The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2013, 02:06 AM   #126
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
That's not 1/10th as ludicrous as shipping untold billions of our dollars overseas to hostile regimes that fund lunatics that fly our planes into our buildings killing thousands of us, and spending untold billions more on wars in those lands to protect their revenue at our expense, just so Mr. America can drive a 2+ ton behemoth that gets 14 mpg a mile or so to the grocery store to get a bag of potato chips.
Gonna go ahead and guess you don't have any kids. And apparently you don't ever travel long distances. I know I can't justify $40,000 to buy a car that can't do what I need it to.

Oh and all that gas or coal would be domestic so you're not really making any sense with your world oil market jingotribe.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:26 AM   #127
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
That's a nice dream you got there. Here in the real, market-driven world though any meaningful increase in electrical generation is really going to come from natural gas or coal. At least for the foreseeable future.

And it would probably be better just to burn natural gas in vehicles than it would be to convert it to electricity, transmit it hundreds of miles to charge huge and inefficient battery banks to run tiny cars with limited range.
An internal combustion engine is the least efficient way currently used to power a vehicle -- by far. To imply electric cars are less efficient is ludicrous.

But by all means keep clinging to your silly notions.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 06:20 AM   #128
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
While electric-car owners may cruise around feeling virtuous, they still recharge using electricity overwhelmingly produced with fossil fuels. Thus, the life-cycle analysis shows that for every mile driven, the average electric car indirectly emits about six ounces of carbon-dioxide. This is still a lot better than a similar-size conventional car, which emits about 12 ounces per mile. But remember, the production of the electric car has already resulted in sizeable emissions—the equivalent of 80,000 miles of travel in the vehicle.
So unless the electric car is driven a lot, it will never get ahead environmentally. And that turns out to be a challenge. Consider the Nissan Leaf. It has only a 73-mile range per charge. Drivers attempting long road trips, as in one BBC test drive, have reported that recharging takes so long that the average speed is close to six miles per hour—a bit faster than your average jogger.
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

73 miles per charge. Hey that sounds ”efficient" (for maybe a traveling hobo or something)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 06:44 AM   #129
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
I would think this would serve as a strong clue that our government does not act of it own accord but is forced into servitude to a shadowy power beyond the confines of the USA (be it global or beyond )Why is this not obvious to a clever person such as yourself?
Because I'm not insane.

Man, you're an idiot.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 10:57 AM   #130
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/a/SB100...?mg=reno64-wsj

73 miles per charge. Hey that sounds ”efficient" (for maybe a traveling hobo or something)


Are you completely ignorant of what the word "efficient" means? it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means....

Efficiency (in this context) is a measure of how much input energy is required to produce the output mechanical energy of the vehicle. In other words how much "gas" to go a mile, or more generically, how many joules of energy required to travel a linear distance.

It has nothing to do with range. You're confusing efficiency and energy density.

In that respect (i.e. actual efficiency) electric cars are vastly more efficient than internal combustion engines. The Tesla model S produces 400 horsepower with about 1/5 the input energy of a 400HP ICE. This is because a mass produced, consumer internal custom engine is only about 25-30% efficient at converting the chemical energy in gasoline to mechanical energy, while an electric motor, even mass produced consumer versions, is typically over 90% efficient. The electric motor in the Tesla model S is 98% efficient, in the leaf it's 92% IIRC.

It's the extremely high efficiency of an electric motor that makes a low energy density storage mechanism like a battery still feasible for a car.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:12 PM   #131
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post


Are you completely ignorant of what the word "efficient" means? it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means....
Efficient can mean many different things. You can worship at the altar of Energy Efficiency. But to the real world, operational efficiency matters just as much, if not more.

The third world is by far the most "energy efficient" economy out there. But you don' hand wash your clothes just because it's the most "energy efficient" (and operationally inefficient) way to do it.

A car that can only go 100 miles before needing a 6 hour break falls into the same category. It's well below the operational efficiency most people require in their primary vehicle. Is there a niche for it? Sure. But that's the great thing about the market. People will tend to buy the most efficient solution... if it's a solution that actually meets their needs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:31 PM   #132
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Efficient can mean many different things. You can worship at the altar of Energy Efficiency. But to the real world, operational efficiency matters just as much, if not more.
When shown you don't have a clue what you're talking about, attempt to redefine the words! That's a fun game!

You should learn the meanings of the words you are trying to use bub.

As far as range concerns, you're taking a single example and claiming two very stupid things.

a.) That most people's needs are more than 70 miles per day (ridiculous, that would imply most people drive 25,000+ miles a year, which is not the case)

The reality is Less than 92% of commuters drive less than 35 miles a day. 98% drive less than 50 one way per day.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/commute-statistics/

b.) that the leaf is indicative of something other than one of the first iterations of an immature technology. As I've already pointed out a half dozen times, it's not even the only example. The Tesla Model S gets 300 miles per charge, and can get 150mi of range from a 30 minute charge. And this is still with technology that is merely in its infancy compared to technology (ICE) that has over a century of refinement.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:48 PM   #133
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
When shown you don't have a clue what you're talking about, attempt to redefine the words! That's a fun game!
It was more a play on words than anything. Take a pill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/bu...must-wait.html

Quote:
According to TrueCar, a buyer who chose the Leaf instead of a Nissan Versa would need to drive it for almost nine years at today’s gas prices or six years at $5 a gallon before the fuel savings outweighed the nearly $10,000 difference in price.
And for all that extra up-front expense? You get a car that basically can't functionally leave town.

