerable oil dependence makes them and how expensive it is and have been expanding renewables and are on track to rapidly transition away from fossil fuels.

That sounds very similar to "...internet connected and ... require an internet connection to operate."

But is the monkey OK?

I'm not arguing for Tesla's trucks, which are a late arrival to the market at this point, just for electric trucking in general, which only makes sense. I am also not arguing with the math of the AI, and it's sad that you appear to be so reliant on it that you can't understand that. It looks like either you didn't bother reading your own source, or my post, or both. Don't expect to be taken seriously until you behave seriously.

Your inability to do basic things without consulting an LLM does not affect my sleep one way or another. The bit about being hard to ignore 300+ sources is... well it's just sad. You didn't research those sources. You don't even know what they are. There's no academic rigor involved in you leaning on those sources. The fact that you talk about 24 billion tons of copper "just for 4-6 million trucks" without doing the basic arithmetic to realize that you're talking about 4000 to 6000 tons of copper per truck shows how poor your critical reasoning and mathematical reasoning are. For reference, while there is no exact figure, the total copper in use in the US electrical grid now is in the tens of millions of tons. You are talking about approximately three orders of magnitude more copper. This is for a relatively modest increase in power distribution. As already discussed, running all US trucking on Electric would be in the range of about 75 GW. The current average continuous electrical usage of the US is about 466 GW. So adding 75 GW to that would be about a 16% increase. Hardly astronomical. Not to mention that it would not be be a pure increase in resource usage since it would be displacing existing fossil fuel consumption and fossil fuel infrastructure.

The court's deference to police, qualified immunity, color of law, etc. make that pretty unlikely. Many courts allow the crime of "resisting arrest" to apply to illegal arrests and even when the officer is plainclothes and fails to identify. So many basic self defense principles, let alone extreme ones like stand your ground, don't apply when police are involved. For extreme examples, consider cases where undercover officers, embedded in rival gangs, have gotten in shootouts with no other real gang members present.