The oddities this week for Tesla...

[1RTK1]

No I usually don’t drive that far, thank God works only 15-20 minutes away. When I take trips I at times do drive for a few hours, also hunt in some remote places, can’t fly and haul everything.
If I wanted to take a trip to the coast or the mountains there is no electric car today that would get me there and back without a long charge period.
I would love to have a vehicle that went 400++ miles had equivalent 500hp/500torque and charged in 15 minutes. Id buy one yesterday!
Wish I could fly everywhere, traffic here in california is getting unbearable!!!!!

 

[deonb]

No I usually don’t drive that far, thank God works only 15-20 minutes away. When I take trips I at times do drive for a few hours, also hunt in some remote places, can’t fly and haul everything.
If I wanted to take a trip to the coast or the mountains there is no electric car today that would get me there and back without a long charge period.
I would love to have a vehicle that went 400++ miles had equivalent 500hp/500torque and charged in 15 minutes. Id buy one yesterday!
Wish I could fly everywhere, traffic here in california is getting unbearable!!!!!

Actually to drive a Model 3 for 400 miles requires about a 15 minute charge stop.

Start from home fully charged, drive 300 miles, charge for 15 minutes (less even), drive the remaining 100 miles.

 

[1RTK1]

For that 15min charge require any special charger or just 110?
Is the model 3 as quick as the others?
Always thought the Tesla’s looked cool

 

[deonb]

For that 15min charge require any special charger or just 110?
Is the model 3 as quick as the others?
Always thought the Tesla’s looked cool

Requires a Tesla Supercharger for that charge speed, but they cover 100% of the contiguous US using main roads.

Now... does it cover 100% if you drive all on backroads? Depends. Check out: http://supercharge.info

If you can’t charge at home (even 110v) then you shouldn’t buy any EV. Ever. If the SuperCharger network doesn’t cover every road you want to drive with it then you should wait. Tesla opens new SuperCharger sites at a rate of more than 1 per day right now so chances are if it’s not covered now it will be soon.

 

[Rockymountain]

Neat tech, but overall... Triple Yuck. They are still younglings. Maybe they can pair with a real automotive company and learn to build a car with fit and finish. Hyundai used to suck as well, but seem to have figured it out.

 

[patrick wentworth]

Fit and finish... the Model 3 is as good or better than my 2015 Honda miles ahead of my Corvette. Early reviews of the early production are not representative of current build.

I am with you Lola, we need to pay attention to real issues of how to rebuild purpose for those left behind by new technology and put resources into education so that it generates enthusiasm for a prosperous future. We are in the catbird seat geopolitically with transportation, energy grid and various sources of energy, a huge natural resource base, as well as capable food production. Frankly the overly large dialog about LBGT abortion race differences is diverting us from generating a strong multicultural, multibelief and thinking society. Unfortunately the draft and military service did a lot to create a respect for those not of ones own tribe. There has to be a way to get to a less divisive situation or calling game over for our democracy is a credible risk. (not implying military service is the only way to create cohesiveness for sure...)

So to get to an electric aircraft we need to work the science and at least for training it may well be a good use of the tech.

 

[3393RP]

They’re at 5000 vehicles per week now.

Actually, 7000 vehicles per week, but 5000 of those are Model 3s.

Correction...Tesla made 5,000 Model 3s last week, and it'll be months before they hit that rate again.

Tesla announced they built 28,578 Model 3s in the second quarter. They also halted most of the production of Model S and Model X vehicles last week to achieve the 5,000 Model 3 production.

28,578 / 13 = 2,198 per week average in Q2

Quoted from Tesla press release made yesterday:

.

Q2 deliveries totaled 40,740 vehicles, of which 18,440 were Model 3, 10,930 were Model S, and 11,370 were Model X. Model S and X deliveries are in line with our guidance provided on May 3.

.

Note the number of Model 3s actually delivered in Q2. Some 10,000 units produced in June are still on the lot, most needing QC work.

.

There's this, from CNBC:

.

Tesla said Monday it reached its one-week production goal of 5,000 Model 3 cars for the last week of the June quarter. But the company fell short on its second-quarter deliveries by posting 40,740 vehicles delivered versus the Wall Street consensus expectation of approximately 51,000.

.

