Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on May 23, 2013, 10:32:45 AM
-
i believe some on here were shitting on them ;D
Source: San Jose Mercury News
In a huge boost for the Obama Administration and clean-energy firms, electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors (TSLA) announced Wednesday that it has paid back its $465 million government loan in full and nine years early.
The Department of Energy oversees $34 billion in taxpayer-funded loans for clean energy and other projects, but Tesla is the only United States car company in the vast portfolio of 33 projects to pay back its loan so far. The loan program faced fierce partisan fire in the wake of the high-profile 2011 bankruptcy of Fremont solar manufacturer Solyndra, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Tesla a "loser" in a presidential debate last fall.
"Tesla employs more than 3,000 American workers and is living proof of the power of American innovation," U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a statement. "This is another important contribution to what the Obama Administration has done to preserve and promote America's auto industry. This announcement is also good news for the future of America's growing electric vehicle industry. While the market has taken longer than predicted to get going, sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. tripled last year and are continuing to increase rapidly in 2013. Tesla and other U.S. manufacturers are in a strong position to compete for this growing global market."
... Analysts said the move frees Tesla from the partisan politics that have shadowed federal government support for Silicon Valley clean energy companies.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23300602/tesla-motors-fully-repays-465-million-federal-loan
-
hahahahahahahaa poor fox news
-
I'm really rooting for new tech companies like tesla.
-
I was shifting on them because I believe their original vehicles were basically pieces of shit.
-
I see them all over the roads near where I live.
-
Doom approves.
-
Fox Is such fucking garbage, it's so obvious what their agenda is.
The future is not gas and oil any retard can see that.
-
Fox Is such fucking garbage, it's so obvious what their agenda is.
The future is not gas and oil any retard can see that.
That's the funny thing about leftists like yourself. Please, wake up and face what they call reality.
-
Fox Is such fucking garbage, it's so obvious what their agenda is.
The future is not gas and oil any retard can see that.
When is Solyndra paying back their loan?
-
Doom approves.
For some odd reason, I always get teh feeling your BayGBM.
-
When is Solyndra paying back their loan?
your right, 100% success is required of course. Also, failing companies equate with the product they are selling.
You are stupid.
PIP, oil/gas etc will run out, it is dirty (see oil spill) and dangerous how am I not facing reality? The reality is one day we will need alternate fuel sources and the time will probably be long before the oil stores run out if the planet has anything to say about it.
Answer me this.
Is evolution correct?
Is global warming correct (the models)?
-
your right, 100% success is required of course. Also, failing companies equate with the product they are selling.
You are stupid.
PIP, oil/gas etc will run out, it is dirty (see oil spill) and dangerous how am I not facing reality? The reality is one day we will need alternate fuel sources and the time will probably be long before the oil stores run out if the planet has anything to say about it.
Answer me this.
Is evolution correct?
Is global warming correct (the models)?
You mean other than the SNOW that hit the midwest just three weeks ago? ::)
And it may snow AGAIN this weekend!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/24/18462699-winter-maybe-even-snow-to-return-for-memorial-day-weekend?lite
Remember this?
(http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global-cooling.jpg)
or THIS?
(http://ptesoterico.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/big-freeze.jpg)
We got enough fuel to last us for CENTURIES. Your great-great granchildren will have fossil fuel out the wazoo to use for their homes. There is hardly any shortage of such. That is little more than tree-hugging BS, to bilk people out of their money to pay for cars that look like the juice boxes my son drinks with his PB&J sandwiches and his chips.
As for Tesla, for every one of them that does pay its loan back, how many haven't and/or have gone belly-up, 3? 4? 5?
This reminds me of joke Chris Rock made about the difference between black people and "N&#^@s". ""N&#*@s always want credit for some s^@& they supposed to do! A n&@#^( will say some s&@* like, 'I take care of my kids!'. YOU SUPPOSED TO, YOU DUMB M@**@#&*)R!!!"
Fast-forward to here: Whoopee!! Tesla paid back their loans.......AND? You guys want a ticker-tape parade for them? Give them cookies? TESLA'S SUPPOSED TO PAY IT BACK, "you low-expectation-having M*#$&@$(@($&@R!
-
Will never drive no car run on batteries.
-
Fox Is such fucking garbage, it's so obvious what their agenda is.
The future is not gas and oil any retard can see that.
Yeah well when the magic new go juice is invented please let me know. When the shit doesn't need massive government loans and more people want to buy it...let me know. Until then I'll continue to buy gas guzzlers. In fact bought a brand new gas guzzling Hemi on Monday.
-
PIP, oil/gas etc will run out, it is dirty (see oil spill) and dangerous how am I not facing reality? The reality is one day we will need alternate fuel sources and the time will probably be long before the oil stores run out if the planet has anything to say about it.
Don't care, oil/gas will last until long after I'm dead, and quite frankly i couldnt give a flying fuck less about its environmental impact. I love driving my high HP gas guzzling vehicle and you Eco Fags can suck it.
And lol at my phone capitilalizing Eco.
-
Yeah well when the magic new go juice is invented please let me know. When the shit doesn't need massive government loans and more people want to buy it...let me know. Until then I'll continue to buy gas guzzlers. In fact bought a brand new gas guzzling Hemi on Monday.
Exactly!! If these stupid cars were all that, the companies wouldn't have to run to Uncle Sam to save them from bankruptcy.
Don't care, oil/gas will last until long after I'm dead, and quite frankly i couldnt give a flying fuck less about its environmental impact. I love driving my high HP gas guzzling vehicle and you Eco Fags can suck it.
And lol at my phone capitilalizing Eco.
Gas and oil will last generations after you, or until the Lord returns (whichever comes first). Pay no mind to Team Treehugger's garbage, especially when their poster boys are rolling in armored limos and flying jumbo jets.
We want cars that are actually.......CARS. If my little boy is looking at a car and wondering where to stick the straw because he's thirsty, that's a car that's worthless to me.
-
You mean other than the SNOW that hit the midwest just three weeks ago? ::)
And it may snow AGAIN this weekend!
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/24/18462699-winter-maybe-even-snow-to-return-for-memorial-day-weekend?lite
Remember this?
(http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/global-cooling.jpg)
or THIS?
(http://ptesoterico.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/big-freeze.jpg)
We got enough fuel to last us for CENTURIES. Your great-great granchildren will have fossil fuel out the wazoo to use for their homes. There is hardly any shortage of such. That is little more than tree-hugging BS, to bilk people out of their money to pay for cars that look like the juice boxes my son drinks with his PB&J sandwiches and his chips.
As for Tesla, for every one of them that does pay its loan back, how many haven't and/or have gone belly-up, 3? 4? 5?
