It's a growing niche, with every indication of eventually turning what it is displacing into a niche. If we want to go by your last post about cars, 1 in 5 new cars sold last year worldwide was electric and it's a growing market. For the electric shipping question, you first talked about electric shipping like it couldn't be done. When I pointed it that it can, you acted like ships stopping at ports to fuel wasn't a thing and that, anyway, that would mean spending money on infrastructure and having to spend money on infrastructure somehow precludes a thing from happening, the entirety of our modern civilization somehow notwithstanding. From my perspective, it seems like you're on the losing side of a lost cause. You just seem to really, really want electrification to fail in the face of the fact that internal combustion engines appear to be at their peak, but EV systems are still developing and improving (I mean, the motors are at maximum efficiency, but the battery technology is definitely still improving). For the life of me, I can't really understand why you're so insistent on fossil fuel tech over more modern and sustainable technology.

Ah. I know this one. XKCD reference here. So that you don't have to follow the link if you don't want to, it shows one of the stock characters showing a bride a graph indicating that, since she had 0 husbands yesterday, and 1 today, she'll have over four dozen husbands by late next month. In other words, it's cute that you can only make linear extrapolations.

As for ships and trucks not having worked yet. They, in fact, have, but they're still a niche. Sensible extrapolation of the technology shows them becoming more and more mainstream.

So now we're talking about consumer BEVs? Quite aside from the fact that you're intentionally downplaying the capabilities of BEVs, you're also exaggerating the sales situation. Despite the dip in sales when the Trump administration eliminated the tax credit, 2025 was still the second best year for US EV sales on record. Then, of course, we come full circle to the actual point of the article after all your goalpost shifting. The large rise in gas prices due to Trump's war is renewing interest in EVs. While it is too soon to have sales numbers, other indicators like web searches, etc. indicate increased interest. Of course, if we want to reverse the goalpost shifting altogether, we can go back to your first post and point out, as throughout this discussion, that electric ships and trucks are indeed making their way into shipping from producers.

The status quo has clearly changed since 100 years ago and it is continuing to change, so your argument makes little sense. Not to mention that you're pretending that EVs are useless now, which simply isn't the case.

Well, we're talking about around 50 MWh here. MCS systems go up to 3.75 MW for charging. So that would be about thirteen and a half hours. Except that there's no reason the battery system can't have parallel chargers. Use four of them and you can fill up in under three and a half hours. If the port can't handle 15 MegaWatts, you can just have containerized batteries onshore that charge the batteries in the ship. Of course, battery swapping is even faster, but you could charge by cable instead.

I'm getting this weird feeling like maybe your posts on this are parody. The rechargeable batteries available back in 1926 were unsealed lead acid batteries. The kind you had to fiddle around with a hygrometer and top up with water to maintain. They had a specific energy of maybe 30 Watt hours per kg. Basically around a tenth of modern EV batteries. Of course things have changed since then.

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.