Tesla missed total production units by 20%. As usual, subterfuge and slight of hand surrounds another Tesla "goal". There is more unpalatable news in the linked article.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/wall-street-is-still-worried-over-tesla-model-3-demand.html

 

[ColoPilot]

Requires a Tesla Supercharger for that charge speed, but they cover 100% of the contiguous US using main roads.

Now... does it cover 100% if you drive all on backroads? Depends. Check out: http://supercharge.info

If you can’t charge at home (even 110v) then you shouldn’t buy any EV. Ever. If the SuperCharger network doesn’t cover every road you want to drive with it then you should wait. Tesla opens new SuperCharger sites at a rate of more than 1 per day right now so chances are if it’s not covered now it will be soon.

Do you know what does it cost to "fill up" at a SuperCharger for the model 3?

 

[Skip Miller]

Do you know what does it cost to "fill up" at a SuperCharger for the model 3?

The last I knew, using a SuperCharger was free to Tesla vehicles. This may have changed, but I don't think so. My source: My former college roommate has a Model S.

-Skip

 

[ColoPilot]

The last I knew, using a SuperCharger was free to Tesla vehicles. This may have changed, but I don't think so. My source: My former college roommate has a Model S.

-Skip

Model S and X get some predefined amount of free super charging a year, but the Model 3 owners have to pay per kw. I was just curious how much it would cost to do a longer trip.

 

[deonb]

The last I knew, using a SuperCharger was free to Tesla vehicles. This may have changed, but I don't think so. My source: My former college roommate has a Model S.

-Skip

It's free for life on all older Model S, or if you buy a new Model S/X with a referral code from a friend. (So effectively most all Model S/X have free charging).

A full charge from empty of a Model 3 is between $8 and $18 depending on where you are in the country. I've never paid above $10 - generally you're neither fully empty when you arrive nor do you want to charge all the way to the top.

 

[deonb]

Model S and X get some predefined amount of free super charging a year, but the Model 3 owners have to pay per kw. I was just curious how much it would cost to do a longer trip.

You can calculate on 4 miles per kWh on a Model 3, and a kWh is between $0.10 and $0.24. So taking an average of $0.17, a 1000 mile trip will run you $42.50.

In practice it works out cheaper than this since you charge at home before you start - which will be at a cheaper rate, and when you get to your destination, it's also likely to be cheap or free. Tesla gives away free chargers to any hotels that want them, and Hotels don't generally charge you to use those if you stay with them.

Tesla seem to be keeping a 5-to-1 ratio on those - for every 1 Supercharger site they put it, they hook up 5 hotels with what they call "destination chargers". So the U.S. now has 550 Supercharger locations and 3000 Destination charger locations. Now whether a valet can figure out how to hook up and disconnect the car again properly is another story...

 

[denverpilot]

As a country, we like to root for failure instead of supporting people trying to do innovative things to help make everyone's life better. I've said it before and have been scoffed at but there is absolutely no doubt that every car will be electric in the future.

There’s plenty of doubt. There’s a number of missions EVs simply can’t fill. And that’s not any stupid personality politics as you assert, it’s fact.

There’s also no significant engineering indications that EVs “make everyone’s life better”. Certainly not the people who have missions they won’t fill.

If you can objectively make the case by case examples of where they don’t work go away for folks like myself, and I’m not against EVs at all, I’d buy one. Once I’ve FULLY depreciated and broken my gas and diesel vehicles (of which I have four for various jobs and probably selling one that we no longer have a “mission” for...).

The biggest detractor from the point of view of this pragmatic engineer is the holier-than-thou comments like yours that don’t actually address the problems, they just state flatly that an EV is *my* or even dumber “everyone’s” solution. They’re not.

Want to tell me where I can replace my daily driver that is worth $3000 with an EV that’s a better fiscal option for me? Go for it. There’s vehicle number one. Obviously this one is a fiscal requirement but it’s a real one. I’m not spending $35,000-50,000 on an EV when I have a vehicle that has at least 100,000 more miles on it.

I love semi-rural and drive more than average miles so any vehicle I buy, the depreciation realities are that I’m taking a pile of money into the back of my four acres and lighting it on fire.

Maximum use of any vehicle is the only possible way to mitigate that. It needs to be tough (dirt roads and washboards) and it needs to do a LOT of miles a day.