This reminds me of joke Chris Rock made about the difference between black people and "N&#^@s". ""N&#*@s always want credit for some s^@& they supposed to do! A n&@#^( will say some s&@* like, 'I take care of my kids!'. YOU SUPPOSED TO, YOU DUMB M@**@#&*)R!!!"
Fast-forward to here: Whoopee!! Tesla paid back their loans.......AND? You guys want a ticker-tape parade for them? Give them cookies? TESLA'S SUPPOSED TO PAY IT BACK, "you low-expectation-having M*#$&@$(@($&@R!
It paid back the loan far in advance, that's the point, but you knew that or are you actually that clueless? no one suggested they didn't have to pay off their loan nor did anyone get excited that they did. You truly are either a poor reader/thinker or are simply being willfully ignorant.
Let's then go back to the top. I honestly don't know why I try to argue with delusional people. You cite a weather occurrence as evidence against global warming. The number of things wrong with your argument or failed attempt at one is that weather and climate are totally different, your snow example is no more relevant to global warming as the number of corn kernals in my shit just minutes ago.
Then the argument of oil.You again miss my argument, nothing about how long the oil will last was presented as an argument, the nature of oil was. It is non-renewable, it will run out. Hence in order for our species to survive and for others to not live in terrible conditions (I know you lack compassion, you are the type to prey for the burning building to vanish) alternatives have to be in place. Now, what else is lacking about your stupid comments is that oil is sometimes very costly to extract, things such as fracking have grave environmental impacts, you want more dead bees? think of the bees. Thirdly combustion is stupid and inefficient for it's purpose, there is also the inherent risk of combustibles, ask the challenger guys. Fourthly,, oil has environmental impacts not related to the ground, ie, greenhouse gases,pollutants etc. In large cities for example we are seeing skyrocketing lung disease, things like asthma, copd etc. Weather related deaths increase etc as more pollution occurs more toxicants/xenobiotics are created, ie more illness, things like sick building syndrome will be common, cancers with have their etiology in toxins/environmental carcinogens will continue to increase in urban centers.
I could go on for days but it
-
Exactly!! If these stupid cars were all that, the companies wouldn't have to run to Uncle Sam to save them from bankruptcy.
Gas and oil will last generations after you, or until the Lord returns (whichever comes first). Pay no mind to Team Treehugger's garbage, especially when their poster boys are rolling in armored limos and flying jumbo jets.
We want cars that are actually.......CARS. If my little boy is looking at a car and wondering where to stick the straw because he's thirsty, that's a car that's worthless to me.
\
1. how many car companies received bailout money?
2. what does al gore have to do with anything, the length of time oil will last isn't even the issue.
3. rawr... you so manly. I think I heard jesus say something similar.
-
Interesting article about Tesla in the WSJ yesterday.
-
your right, 100% success is required of course. Also, failing companies equate with the product they are selling.
You are stupid.
PIP, oil/gas etc will run out, it is dirty (see oil spill) and dangerous how am I not facing reality? The reality is one day we will need alternate fuel sources and the time will probably be long before the oil stores run out if the planet has anything to say about it.
Answer me this.
Is evolution correct?
Is global warming correct (the models)?
You're technically right, but as long as you and I are alive Oil is going to remain the big thing.
-
Tesla is making money in its zero emissions credits. Without them, it would be a different song.
Fisker was "forced" to take more money than it really wanted. The Obama Admin wanted them to produce more cars---Fisker is a boutique manufacturer, and got over it's head.
-
Tesla is making money in its zero emissions credits. Without them, it would be a different song.
Fisker was "forced" to take more money than it really wanted. The Obama Admin wanted them to produce more cars---Fisker is a boutique manufacturer, and got over it's head.
No, they are making tons of money because they are selling their cars direct online with no middleman...which is generally illegal in a number of states.... Since an average car runs a little over 100k, its a huge profit. They are also not only selling cars but the bulk of their money is coming from their batteries
-
Tesla is making money in its zero emissions credits. Without them, it would be a different song.
Fisker was "forced" to take more money than it really wanted. The Obama Admin wanted them to produce more cars---Fisker is a boutique manufacturer, and got over it's head.
Started to look into this a bit. The details on this deserve a thread.
There's something really wrong with this picture...
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/teslas-secret-success-selling-emissions-credits
-
It paid back the loan far in advance, that's the point, but you knew that or are you actually that clueless? no one suggested they didn't have to pay off their loan nor did anyone get excited that they did. You truly are either a poor reader/thinker or are simply being willfully ignorant.
Let's then go back to the top. I honestly don't know why I try to argue with delusional people. You cite a weather occurrence as evidence against global warming. The number of things wrong with your argument or failed attempt at one is that weather and climate are totally different, your snow example is no more relevant to global warming as the number of corn kernals in my shit just minutes ago.
Poor thinking and willful ignorance is YOUR department. 30 years ago, treehuggers like you were weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth about the planet FREEZING. When that scam went south, Team Hug-a-Pine went on and on about the planet burning up. Of course, if you're in the midwest (and were buried in snow, smack-dab in the middle of May), that gibberish doesn't digest well.
Then the argument of oil.You again miss my argument, nothing about how long the oil will last was presented as an argument, the nature of oil was. It is non-renewable, it will run out. Hence in order for our species to survive and for others to not live in terrible conditions (I know you lack compassion, you are the type to prey for the burning building to vanish) alternatives have to be in place. Now, what else is lacking about your stupid comments is that oil is sometimes very costly to extract, things such as fracking have grave environmental impacts, you want more dead bees? think of the bees. Thirdly combustion is stupid and inefficient for it's purpose, there is also the inherent risk of combustibles, ask the challenger guys. Fourthly,, oil has environmental impacts not related to the ground, ie, greenhouse gases,pollutants etc. In large cities for example we are seeing skyrocketing lung disease, things like asthma, copd etc. Weather related deaths increase etc as more pollution occurs more toxicants/xenobiotics are created, ie more illness, things like sick building syndrome will be common, cancers with have their etiology in toxins/environmental carcinogens will continue to increase in urban centers.
I could go on for days but it
And, you'll sound just as silly as you do now. Oil ain't running out anytime soon. In fact, our buddies in North Dakota are showing us the way. There are CENTURIES (at the very least) of oil at our disposal, just waiting to be used. And as technologies increase, we'll find other sources of oil. Energy-wise, we're fine.
That's the point that you and your tree-hugging brethren can't get through your heads. Or worse, YOU CAN GET THAT through your head. But, this mess is being used as a tool to bilk people out of their hard-earned money and precious freedom and land.
Of course, climates change, genius. They're called seasons, even in my home state of Florida. It gets hot; it get cold (or in some cases in Florida, less hot ;D )
\
1. how many car companies received bailout money?
