4 ms·
Yes, I was talking about that. But if you want an answer, many of the first cars were electric, if they went with the electric engine instead things wouldn't b
by soperj 11y ago
Yes, I was talking about that.
But if you want an answer, many of the first cars were electric, if they went with the electric engine instead things wouldn't be exactly the same, but would have allowed the US to increase to 300+ million no problem.
- tacos 11y agoI'm sure the electric planes, tanks and aircraft carriers would've made for some interesting historical footnotes in 1939. Assuming we hadn't already all starved due to the lack of food being produced by the electric farm tractors.
- soperj 11y agoYou may have starved. Everyone else would have continued to rely on the steam tractors that were in use well into the 30s. I'm sure most aircraft carriers would be powered the same way nuclear subs are powered now.
- tacos 11y agoAh yes. Wake up a few extra hours before sunrise to load crisp, clean-burning coal into a furnace. Then fiddle with dials waiting for it to come up to pressure without exploding. Then drag a cast iron boiler and tons of water (!) on tiny wheels across muddy fields, generating 15 horsepower. Built to scale!
- soperj 11y agoYou're clearly a waste of time. They were already doing that. Why? Because the ICE's weren't up to snuff.
- nitrogen 11y agogenerating 15 horsepower You don't need a lot of horsepower to replace a horse. Quite literally, one would be enough.
- tacos 11y agoIn the spring you have a specific number of weeks to prep and plant. The amount of food you can produce is directly tied to the horsepower you can apply. It's also the difference between spending 15 hours a day in the field versus 8.
- nitrogen 11y agoYeah, I know, more power means you can process a bigger swath of the field faster with one pass. But I've driven a ~15hp tractor, and it could still do a lot more than you'd think.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]