I’ll happily offer up the requirements for vehicles 2 and 3 after that specific one is addressed. They’re harder.

Nothing in the current EV market does what they do... yet.

 

[deonb]

Tesla missed total production units by 20%. As usual, subterfuge and slight of hand surrounds another Tesla "goal". There is more unpalatable news in the linked article.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/03/wall-street-is-still-worried-over-tesla-model-3-demand.html

No, they missed deliveries by 20%. Very very deliberately, and they started delivering those at crazy schedule on July 1st - you now only get 10 minutes for the actual final delivery & paperwork (people are grumpy about that, but alas).

If you don't know why that is happening at exactly this point in time I'm not going to help you. Don't want to start yet another argument on here.

 

[JOhnH]

There’s plenty of doubt. There’s a number of missions EVs simply can’t fill. And that’s not any stupid personality politics as you assert, it’s fact.

I could probably list at least 50 successful cars that don't fit your mission. But they fit "enough" people's missions. Sort of like the old "horseless carriages" that would never catch on.

 

[1RTK1]

It will probably be even longer before there are any 4x4 pickups in EV.

 

[3393RP]

No,

If you don't know why that is happening at exactly this point in time I'm not going to help you. Don't want to start yet another argument on here.

Oh, I know why it's happening. More manipulation.

There are about 10,000 Model 3s on the Fremont property right now, built in June, that cannot be delivered due to QC issues. These vehicles have been counted as production

Here's some light reading for you.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...ar-finds-6-unexpected-problems-todays-numbers

 

[denverpilot]

I could probably list at least 50 successful cars that don't fit your mission. But they fit "enough" people's missions. Sort of like the old "horseless carriages" that would never catch on.

That’s why we have 50 successful cars and competition.

Tesla doesn’t make the vehicle’s I need, EV or not EV.

And the “horseless carriage” argument is retarded. The tractor still had to come along before folks stopped using their livestock and a plow, ya know what I’m sayin’? Roads also had to be built. Etc.

It was a compelling brand new tech that needed infrastructure and multiple types of vehicles built before it was the norm.

And the EV isn’t new at all. It’s just a tech modification of the horseless carriage. Not something nobody has and truly new.

The popularity is mostly based upon claims of efficiency which works in specific applications of the mod and doesn’t work at all for certain types of horseless carriage use cases.

Why anyone would say “this thing fixes everyone’s problems” when it clearly doesn’t, is based in “green marketing” silliness that doesn’t even consistently hold water.

If an EV works for someone better than the other style of horseless carriage, they’ll buy it. No need to force the issue. Either it really is a better version for the job someone has to do with it, or it isn’t. They’ll sell just fine without political manipulation if they’re the best thing to buy for a particular job.

 

[JOhnH]

Why anyone would say “this thing fixes everyone’s problems” when it clearly doesn’t, is based in “green marketing” silliness that doesn’t even consistently hold water.

Don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Or even anything close.

 

[denverpilot]

Don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. Or even anything close.

Do I really need to re-quote @lolachampcar ‘s message AGAIN, or can you just scroll up? Hahah.

 

[JOhnH]

Do I really need to re-quote @lolachampcar ‘s message AGAIN, or can you just scroll up? Hahah.

I saw where he said EVs could make the world a better place. That is far different than making everyone's life better. The world is a pretty good place now, but many people's lives are horrid. We could make the world a little better and some more people would have a better life. But I can't imagine that anyone would think or say that any technological achievement will make everyone's life better.
(otoh, I guess there are idiots that will say anything). As I say, there are always exceptions.

 

[denverpilot]

I saw where he said EVs could make the world a better place. That is far different than making everyone's life better. The world is a pretty good place now, but many people's lives are horrid. We could make the world a little better and some more people would have a better life. But I can't imagine that anyone would think or say that any technological achievement will make everyone's life better.
(otoh, I guess there are idiots that will say anything). As I say, there are always exceptions.

Can you describe a scenario where “make the world a better place” and “make everyone’s life better” aren’t synonymous?

Of course we all know this is only in relation to the tiny percentage of us humans who can even afford cars. “The world” would mean a whole lot of people who can’t. But... assuming you’re talking about those who can, as context for the question.

Of course, also ignoring that most Americans think they can afford new cars and spend seven years of their lives paying for it, in our underwater debt driven (literally) society.