2. what does al gore have to do with anything, the length of time oil will last isn't even the issue.
3. rawr... you so manly. I think I heard jesus say something similar.
I didn't mention Al Gore, at least not by name. Although he's among the big kahunas of tree-hugging schysters that bilk folks like you, he's hardly the only one.
-
i believe some on here were shitting on them ;D
Source: San Jose Mercury News
In a huge boost for the Obama Administration and clean-energy firms, electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors (TSLA) announced Wednesday that it has paid back its $465 million government loan in full and nine years early.
The Department of Energy oversees $34 billion in taxpayer-funded loans for clean energy and other projects, but Tesla is the only United States car company in the vast portfolio of 33 projects to pay back its loan so far. The loan program faced fierce partisan fire in the wake of the high-profile 2011 bankruptcy of Fremont solar manufacturer Solyndra, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Tesla a "loser" in a presidential debate last fall.
"Tesla employs more than 3,000 American workers and is living proof of the power of American innovation," U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a statement. "This is another important contribution to what the Obama Administration has done to preserve and promote America's auto industry. This announcement is also good news for the future of America's growing electric vehicle industry. While the market has taken longer than predicted to get going, sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. tripled last year and are continuing to increase rapidly in 2013. Tesla and other U.S. manufacturers are in a strong position to compete for this growing global market."
... Analysts said the move frees Tesla from the partisan politics that have shadowed federal government support for Silicon Valley clean energy companies.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23300602/tesla-motors-fully-repays-465-million-federal-loan
Staring price is around $62,500. I for one would like to know how this is getting paid back. It's totally out of the price range for MOST people. But as the article states, it's the ONLY company out of 33 to pay it back. This is still a loss. I don't think you bothered to read beyond the headlines.
-
Staring price is around $62,500. I for one would like to know how this is getting paid back. It's totally out of the price range for MOST people. But as the article states, it's the ONLY company out of 33 to pay it back. This is still a loss. I don't think you bothered to read beyond the headlines.
I wouldn't pay 62 cents for that car, especially when I have two cars that are already paid in full. I'll drive them until I'm literally doing the Flintstone-style propelling of those bad boys.
Did you just say only ONE out of 33 companies paid their loans back? I'm no rocket scientist but ain't that a mere THREE PERCENT? And, were these actual profits from actual consumers, or was this some scheme were another government entity paid off the loan to make it appear that Tesla is actually making money?
But, I'm sure Necrosis and Blacken are still eager to break out the confetti and kazoos!!
-
Staring price is around $62,500. I for one would like to know how this is getting paid back. It's totally out of the price range for MOST people. But as the article states, it's the ONLY company out of 33 to pay it back. This is still a loss. I don't think you bothered to read beyond the headlines.
Its a fully electric car and people are buying it along with solar and wind generators so they can have a vehicle that they never have to pay gas for. With the warranties, that kind of money can make the purchase worth it as electric cars will last much longer than a petro vehicle. The car is also a very nice and luxurious drive as well
-
Its a fully electric car and people are buying it along with solar and wind generators so they can have a vehicle that they never have to pay gas for. With the warranties, that kind of money can make the purchase worth it as electric cars will last much longer than a petro vehicle. The car is also a very nice and luxurious drive as well
Stick w the van w tints , running boards, plush dash cover, and rims.
-
I wouldn't pay 62 cents for that car, especially when I have two cars that are already paid in full. I'll drive them until I'm literally doing the Flintstone-style propelling of those bad boys.
Did you just say only ONE out of 33 companies paid their loans back? I'm no rocket scientist but ain't that a mere THREE PERCENT? And, were these actual profits from actual consumers, or was this some scheme were another government entity paid off the loan to make it appear that Tesla is actually making money?
But, I'm sure Necrosis and Blacken are still eager to break out the confetti and kazoos!!
^^^^^^^^^^^^
well since this post is about tesla that's what were going to discuss,you got that right
-
your right, 100% success is required of course. Also, failing companies equate with the product they are selling.
You are stupid.
PIP, oil/gas etc will run out, it is dirty (see oil spill) and dangerous how am I not facing reality? The reality is one day we will need alternate fuel sources and the time will probably be long before the oil stores run out if the planet has anything to say about it.
Answer me this.
Is evolution correct?
Is global warming correct (the models)?
There are plenty of fossil fuels left, probably another solid 100 years or more, problem is new sources are harder to get to, harder to extract and harder to refine. Each new source will cost more per barrel to extract when compared to the light/sweet stuff that we got in the 20th century. The price floor is rising.
Batteries have their place, but they simply do not have the energy density needed (At this point) to properly compete with gasoline/fossil fuel powered engines. Tesla is a surprising story seeing as they were on their death bed until the Toyota tie-up and the release of hew models. 2 seaters, though, boutique cars that are expense cars...not really for general public consumption. That's fine, it's a niche and they fill it...did a better job than Fisker.
At this point, pure EV's like the Leaf and Spark are meant for urban cycles, city driving and such. That's fine.
-
Will never drive no car run on batteries.
and those damned 'horseless carriages' always a-scarin' the horses and upsetting the trolleys.
-
Poor thinking and willful ignorance is YOUR department. 30 years ago, treehuggers like you were weeping, wailing, and gnashing their teeth about the planet FREEZING. When that scam went south, Team Hug-a-Pine went on and on about the planet burning up. Of course, if you're in the midwest (and were buried in snow, smack-dab in the middle of May), that gibberish doesn't digest well.
Says the guy who believes in talking snakes and the ark. You do this a lot, avoid actually commenting on how stupid your argument is when exposed. You then will usually cite an example which is not central to the argument (cherry pick). Here you have chosen some nonsense about how people were wrong about one thing (planet freezing, not sure wtf you are getting on with) as if it invalidates this argument. If it's evolution you will bring up the peppered moths regardless of the points raised. You are ignorant.
And, you'll sound just as silly as you do now. Oil ain't running out anytime soon. In fact, our buddies in North Dakota are showing us the way. There are CENTURIES (at the very least) of oil at our disposal, just waiting to be used. And as technologies increase, we'll find other sources of oil. Energy-wise, we're fine.
Soon is relative, it's not my only argument but nice try.
That's the point that you and your tree-hugging brethren can't get through your heads. Or worse, YOU CAN GET THAT through your head. But, this mess is being used as a tool to bilk people out of their hard-earned money and precious freedom and land.
???
Of course, climates change, genius. They're called seasons, even in my home state of Florida. It gets hot; it get cold (or in some cases in Florida, less hot ;D )
???
I didn't mention Al Gore, at least not by name. Although he's among the big kahunas of tree-hugging schysters that bilk folks like you, he's hardly the only one.
