Still far enough out to make his fortune and bolt before any of this has to happen.
Stating that there is progress on some things doesn’t mean anything / everything is achievable. If it was - we’d have affordable flying cars by now.
Stating that there is progress on some things doesn’t mean anything / everything is achievable. If it was - we’d have affordable flying cars by now.
Would you seriously want to leave your fragile aircraft somewhere like a Walmart parking lot, or drive it on a crowded street in rush hour, when damage from a fender bender might cost you $20K if you know about it or your life if you don't? That was always the real problem with the idea of a flying car, not the technology.
You're misreading the graphic. It says level two charges use 240 volts, like a stovetop. That's accurate. But the current is not the same. 17kW isn't a stovetop. And everyone I know with a Tesla uses the superchargers whenever possible.
Yeah I just checked my stove circuit and it’s on a 40amp breaker so the load is clearly less than 40 amps by a fair margin. The graphic indicates Tesla charging pulls up to an 80 amp peak load. So more like 3-4 stoves per lvl two charge for the period of time it’s at peak which I assume would not be for the entire charge. @David Megginson made a common error and stopped reading when he found the part pertinent to his expectations.
Most small electric at 30amp. Normal are 50amp, or oversized six burner double over like I considered was 120amp.
Well, some of the electricity was produced at a power plant where they produced emissions. It depends on where you live. In Iowa, 34% of the electricity produced in the state was from wind; OK produced more electrical power from wind (32%) than coal, KS was 36% wind generation.
Nice try, but no save. You can't get to the OP's claim of 140 kw/household by tweaking the level two charger, and my original comparison was an oven, not the stovetop in the graphic (ovens range from 30–60 amps).
Do they have 140 kw superchargers at home in their garages? That's my point — you can't just take the number of households and multiply it by 140 kw to predict the load on the grid.
Thanks. That makes more sense — I understand battery tech faces a hard chemical limit that means it would never be able to be improved to the point of powering an airliner from LGA to LAX (for example).
I’m not. Good luck. I don’t have any emotional investment in the issue at all. I would love to have a Tesla. They are fast as hell and fun to drive but I can’t afford one. Nothing environmentally friendly about them at all. At least not yet...
Why does it matter if it's in their garage or not?
Since most corporations outlive their corporate officers, isn't that tantamount to saying that corporations should never set long-term goals? It seems to me that whether it turns out to be greenwashing or not will depend on whether they are taking meaningful steps to work toward those long-term goals, and continuing to do so.
The problem with trusting the power company is they make more money and profit by justifying a large infrastructure upgrade.
To each their own.
Corporations can set all the long-term green goals they want. But airline companies don't design airplanes; aircraft manufacturers do that, and they're the ones that have to find the magic needed to make an electric airliner. The airline CEO can make the promises but he isn't the one tasked with making them come true. That falls to rare, obscure, ingenious individuals with a lot of time and research money to spend.
The days of airframe manufacturers building stuff without the first couple launch customers is decades behind us for established companies. Every Boeing/Airbus plane since the mid 90s has had a launch customer under contract and working with the manufacturer to spec everything.
You could be right, although I have heard of situations historically where the demands of airlines have influenced the design efforts of aircraft manufacturers.
The carbon emissions are picked up by the source of the biofuel, in theory, so it is recycled. The total concentration in the atmosphere doesn't change from the use of these fuels.
Oh, for sure. But a CEO's wishful thinking can't influence aircraft design that much. There are some hard limits to all of this.
. 
Also, current carbon-based fuels are renewable too, only at a very slow rate!So by that logic, they have already achieved zero emissions since trees and plants absorb the carbon emissions of the current fuels and turn it into wood, leafs, tomatoes, etc.
Apparently “reducing our carbon emissions 100% by 2050” was thus already achieved by the first internal combustion engine
Cheers.
No, if it worked that way, there wouldn't be in increase in carbon dioxide.So by that logic, they have already achieved zero emissions since trees and plants absorb the carbon emissions of the current fuels and turn it into wood, leafs, tomatoes, etc.
Apparently “reducing our carbon emissions 100% by 2050” was thus already achieved by the first internal combustion engine
Reminds me of a Finance Guy I knew back in the day. I asked him what is 2+2? He replied “What would you like it to be?” He was hired on the spot.
Cheers
Using biofuel from algae or certain plants is supposed to offset the CO2 generated by UAL. Or the CEO of UAL feels hydrogen fuel cells will power the planes. There's interesting work being done in these areas, but I don't see it leaving the lab for some time. Or that CEO has something else in mind.Also, current carbon-based fuels are renewable too, only at a very slow rate!
And there's really no such thing as an avalanche, because the frozen water is simply returning closer to the elevation it evaporated from earlier … unless you're buried by the avalanche, at which point logic games might not give you much comfort.