Their bank owns the car, and they kindly assumed all the loss risk for the bank.

But you can answer as if they actually own them.

 

[deonb]

Oh, I know why it's happening. More manipulation.

Sure, it’s manipulation, but manipulation of what ...?

There are about 10,000 Model 3s on the Fremont property right now, built in June, that cannot be delivered due to QC issues. These vehicles have been counted as production

This isn’t it.

 

[3393RP]

I saw where he said EVs could make the world a better place. That is far different than making everyone's life better. The world is a pretty good place now, but many people's lives are horrid. We could make the world a little better and some more people would have a better life. But I can't imagine that anyone would think or say that any technological achievement will make everyone's life better.
(otoh, I guess there are idiots that will say anything). As I say, there are always exceptions.

.

There are billions of people on this earth that don't have adequate food and shelter. The one thing that can make their lives better is oil. Oil can provide heat, a way to cook, light, transportation, fuel to run pumps and tractors, and power for electrical power generation.

There are many people who claim they want to lift these people out of poverty, and many of them also want to stop drilling and the production of oil.

The oil reserves in Brazilian waters that are now being auctioned hold the promise to give millions a better life, if their government will do that instead of enriching themselves.

 

[lolachampcar]

Instead of going back and forth personally, I'll concentrate on solutions...
Your post is exactly the type of thing that has me curious. You write well and you obviously think and yet its good sport to take an opposite position to simple common sense. It may be good sport but it kills our ability to move forward.

I said every car will be electric in the future. I have no crystal ball but it seems pretty obvious to me.
I said we need to be the one developing those cars (which includes the infrastructure to support them) so as to be relevant in the future.
You concentrate on how a car, today, does not do this portion of a particular mission. Between my wife and me, we have over 150K miles on our MS' and have taken multiple long distance trips. I also rented a Hyundai last week to go on a rafting trip with my daughter because we would be spending so much time off the main interstates as to make charging a concern. I mention that because it is obvious that todays solution is not for everyone but using that as a reason to stop moving forward, or better yet, burn coal is just plain nuts.

There is only so much petrified liquified dead dyno in the ground (I know, its not dyno but that sounds better). It will be gone some day. It also consists of carbon that has made its way there over millions of years. It seems unwise to dig it up and throw it into the air if we do not have to. This is especially true if in doing so we make ourselves non-competitive in the future. It is akin to craping in your bed. It just does not make sense.

I do not think I am holier than anyone (non-believer here but I know where you were going). I am amazed at how we take democracy and the country those before us created for granted assuming everything will cruise along just fine with no work. The theory of entropy disagrees. It is true that I do not respect such positions; of that I am guilty.

There’s plenty of doubt. There’s a number of missions EVs simply can’t fill. And that’s not any stupid personality politics as you assert, it’s fact.

There’s also no significant engineering indications that EVs “make everyone’s life better”. Certainly not the people who have missions they won’t fill.

If you can objectively make the case by case examples of where they don’t work go away for folks like myself, and I’m not against EVs at all, I’d buy one. Once I’ve FULLY depreciated and broken my gas and diesel vehicles (of which I have four for various jobs and probably selling one that we no longer have a “mission” for...).

The biggest detractor from the point of view of this pragmatic engineer is the holier-than-thou comments like yours that don’t actually address the problems, they just state flatly that an EV is *my* or even dumber “everyone’s” solution. They’re not.

Want to tell me where I can replace my daily driver that is worth $3000 with an EV that’s a better fiscal option for me? Go for it. There’s vehicle number one. Obviously this one is a fiscal requirement but it’s a real one. I’m not spending $35,000-50,000 on an EV when I have a vehicle that has at least 100,000 more miles on it.

I love semi-rural and drive more than average miles so any vehicle I buy, the depreciation realities are that I’m taking a pile of money into the back of my four acres and lighting it on fire.

Maximum use of any vehicle is the only possible way to mitigate that. It needs to be tough (dirt roads and washboards) and it needs to do a LOT of miles a day.

I’ll happily offer up the requirements for vehicles 2 and 3 after that specific one is addressed. They’re harder.

Nothing in the current EV market does what they do... yet.