Whatever you say Mcway, the scientific community are in agreement here, 100'000 papers later the conlusion is still the same. You are the minority, with no evidence or data besides snow on your deck ::)
-
You're technically right, but as long as you and I are alive Oil is going to remain the big thing.
it will until technology catches up.
-
Tesla is making money in its zero emissions credits. Without them, it would be a different song.
Fisker was "forced" to take more money than it really wanted. The Obama Admin wanted them to produce more cars---Fisker is a boutique manufacturer, and got over it's head.
Tesla is making money because they sell a great vehicle and are well positioned to capture a large share of a growing market. That's not to say they make a vehicle for everyone - there's no one-size fits all solution - but their product is really excellent and compares very favorably in its segment.
Internal combustion engines will be with us for a while but the simple fact is that electric motors offer tremendous advantages, including flat torque curves, reduced component sizes and significantly reduced maintenance requirements and moving parts when compared with internal combustion engines.
I don't fault Tesla for taking a loan from the DOE. If the terms of said load were more favorable than what they could get in the open market to not take it would have been a poor business decision and a disservice to their stockholders. I do applaud them for paying it off early and for having the balls and the determination to produce an innovative and great product.
On a personal note: I've driven the Model S - it is really quite excellent as a car. I currently drive a sports car and am contemplating a new vehicle in the next two years. I would consider an electric car, especially from Tesla if they keep producing vehicles like the Model S. And for the record, "environmental concerns" are pretty low on my list of considerations when deciding which car to buy.
-
i believe some on here were shitting on them ;D
Source: San Jose Mercury News
In a huge boost for the Obama Administration and clean-energy firms, electric vehicle maker Tesla Motors (TSLA) announced Wednesday that it has paid back its $465 million government loan in full and nine years early.
The Department of Energy oversees $34 billion in taxpayer-funded loans for clean energy and other projects, but Tesla is the only United States car company in the vast portfolio of 33 projects to pay back its loan so far. The loan program faced fierce partisan fire in the wake of the high-profile 2011 bankruptcy of Fremont solar manufacturer Solyndra, and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Tesla a "loser" in a presidential debate last fall.
"Tesla employs more than 3,000 American workers and is living proof of the power of American innovation," U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz said in a statement. "This is another important contribution to what the Obama Administration has done to preserve and promote America's auto industry. This announcement is also good news for the future of America's growing electric vehicle industry. While the market has taken longer than predicted to get going, sales of electric vehicles in the U.S. tripled last year and are continuing to increase rapidly in 2013. Tesla and other U.S. manufacturers are in a strong position to compete for this growing global market."
... Analysts said the move frees Tesla from the partisan politics that have shadowed federal government support for Silicon Valley clean energy companies.
Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_23300602/tesla-motors-fully-repays-465-million-federal-loan
I love how you continually own these right wing bitches. Well done. If I could "no homo" it, I'd blow you. LOL!
-
Viable alternative energy solutions are still a long ways off. Batteries in hybrid vehicles have a severe environmental impact from the mining process for raw material, to international transit of materials to various processing facilities, and finally to disposal. Pure electric cars that require a plug-in still gets its energy off the power gride which often comprises of plants burning fossil fuels to provide said energy. Solar energy is nothing more than supplemental energy to a more viable main source. Wind farms have proven to be hugely inefficient as well as having a myriad of negative environmental impacts, from killing tens of thousands of birds to taking up precious, farmable land.
The personal automobile is disastrously inefficient in any form. The average vehicle weighs over four thousand pounds here in N.A, and transports not even a tenth of its weight. Throw in the massive infrastructure required for it(roads, materials, fuels, lubricants, businesses, regulations, etc) and you have huge amounts of material that, frankly, very few if any truly need.
The Prius, Nissan Leaf, and Chevy Volt crowds are no more saintly or environmentally concious than those that drive Camaros and SUVs. There is no "saving" the environment here, but merely a slick marketing campaign that has hugely succeeded in pushing these "Green" vehicles to the masses. These "green" vehicles also do not possess the powerplants necessary to power heavy vehicles within the trucking, construction, aeronautical and military industries.
Loans being paid back in advance aside, our government has absolutely no business in gambling with taxpayer money on a company whose business is selling six-figure luxury sports cars geared towards a tiny segment of the car-buying public. The administration got very lucky, as the Tesla experiment could have very easily slid into bankruptcy.
-
Viable alternative energy solutions are still a long ways off. Batteries in hybrid vehicles have a severe environmental impact from the mining process for raw material, to international transit of materials to various processing facilities, and finally to disposal. Pure electric cars that require a plug-in still gets its energy off the power gride which often comprises of plants burning fossil fuels to provide said energy. Solar energy is nothing more than supplemental energy to a more viable main source. Wind farms have proven to be hugely inefficient as well as having a myriad of negative environmental impacts, from killing tens of thousands of birds to taking up precious, farmable land.
The personal automobile is disastrously inefficient in any form. The average vehicle weighs over four thousand pounds here in N.A, and transports not even a tenth of its weight. Throw in the massive infrastructure required for it(roads, materials, fuels, lubricants, businesses, regulations, etc) and you have huge amounts of material that, frankly, very few if any truly need.
The Prius, Nissan Leaf, and Chevy Volt crowds are no more saintly or environmentally concious than those that drive Camaros and SUVs. There is no "saving" the environment here, but merely a slick marketing campaign that has hugely succeeded in pushing these "Green" vehicles to the masses. These "green" vehicles also do not possess the powerplants necessary to power heavy vehicles within the trucking, construction, aeronautical and military industries.
Loans being paid back in advance aside, our government has absolutely no business in gambling with taxpayer money on a company whose business is selling six-figure luxury sports cars geared towards a tiny segment of the car-buying public. The administration got very lucky, as the Tesla experiment could have very easily slid into bankruptcy.
GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
-
1 out of 33 and the leftist psychotics are declaring victory for a car 99% of the population will never buy or use. Typical.
-
GLOBAL WARMING!!!!
It's called "Climate Change," now.
-
1 out of 33 and the leftist psychotics are declaring victory for a car 99% of the population will never buy or use. Typical.
it's a start.
-
1 out of 33 and the leftist psychotics are declaring victory for a car 99% of the population will never buy or use. Typical.
I think Tesla's achievements are impressive - here is a *practical* electric car with great build quality, great design. I don't know that I'd call it a victory as such, although it's certainly proven many people wrong, not do I think that the price tag should count against it. Cell phones were ridiculously expensive at one time too. So we're computers. And cars. And so on and so forth.
First steps usually are expensive.
-
You're one to talk. As usual, when your tree-hugging bilge gets taken apart, you yap about the Ark and other stuff (in a pathetic attempt to take potshots at me) to hide your weak arguments.
I'm not cherry-picking jack. I'm making the point that Hug-a-Pine alarmists like you are always spewing this silliness, to separate people from their money and freedom and advance their left-winged agenda.
30 years ago, we were all going to freeze to death. Now, we're going to fry. What's the excuse going to be next time? In fact, more and more lefty leaf-lovers are going more and more perplex because their so-called models are collapsing on their faces, while hurling plenty of egg on yours.
And spare me the "scientific community is in agreement" flap. The "scientific community" was in agreement with the world being flat. They were in agreement with spontaneous generation being a tenet of evolution. They were in agreement with turning lead into gold. When I was a kid, the "scientific community" said there were NINE planets in our solar system. Now, the consensus is that there are just EIGHT (Pluto got disqualified as being a planet, for some reason).
-
I think Tesla's achievements are impressive - here is a *practical* electric car with great build quality, great design. I don't know that I'd call it a victory as such, although it's certainly proven many people wrong, not do I think that the price tag should count against it. Cell phones were ridiculously expensive at one time too. So we're computers. And cars. And so on and so forth.
First steps usually are expensive.
Remember the Radio Shack TRS-80 computer? My grade school had that. We upgraded to Commodore VIC 20, then Commodore 64, then the 128.
And, back in the day, I only knew a handful of people with cellphones. And they had those big Zack-Morris-Saved-By-The-Bell deals, the size of a quart of milk.
-
If true, I am very happy the one company isn't raping the tax payer.
But, with that said, does anyone on this board own a Tesla?
Does anyone on this board know anyone who owns a Tesla?
Has anyone on this board ever seen a Tesla dealership anywhere?
Just asking, because I live in NYC and my answer to all three questions above is an emphatic 'no'.
Again, not hating on the company or the car itself-- they actually look pretty cool. But at the end of the day, I'm not sure this story is all that significant.
-
You're one to talk. As usual, when your tree-hugging bilge gets taken apart, you yap about the Ark and other stuff (in a pathetic attempt to take potshots at me) to hide your weak arguments.
I'm not cherry-picking jack. I'm making the point that Hug-a-Pine alarmists like you are always spewing this silliness, to separate people from their money and freedom and advance their left-winged agenda.
30 years ago, we were all going to freeze to death. Now, we're going to fry. What's the excuse going to be next time? In fact, more and more lefty leaf-lovers are going more and more perplex because their so-called models are collapsing on their faces, while hurling plenty of egg on yours.
And spare me the "scientific community is in agreement" flap. The "scientific community" was in agreement with the world being flat. They were in agreement with spontaneous generation being a tenet of evolution. They were in agreement with turning lead into gold. When I was a kid, the "scientific community" said there were NINE planets in our solar system. Now, the consensus is that there are just EIGHT (Pluto got disqualified as being a planet, for some reason).
besides the retarded examples you cite, you seem to think that science in medevil ages was the same as widely shared peer reviewed research. Please spare me the fundy rant, you didn't even address my arguments so why would my rebuttal be anything but a mirror of your shitty post.
you seem to think that not know every detail is a flaw, science is how we decipher facts, it is simply observation and experimentation at it's core, observation could really explain it if need be.
The spontaneous generation thing is silly, parts of evolution are debated today, like punctuated equilibrium, does that mean other facts in evolution are incorrect? no. read a book besides the bible.
-
Just asking, because I live in NYC and my answer to all three questions above is an emphatic 'no'.
http://www.teslamotors.com/findus
TESLA STORES & GALLERIES
New York
Roosevelt Field, Garden City
New York City, New York
Westchester, White Plains
-
1 out of 33 and they're going to exploit this story to no end. Lets talk about how Obama thinks GM is a success because of the "bailout" when in reality they still own bond holders $25bil. Hello, is this thing on?
-
besides the retarded examples you cite, you seem to think that science in medevil ages was the same as widely shared peer reviewed research. Please spare me the fundy rant, you didn't even address my arguments so why would my rebuttal be anything but a mirror of your shitty post.
you seem to think that not know every detail is a flaw, science is how we decipher facts, it is simply observation and experimentation at it's core, observation could really explain it if need be.
The spontaneous generation thing is silly, parts of evolution are debated today, like punctuated equilibrium, does that mean other facts in evolution are incorrect? no. read a book besides the bible.
Of course, spontaneous generation is silly.....NOW!!! Back in the day, it was gospel. And numbskulls like you would have parroted that, hook, line, and sinker.
BTW, I read other books besides the Bible, which makes taking your tree-hugging tripe apart that much easier. Of course, like other folk here, you want to take shots at my religious beliefs which have ZILCH to do with the subject at hand, when your feeble arguments get burned to the ground.
30 years ago, "peer-reviewed research" swore before God and four other white people that we were going to be human popsicles. Now, some of those same quacks are claiming we're going to be Texas barbecue, if we don't give up more money to the government, reject fossil fuels (or pay $5+ per gallon for such), and start driving stupid-looking cars, made of tin foil and run on batteries or cooking oil....that is, IF we actually keep driving at all.
All of this is out of fear of running out of fossil fuels, when the reality is that your great-great-great grandchildren won't even exhaust close to half of our planet's fossil fuel resources. Plus, the technology exists to make sure such is extracted while keeping our planet clean.
And now you and your fellow libs want to do the happy dance and break out the bubbly, simply because 1 out of 33 companies that got bailed out actually paid their loan back.
Get a grip and a clue. Even in this Obama economy, they ain't that expensive.
-
Where in Wp? My office is in WP and i have no idea where Tesla is
http://www.teslamotors.com/findus
TESLA STORES & GALLERIES
New York
Roosevelt Field, Garden City
New York City, New York
Westchester, White Plains
-
Where in Wp? My office is in WP and i have no idea where Tesla is
http://www.teslamotors.com/westchester
-
http://www.teslamotors.com/westchester
That is a corprate park w no showroom
-
Remember the Radio Shack TRS-80 computer? My grade school had that. We upgraded to Commodore VIC 20, then Commodore 64, then the 128.
And, back in the day, I only knew a handful of people with cellphones. And they had those big Zack-Morris-Saved-By-The-Bell deals, the size of a quart of milk.
On the surface it may appear that you have a point. But if we bother to even scratch at the surface a tiny little bit, your point flakes off like a day-old ketchup stain.
First of all, the TRS-80 was actually quite expensive at approximately $3,000 2013 dollars - hardly an everyday purchase for an average American. Computers at the time were affordable, in the sense that a household could afford to buy one, but by no means were they widely so not were they an impulse purchase. Additionally, with the exception of a small run-in with the FCC in connection with interference from the TRS-80 Model I few – if any – regulatory roadblocks stood in the way of Tandy, which is a big difference between them and Tesla.