 

[EppyGA]

In before the lock

 

[denverpilot]

Instead of going back and forth personally, I'll concentrate on solutions...
Your post is exactly the type of thing that has me curious. You write well and you obviously think and yet its good sport to take an opposite position to simple common sense. It may be good sport but it kills our ability to move forward.

That’s because it isn’t sound “common sense”. Not from an engineering standpoint, anyway.

I said every car will be electric in the future. I have no crystal ball but it seems pretty obvious to me.
I said we need to be the one developing those cars (which includes the infrastructure to support them) so as to be relevant in the future.
You concentrate on how a car, today, does not do this portion of a particular mission. Between my wife and me, we have over 150K miles on our MS' and have taken multiple long distance trips. I also rented a Hyundai last week to go on a rafting trip with my daughter because we would be spending so much time off the main interstates as to make charging a concern. I mention that because it is obvious that todays solution is not for everyone but using that as a reason to stop moving forward, or better yet, burn coal is just plain nuts.

But that’s all you’re doing today is burning coal. All the replacements for coal require massive amounts of fossil fuels to get the raw materials for their manufacture out of the ground. Nobody’s shown anywhere near a carbon neutral “renewable” (to use the marketing word that isn’t true at all).

There is only so much petrified liquified dead dyno in the ground (I know, its not dyno but that sounds better). It will be gone some day. It also consists of carbon that has made its way there over millions of years. It seems unwise to dig it up and throw it into the air if we do not have to. This is especially true if in doing so we make ourselves non-competitive in the future. It is akin to craping in your bed. It just does not make sense.

Once humanity gets there, there’s a lot bigger lifestyle problems going to happen than gas for cars. Name a product you buy today that doesn’t use a petrochemical. Your butcher still wrapping your meat in dead trees? Everything uses stuff that comes off of the refinery, gas is just small portion of it. And jet airliners? Construction machinery? Diesel is a bigger problem for the world than gasoline, once you get to no oil.

Meanwhile the timelines are waaaaaay out there. Multiple generations measured in tens of digits will be dead and gone before that’s a real problem.

If nothing else the efficiency of using petroleum vs electric is still massive just due to the infrastructure already built for it. Building a new infrastructure before it’s needed is just a massive added inefficiency. At least so far, the owners of the less efficient solution are building their own. The cost of the Superchargers and such and their own home charging stations. (Still have to EXPAND power plants burning mostly coal or cover the entire landscape with big fans that took a LOT of energy to get material out of the ground and manufacture and transport to the sites.)

I do not think I am holier than anyone (non-believer here but I know where you were going). I am amazed at how we take democracy and the country those before us created for granted assuming everything will cruise along just fine with no work. The theory of entropy disagrees. It is true that I do not respect such positions; of that I am guilty.

Entropy doesn’t usually affect infrastructure people need. The interesting part to me in “advanced” societies is still encouraging the use of office buildings. For a LOT of jobs we should’ve done incentives to keep people from housing humans in secondary boxes that have to be maintained, heated, cooled, etc, when most humans already have a fully workable box to stay in if they have a desk job. You then remove the need for more of the rolling boxes and airliners too. Flying me in airliners all over the country to wire equipment up fifteen years ago did more bad things to the world than all of my car driving ever will. There were locals who knew how to do that, but companies behave like little tribes that can’t work with remote tribes. Those places only needed me on the phone to explain the differences between our gear and stuff they had seen, but that’s not how business works for whatever reason.

There are HUGE possibilities to dump driving if business could just get used to them. But travel of the guy or gal you “trust” is easier than figuring out how to trust a different tribe. Or whatever the problem is. Too many sales people need golf or something.

The real fix is not electric boxes replacing gas powered boxes. It’s less need for the mobile people boxes.

But anyway... if an electric box had worked for today’s mission to go from rural to mountain town for a musical gig for my wife, and it was economically sound for us, we’d have one. None of them will survive the county dirt road that hasn’t been touched in two plus weeks by a grader because of the Statism Holiday.

‘Merica. They’re singing all the military hymns now. (And let’s not forget what a waste of time and human talent our penchant for projecting death on other lands constantly costs us. It’s not “defense” anymore. Not to mention petroleum. Well, and a bunch of uranium for their bigger all electric toys.)