The situation isn't different with cell phones: they were also ridiculously expensive for a long time and, indeed, prices of cell phone ownership remained – some might say remains – extremely high even after the price of handsets began dropping once you factor in the cost of the wireless service (without which the phone was useless).
Tesla must spend massive amounts of money to not only develop not only the car but the technology, which it must then spend more money certify (by passing a series of tests mandated by the government) before it can actually put a single vehicle on the road. It may seem simple in principle - some potatoes for the battery, electric motors, a pound of copper for the wire and... TADA! an electric car is born. But it really isn't that simple.
So what is your gripe? That the Tesla costs a lot? Do not forget that the Tesla is targeting a segment of the luxury car market - a segment which their vehicle appears poised to do well in when compared with rivals like Audi, Mercedes Benz and BMW which charge similar amounts for their vehicles and which affluent consumers are, apparently, willing to spend.
-
I will say, it is a nice car.
-
The present state of electric cars is such:
While it is true that the Tesla can drive very spritely...there is a caveat;
Chemical batteries can not carry enough energy in a small enough/light enough package so that the car can have a range comparable to internal combustion.
The game changer for electric cars will be the development of a superconducting torus that operates at the temperature of liquid nitrogen or above (liquid helium is too expensive), and that can be installed under the hood of a car. This device will allow the storage of energy in densities comparable to a tank of gasoline. Such a car would have driving characteristics and range indistinguishable from a gas car.
It will probably also sound like a blender.
-
The present state of electric cars is such:
While it is true that the Tesla can drive very spritely...there is a caveat;
Chemical batteries can not carry enough energy in a small enough/light enough package so that the car can have a range comparable to internal combustion.
The game changer for electric cars will be the development of a superconducting torus that operates at the temperature of liquid nitrogen or above (liquid helium is too expensive), and that can be installed under the hood of a car. This device will allow the storage of energy in densities comparable to a tank of gasoline. Such a car would have driving characteristics and range indistinguishable from a gas car.
It will probably also sound like a blender.
and then, most likely, you still have to charge it with electricity produced from coal or nuclear.
-
and then you still have to charge is with electricity produced from coal or nuclear.
Even if that's the case (you left out other options, but let's not quibble) why is that a problem?
Coal plants get a bad rap but per Watt they likely produce only slightly more of the "bad stuff" compared to a modern ICE - and even then they produce different kinds of bad stuff. Additionally they are almost certainly easier to upgrade and retrofit with new and improved parts increasing efficiency and reducing emissions; that cannot easily be done with vehicles, unless we mandate that everyone must buy a new car when better tech comes along.
Nuclear plants are much better of course, although there is the issue of spent fuel (which could have been partially solved by now if we had Yucca Mountain) at least until next-generation reactor designs, which dramatically reduce the amount of tranuranics in the waste are finally built and operated.
-
Even if that's the case (you left out other options, but let's not quibble) why is that a problem?
Coal plants get a bad rap but per Watt they likely produce only slightly more of the "bad stuff" compared to a modern ICE - and even then they produce different kinds of bad stuff. Additionally they are almost certainly easier to upgrade and retrofit with new and improved parts increasing efficiency and reducing emissions; that cannot easily be done with vehicles, unless we mandate that everyone must buy a new car when better tech comes along.
Nuclear plants are much better of course, although there is the issue of spent fuel (which could have been partially solved by now if we had Yucca Mountain) at least until next-generation reactor designs, which dramatically reduce the amount of tranuranics in the waste are finally built and operated.
I left out the other stuff because I didn't want to ramble on with a long post nobody would read. Of course there are other sources but coal and nuclear constitute the majority of electrical production so I left it at that. Of course some of it comes from wind, water and solar and a person could fill their back yard with solar panels to charge their new Tesla lol...
On the side, I'm totally ok with coal. It's way less of a risk than nuclear.
-
Nuclear plants are much better of course, although there is the issue of spent fuel (which could have been partially solved by now if we had Yucca Mountain)
Reprocess waste into new fuel rods...this greatly reduces waste volume and makes the present supply of fissile last much longer.
The new fuel rods can be formulated to be resistant to diversion.
-
and then, most likely, you still have to charge it with electricity produced from coal or nuclear.
WRONG!! The vast majority of owners use solar and wind panels to charge their cars....that's the purpose of electric cars....to basically have free fuel
-
WRONG!! The vast majority of owners use solar and wind panels to charge their cars....that's the purpose of electric cars....to basically have free fuel
How long will that take? LOL - charge the car for 3 days to drive for 30 minutes ?
-
How long will that take? LOL - charge the car for 3 days to drive for 30 minutes ?
Solar Panels are a lot more powerful than they use to be.....they can power a car faster than plugging it into a household outlet..usually only a few hours for Tesla....and cars will run much longer than 30 minutes...even the electric cars built in the 1800's lasted much longer....
Remember that this isn't "new technology" to be honest and you don't have to buy a Tesla. The majority of electric cars are built in someone's garage
-
Solar Panels are a lot more powerful than they use to be.....they can power a car faster than plugging it into a household outlet..usually only a few hours....and cars will run much longer than 30 minutes...even the electric cars built in the 1800's lasted much longer....
Remember that this isn't "new technology" to be honest and you don't have to buy a Tesla. The majority of electric cars are built in someone's garage
And WTF and i supposed to do in that goCart?
-
And WTF and i supposed to do in that goCart?
Its actually a 3 wheel electric motorcycle built for about 1600 bucks....just an tiny example of what can be done out there. Some people simply convert old cars into electric vehicles, others build their own vehicle...you can get all the parts you need at EV-West.com.
-
Its actually a 3 wheel electric motorcycle built for about 1600 bucks....just an tiny example of what can be done out there. Some people simply convert old cars into electric vehicles, others build their own vehicle...you can get all the parts you need at EV-West.com.
uummm - people need to be able to carry shit around too, tailgate, passengers, etc.
-
I left out the other stuff because I didn't want to ramble on with a long post nobody would read. Of course there are other sources but coal and nuclear constitute the majority of electrical production so I left it at that. Of course some of it comes from wind, water and solar and a person could fill their back yard with solar panels to charge their new Tesla lol...
Actually, nuclear is a distant third - coal and natural gas together account for over 60% of the power we produce. Check out http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3 if interested.
Nuclear would be much higher if it wasn't for the fact that the government hasn't granted a single license for a new nuclear power plant, coupled with a largely uninformed public that is afraid of everything from cell phone towers to fluoride in the water.
On the side, I'm totally ok with coal. It's way less of a risk than nuclear.