 

[lolachampcar]

Not for you DP, but for anyone else listening.
"But that’s all you’re doing today is burning coal."
It is a common argument but off the mark by a lot. Energy unit per mile is on the side of electric as gas powered cars are so inefficient. Electricity can be generated by more than just coal so there is plenty of room to clean things up. Not so with gas powered cars. Milage has gone up a good bit and should go up a bit more but that pales in comparison to electric. I found the best solution was solar on my roof. Payback was under five years thanks to the 20% tax deduction we seem fit to give people for putting it up. In short, no fossil fuel here for cars or house.

For DP
You are right. There are a lot of things we use fossil fuels for which is all the more reason not to use them to get around all the while tossing sequestered carbon in the air. Even if we have hundreds of years of it, it is simply stupid to waste it.

Entropy applies to everything. And I am an engineer

On board with the office building comments. Also with your tribe comments. Could not agree more with your comments about our killing other people. Less than 5K killed in the towers with likely more than double that in our soldiers from our reaction. That does not even begin to account for all locals we killed along the way. It does not make sense.

 

[JOhnH]

On board with the office building comments. Also with your tribe comments. Could not agree more with your comments about our killing other people. Less than 5K killed in the towers with likely more than double that in our soldiers from our reaction. That does not even begin to account for all locals we killed along the way. It does not make sense.

Well, there IS an overpopulation crisis headed to this planet. People are living longer and longer all the time so the problem is going to get continually and rapidly worse. Over development is destroying our natural beauty. One day, even Denver Pilot will have to live in a high-rise condominium. But we still get our panties in a collective wad when someone dies. And there are no politically correct solutions that either side is willing to address. Evacuating the planet, as some have suggested, might help perpetuate the species, but it will do nothing for the vast majority of people stuck on dear old Terra Firma.

How's that for taking a thread off track?

 

[denverpilot]

Not for you DP, but for anyone else listening.
"But that’s all you’re doing today is burning coal."
It is a common argument but off the mark by a lot. Energy unit per mile is on the side of electric as gas powered cars are so inefficient. Electricity can be generated by more than just coal so there is plenty of room to clean things up. Not so with gas powered cars. Milage has gone up a good bit and should go up a bit more but that pales in comparison to electric. I found the best solution was solar on my roof. Payback was under five years thanks to the 20% tax deduction we seem fit to give people for putting it up. In short, no fossil fuel here for cars or house.

Electricity can’t be produced without massive mining. Prove it in an engineering sense that you can REPLACE coal burning energy levels year round with something cheaper to dig out of the ground and ALL of the energy to make it. Nobody has yet. Electric is an INEFFICIENT fad until then.

And it has to keep up with population growth.

On the home solar, how many years payback would it have been if you didn’t finance it with debt that everyone else has to pay for, plus interest? You like leaving that debt for your kids? What’s it going to cost them? Double what you paid by the time the bill comes due?

If it’s economically sound for someone to purchase, then it is. Without subsidy on everyone else’s backs in places where solar doesn’t work.

Essentially suburban solar subsidies are a hidden tax on poor people in multi-family housing no matter how you change the percentage of tax in them. Congrats.

The American Way, pretend something is “good for society” meaning “good for suburbanite lifestyles”.

Numbers wise, the only thing that’ll replace coal as population rises is nuclear. We’re falling pretty far behind on that, stupidly, while folks pretend wind and solar will meet the growing need.

 

[denverpilot]

One day, even Denver Pilot will have to live in a high-rise condominium.

I prefer to call it a “sniper tower”.

 

[nauga]

So a required test of knowledge of what the major positions are for every candidate that someone vote for is nice to dream about.

Ironic that the talk of denying people the right to vote is happening on Independence Day. To borrow from George Orwell, All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others. We need more people voting, not fewer. Rather than denying their vote, work to educate them.

Nauga,
who subverts the aristocracy.

 

[GRG55]

Ironic that the talk of denying people the right to vote is happening on Independence Day. To borrow from George Orwell, All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others. We need more people voting, not fewer. Rather than denying their vote, work to educate them.

Nauga,
who subverts the aristocracy.

"Educated" or not, rich or poor, old or young, I have enduring faith that voters have a high propensity to cast their ballots based on what they perceive to be in their own best interests.

 

[denverpilot]

Ironic that the talk of denying people the right to vote is happening on Independence Day. To borrow from George Orwell, All men are created equal, but some men are more equal than others. We need more people voting, not fewer. Rather than denying their vote, work to educate them.