A nuclear power plant isn't unsafe. The new fourth generation designs, when built and properly operated will likely pose a smaller risk than other energy generating plants, including coal.
Reprocess waste into new fuel rods...this greatly reduces waste volume and makes the present supply of fissile last much longer.
The new fuel rods can be formulated to be resistant to diversion.
No doubt that reprocessing can reduce the amounts of high-level waste. Counterintuitively, it's not always cost-effective, but that's only one factor to consider.
I am curious homer, what "formulation" do you believe avoids the diversion problem? Let's ignore the actinide byproducts and focus only on Plutonium. Unless you reprocess it, you need to deal with it as it is high-level waste that will gay radioactive for a very, very long time. Reprocessing it. Is expensive and raises diversion issues. So... What's your solution?
WRONG!! The vast majority of owners use solar and wind panels to charge their cars....that's the purpose of electric cars....to basically have free fuel
Under ideal conditions, the earth receives about 1kW/m2 of energy from the sun. Let's assume you can, somehow, get 1kW/m2 for five hours per day every day. Let's also assume that your Caliber-branded solar panels are 25% efficient (i.e.: amazing) and that you have 10 m2 of area and panels to fill it.
Would you be so kind as to do quick calculations and tell me how much it would cost to get the same amount of electricity from the grid and how long it would take to recoup your initial investment in the system?
-
WRONG!! The vast majority of owners use solar and wind panels to charge their cars....that's the purpose of electric cars....to basically have free fuel
hello dumbass lol... I seriously doubt the majority of Tesla owners fuel their batteries from their own wind or solar power... it doesn't quite work that way unless you're off the grid, and if you are off the grid, more power to you lol, but most people are not including the types buying Teslas.
-
WRONG!! The vast majority of owners use solar and wind panels to charge their cars....that's the purpose of electric cars....to basically have free fuel
Except when you consider how expensive the necessary amount of solar panels and/or wind turbines are in addition to the cost of the EV itself.
-
Says the guy who believes in talking snakes and the ark. You do this a lot, avoid actually commenting on how stupid your argument is when exposed. You then will usually cite an example which is not central to the argument (cherry pick). Here you have chosen some nonsense about how people were wrong about one thing (planet freezing, not sure wtf you are getting on with) as if it invalidates this argument. If it's evolution you will bring up the peppered moths regardless of the points raised. You are ignorant.
lol. You mention "talking snakes and the ark," then accuse McWay of talking about things that have nothing to do with the topic? Talk about irony.
And do you realize how often you call people stupid on this board? Must be tough being the smartest person in the room all time, no?
-
hello dumbass lol... I seriously doubt the majority of Tesla owners fuel their batteries from their own wind or solar power... it doesn't quite work that way unless you're off the grid, and if you are off the grid, more power to you lol, but most people are not including the types buying Teslas.
A lot of them are....the vast majority in the European nations where gas runs over 10 dollars a fucking gallon!! Has nothing really to do with off the grid....when you have gas running that high, its more than enough to just say fuck it.....
Prices will be like that here very soon. Personally, I'd never buy a Tesla as its a luxury car but eventually these cars will be made much more affordable. Things are getting to the point where some people are building steam powered cars again....crazy shit
-
A lot of them are....the vast majority in the European nations where gas runs over 10 dollars a fucking gallon!! Has nothing really to do with off the grid....when you have gas running that high, its more than enough to just say fuck it.....
Prices will be like that here very soon. Personally, I'd never buy a Tesla as its a luxury car but eventually these cars will be made much more affordable. Things are getting to the point where some people are building steam powered cars again....crazy shit
Costs that much due to taxes to fund the socialist welfare state you tool.
-
Costs that much due to taxes to fund the socialist welfare state you tool.
Gas prices have nothing to do with Obama. The oil companies control how much it cost and they'll raise it as high as its needed to where it won't piss off people not to use it. The UK prices are high because most people ride bicycles or use the train system so its not needed in most communities.
That's why I've been working to get off the grid and have a home with substainable power....because its only a matter of time where prices get to be too much to handle
BTW....
-
Gas prices have nothing to do with Obama. The oil companies control how much it cost and they'll raise it as high as its needed to where it won't piss off people not to use it. The UK prices are high because most people ride bicycles or use the train system so its not needed in most communities.
That's why I've been working to get off the grid and have a home with substainable power....because its only a matter of time where prices get to be too much to handle
BTW....
And Europe is a FNG disaster.
-
Gas prices have nothing to do with Obama.
No. According to Democrats, gas prices have everything to do with who is in the White House. The Democrats stated time and time again that Bush was responsible. They cried over and over again how gasoline was high under the Republican president. Even Obama and Hillary Clinton chimed in.
Democrats and their idiotic supporters don't get to change the basis of the argument (an argument created by Democrats) just because it is a Democrat in the office and a black face staring back from the TV. Excuses such as "its just politics" doesn't cut it. Democrats blamed everything that was going wrong on President Bush. Democrats did that. You can't take it back now!! Therefore, Democrats and the useless community organizer Hussein Obama are at fault for the CURRENT high price of gasoline and the bad economy.
-
No. According to Democrats, gas prices have everything to do with who is in the White House. The Democrats stated time and time again that Bush was responsible. They cried over and over again how gasoline was high under the Republican president. Even Obama and Hillary Clinton chimed in.
Democrats and their idiotic supporters don't get to change the basis of the argument (an argument created by Democrats) just because it is a Democrat in the office and a black face staring back in the TV. Excuses such as "its just politics" doesn't cut it. Democrats blamed everything that was going wrong on President Bush. Democrats did that. You can't take it back now!! Therefore, Democrats and the useless community organizer Hussein Obama are at fault for the CURRENT high price of gasoline and the bad economy.
No...politicans use gas prices for election purposes......all the time when someone is running, the first thing that spews from their lips are... GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH........
Its as predictable as the "War on Terror, 9-11, Global Warming, Gun Rights, Abortion, etc......its all a bunch of bullshit
-
No...politicans use gas prices for election purposes......all the time when someone is running, the first thing that spews from their lips are... GAS PRICES ARE TOO HIGH........
Its as predictable as the "War on Terror, 9-11, Global Warming, Gun Rights, Abortion, etc......its all a bunch of bullshit
It doesn't matter if it's BS. Democrats were big proponents for setting this standard. Specifically Democrats like Hillary and Obama. Therefore, the same BS argument SHOULD be used against them. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
I am sure there were people on this board who at that time supported that line of thinking. They shouldn't get upset when Obama is held to the same standard that Democrats set for Bush and the Republicans. Whether it's BS or not.
-
Anybody up to speed on hydrogen as a fuel?