Nauga,
who subverts the aristocracy.

 

[Velocity173]

Electricity can’t be produced without massive mining. Prove it in an engineering sense that you can REPLACE coal burning energy levels year round with something cheaper to dig out of the ground and ALL of the energy to make it. Nobody has yet. Electric is an INEFFICIENT fad until then.

And it has to keep up with population growth.

On the home solar, how many years payback would it have been if you didn’t finance it with debt that everyone else has to pay for, plus interest? You like leaving that debt for your kids? What’s it going to cost them? Double what you paid by the time the bill comes due?

If it’s economically sound for someone to purchase, then it is. Without subsidy on everyone else’s backs in places where solar doesn’t work.

Essentially suburban solar subsidies are a hidden tax on poor people in multi-family housing no matter how you change the percentage of tax in them. Congrats.

The American Way, pretend something is “good for society” meaning “good for suburbanite lifestyles”.

Numbers wise, the only thing that’ll replace coal as population rises is nuclear. We’re falling pretty far behind on that, stupidly, while folks pretend wind and solar will meet the growing need.

Denmark hopes to be on 100 % renewable energy by 2050. I think that’s an overly optimistic number. Vermont hopes to be 90 % renewable energy by 2050 as well. I don’t see the transportation side going that route by then but possibly an all renewable electrical grid??? Burlington has a head start with Biomass, hydro and solar comprising their grid.

 

[nauga]

...I have enduring faith that voters have a high propensity to cast their ballots based on what they perceive to be in their own best interests.

I agree. I also believe that many voters that others would exclude through a test of eligibility (pick whatever criteria you like, the outcome is usually the same) would probably vote against my interests. Regardless, I believe they have the right to cast that vote.

Nauga,
all patriotic and ****

 

[denverpilot]

Denmark hopes to be on 100 % renewable energy by 2050. I think that’s an overly optimistic number. Vermont hopes to be 90 % renewable energy by 2050 as well. I don’t see the transportation side going that route by then but possibly an all renewable electrical grid??? Burlington has a head start with Biomass, hydro and solar comprising their grid.

Let’s not call it “renewable” until it breaks even on its own energy required to manufacture it. If someone can’t show the numbers proving that, it’s not truly “renewable”, and that word is just marketing wonk.

Many areas with hydro can get a lot closer to true renewable than places without mass amounts of water moving past them all the time. Still, dams and the energy to build and operate them, still count against their “renewable” status, in a purely engineering sense.

 

[lolachampcar]

This is just plain funny when I look at my near zero electric bill (I'm over the five year return point so I've got my money back). No matter how the system came into existence (we obviously do not care about such dribble as we drive around in ICE cars), I no longer have a meaningful electric bill. Label it renewable or not, I could care less. I bought it. It paid for itself. It now provides with zero (so far - 9 years in) maintenance so it seems I'm not renewing it; something must be.

Let’s not call it “renewable” until it breaks even on its own energy required to manufacture it. If someone can’t show the numbers proving that, it’s not truly “renewable”, and that word is just marketing wonk.

Many areas with hydro can get a lot closer to true renewable than places without mass amounts of water moving past them all the time. Still, dams and the energy to build and operate them, still count against their “renewable” status, in a purely engineering sense.

 

[JOhnH]

Electricity can’t be produced without massive mining. Prove it in an engineering sense that you can REPLACE coal burning energy levels year round with something cheaper to dig out of the ground and ALL of the energy to make it. Nobody has yet. Electric is an INEFFICIENT fad until then.

But you don't have to replace all coal burning with electric. If you only replace part of the coal burning with solar/wind/hydro energy, and only when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing or the rivers are flowing, you will greatly reduce the amount of coal being mined and burned.

I agree that we need a renewed effort to develop safe, efficient nuclear power, but I also firmly believe in an "all of the above" approach. Use the resources we have and develop new sources of energy. As a new source develops, gradually replace an older, dirtier, less efficient source. And I say this being the proud owner of one fourth of one sixth of one half of the mineral rights in a coal mine and natural gas field in Texas. My last 3-month royalty check was $46.50. I remember the hey-days when I would get $100 or $200/month.

 

[Pilots Of America Management]

Closed.