I've read about it here and there, but I don't have any depth on the subject.
-
The energy density of liquid hydrogen is around 8 MegaJoules per liter. Gasoline is 34 MegaJoules per liter. So it would mean that an internal combustion car with a 20 gallon tank of gas would need an 80 gallon tank of liquid hydrogen to have the same range.
The difference is because liquid hydrogen has no carbon in it.
Also, because there are no pools of elemental hydrogen lying around to be exploited, hydrogen would have to be manufactured. That process is endothermic which means you have to put energy into the process.
-
On the surface it may appear that you have a point. But if we bother to even scratch at the surface a tiny little bit, your point flakes off like a day-old ketchup stain.
First of all, the TRS-80 was actually quite expensive at approximately $3,000 2013 dollars - hardly an everyday purchase for an average American. Computers at the time were affordable, in the sense that a household could afford to buy one, but by no means were they widely so not were they an impulse purchase. Additionally, with the exception of a small run-in with the FCC in connection with interference from the TRS-80 Model I few – if any – regulatory roadblocks stood in the way of Tandy, which is a big difference between them and Tesla.
I didn't say the TRS-80 was a household purchase. You will recall I stated that my grade school had it. Computers were somewhat cheap, back then, for a while. I actually had (briefly) a Commodore Vic 20. But, by the time I got it, the software was all but obsolete and trying to save stuff on a cassette tape was a pain in the behind. The 64s were well into circulation, with the 128s on the way.
The situation isn't different with cell phones: they were also ridiculously expensive for a long time and, indeed, prices of cell phone ownership remained – some might say remains – extremely high even after the price of handsets began dropping once you factor in the cost of the wireless service (without which the phone was useless).
Tesla must spend massive amounts of money to not only develop not only the car but the technology, which it must then spend more money certify (by passing a series of tests mandated by the government) before it can actually put a single vehicle on the road. It may seem simple in principle - some potatoes for the battery, electric motors, a pound of copper for the wire and... TADA! an electric car is born. But it really isn't that simple.
So what is your gripe? That the Tesla costs a lot? Do not forget that the Tesla is targeting a segment of the luxury car market - a segment which their vehicle appears poised to do well in when compared with rivals like Audi, Mercedes Benz and BMW which charge similar amounts for their vehicles and which affluent consumers are, apparently, willing to spend.
Tesla cars costs a lot because almost nobody wants to buy them. If they were actually making any money, a bailout wouldn't have been necessary. And it appears the only affluent customers who buys those things are trying make more of a political statement than they actually are buying the car for its own sake.
-
I see the sedans all the time, often more than once a day and the sports car quite often too
-
The energy density of liquid hydrogen is around 8 MegaJoules per liter. Gasoline is 34 MegaJoules per liter. So it would mean that an internal combustion car with a 20 gallon tank of gas would need an 80 gallon tank of liquid hydrogen to have the same range.
The difference is because liquid hydrogen has no carbon in it.
Also, because there are no pools of elemental hydrogen lying around to be exploited, hydrogen would have to be manufactured. That process is endothermic which means you have to put energy into the process.
So...basically it's not going to happen?
Well, I'm sure Barry will still give them some money, lol.
-
So...basically it's not going to happen?
I didn't say that, but here are some things to consider:
- It could be worthwhile if you use nuclear power (or fusion whenever it is finally made to work) to drive the industrial process to make hydrogen.
- If you burn fossil fuel to make hydrogen...what is the point? It would be better to direct your attention to designing the best automotive/aviation powerplants that you can to burn the fuel directly.
- It's a cyrogenic material...which can be tricky to handle...and you will be doing it on a large scale. Not impossible to develop an infrastructure to handle it routinely...but it will be different.
- The tanks will have to be larger for liquid Hydrogen by at least a factor of 4 in order to have the same range per fill. Sacrifice the trunk space?...Think of the Space Shuttle.
-
Well, I'm sure Barry will still give them some money, lol.
Scientific research almost always pays off in the end...and no you can't always predict how because it is unknown.
-
Scientific research almost always pays off in the end...and no you can't always predict how because it is unknown.
but but .. peppered moths.
-
I see the sedans all the time, often more than once a day and the sports car quite often too
That seems plausible. Based on your comments, I think there is a strong likelihood you panhandle or work part time at one of the higher end car washes in the greater LA area. Have you ever cleaned the windshield on a Tesla? Any stories?
-
I didn't say that, but here are some things to consider:
- It could be worthwhile if you use nuclear power (or fusion whenever it is finally made to work) to drive the industrial process to make hydrogen.
- If you burn fossil fuel to make hydrogen...what is the point? It would be better to direct your attention to designing the best automotive/aviation powerplants that you can to burn the fuel directly.
- It's a cyrogenic material...which can be tricky to handle...and you will be doing it on a large scale. Not impossible to develop an infrastructure to handle it routinely...but it will be different.
- The tanks will have to be larger for liquid Hydrogen by at least a factor of 4 in order to have the same range per fill. Sacrifice the trunk space?...Think of the Space Shuttle.
good points but the space shuttle was a bad example lol...
-
I didn't say the TRS-80 was a household purchase. You will recall I stated that my grade school had it. Computers were somewhat cheap, back then, for a while. I actually had (briefly) a Commodore Vic 20. But, by the time I got it, the software was all but obsolete and trying to save stuff on a cassette tape was a pain in the behind. The 64s were well into circulation, with the 128s on the way.
Ah... those were the days...
Tesla cars costs a lot because almost nobody wants to buy them. If they were actually making any money, a bailout wouldn't have been necessary. And it appears the only affluent customers who buys those things are trying make more of a political statement than they actually are buying the car for its own sake.
Tesla cars cost about as much money as other cars in that segment when similarly equipped - and what's more impressive is that their cars compare very favorably against the big boys of that segment: Mercedes, BMW and Audi, which is no small feat.
Additionally, just because you may not want to buy them doesn't mean that others don't. Plenty of people are; in fact Tesla recently reported that it was shipping 500 cars per week and new cars would take about two months to be delivered. Also keep in mind that Tesla is not only making a profit but is expanding and will be introducing new models if their presentations at various auto shows are any indication.
And lastly you should get your facts straight so that you don't make a fool of yourself. Tesla never received any bailout money. They did get a low interest loan, but that's quite a different thing. The government decided to make such loans available to businesses - a decision I don't agree with; this was completely unrelated to any bailouts. So Tesla chose to take advantage of that opportunity and I do not blame them. If they needed a credit line and could use this program to get better terms on financing than they could get on the open market, they not only were smart to take advantage of that option but they had a duty to choose it other something else. Again, those were not "bailout" funds. So can you tell us what bailout funds you assert Tesla received?