I've got nothing against EVs in principle. Just this silly idea that we need philosopher kings to sit around and devise ways to cajole and restrict people into buying something less than what they believe is the best solution for their needs.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:00 PM   #134
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
It was more a play on words than anything. Take a pill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/bu...must-wait.html
More bull****. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and energy density. Just own up to it like a man.


Quote:
And for all that extra up-front expense? You get a car that basically can't functionally leave town.
If 70 miles in a day is not enough for you on a regular basis, then don't get a leaf. If you're worried about needing to drive more than the range of a particluar EV (70 for a leaf, 300 for a Model S, etc.) just a couple times a year if you avoid the car for that reason you're just a stupid as the people who buy trucks that get used as trucks once or twice a year.

Also, who (besides a moron) cares it it's more expensive up front. The only thing that matters is overall cost of ownership. The difference in fuel price can easily eclipse the added monthly loan payment.

Quote:
I've got nothing against EVs in principle. Just this silly idea that we need philosopher kings to sit around and devise ways to cajole and restrict people into buying something less than what they believe is the best solution for their needs.
Nice try at a diversion. You're very reliant on that particular tactic.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:10 PM   #135
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Why don't you go look up what the definition for the world Efficient is, dumbass.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+efficient

Stagecoaches are more "efficient" by your definition. Steam Engines were also more "efficient"

Both were discarded because they're too much of a PITA to deal with in transportation. Just like an EV would be for anyone who travels even a marginal number of times a year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
If 70 miles in a day is not enough for you on a regular basis, then don't get a leaf. If you're worried about needing to drive more than the range of a particluar EV (70 for a leaf, 300 for a Model S, etc.) just a couple times a year if you avoid the car for that reason you're just a stupid as the people who buy trucks that get used as trucks once or twice a year.
Yeah, you should totally buy a more expensive electric car that might help pay off the difference in price in a decade or so. Oh and that also requires you to buy another car just to go on vacation.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:41 PM   #136
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Why don't you go look up what the definition for the world Efficient is, dumbass.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define+efficient

Stagecoaches are more "efficient" by your definition. Steam Engines were also more "efficient"

Both were discarded because they're too much of a PITA to deal with in transportation. Just like an EV would be for anyone who travels even a marginal number of times a year.
Just stop. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and other performance considerations (i.e. range, speed, etc.). You're just digging a bigger hole now. Cut your losses.


Quote:
Yeah, you should totally buy a more expensive electric car that might help pay off the difference in price in a decade or so.
Again, you're pointing to one of the first production models and trying to pretend that's the best that can be done.

Do you also not understand what "immature technology" means? Progress, particularly in the cost and range areas, is happening quickly. Tesla has already reduced costs of their technology by nearly 50% and is making huge improvements in range and recharge times.

Also, the cost difference of EVs is currently offset with tax incentives, which in the case of the Versa erases the cost difference in some states and greatly reduces it in all. The actual break even point for a Versa is a couple years. And if you buy a new car every couple years, you have no right to complain about expense.

Now of course you'll howl like an idiot that it's a government subsidy, but of course petrol cars are heavily subsidized through fuel prices as well as hundreds of billions in R&D subsidies over the last century. Why shouldn't the next evolution in transportation be afforded the same?

Quote:
Oh and that also requires you to buy another car just to go on vacation.
Only a total moron like you would look at the problem as say: gee: I guess I'll have to outright buy a car just to go on vacation. Just like the idiots who think the only solution to needing a truck occasionally is to buy a truck...

Hint: millions of people survive (including going on vacation) without owning even ONE car. Just like millions of people survive the woes of needing to rent a truck to haul some sh*t once in a while.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:42 PM   #137
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Just stop. You didn't understand the difference between efficiency and other performance considerations (i.e. range, speed, etc.). You're just digging a bigger hole now. Cut your losses.
No, I said a car that can travel long distances at an effective rate of 6mph isn't "efficient" for the user. You know, the person that matters (as opposed to Gaia)


Quote:
Again, you're pointing to one of the first production models and trying to pretend that's the best that can be done.

Do you also not understand what "immature technology" means? Progress, particularly in the cost and range areas, is happening quickly. Tesla has already reduced costs of their technology by nearly 50% and is making huge improvements in range and recharge times.
There's nothing inherently new about electric motors or batteries. They're a couple of the oldest technologies around since man learned to harness electricity. Slapping wheels on it and pretending that it's something new doesn't suddenly unbind all the technical limitations electric motors and especially batteries have been trying to overcome for centuries. The Li-ion batteries used by Tesla are based on technology invented 30 years ago. If a revolutionary new battery technology comes along, it will have zero to do with a carmaker using batteries in cars.

Meanwhile, companies like Volkswagen keep pushing envelopes in other directions. Their diesel hybrid stuff is pretty groundbreaking. And you could drive it for 23.5 hours a day (with a break or two for filling up)

Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:14 PM   #138
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)
The important part is a livable planet for 7+ billion people.

We need to correct the market failure that comes from pricing carbon emissions (which is causing AGW) at zero - that's the distortion.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:27 PM   #139
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
The important part is a livable planet for 7+ billion people.

We need to correct the market failure that comes from pricing carbon emissions (which is causing AGW) at zero - that's the distortion.
Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:

Quote:
Even if the electric car is driven for 90,000 miles and the owner stays away from coal-powered electricity, the car will cause just 24% less carbon-dioxide emission than its gas-powered cousin. This is a far cry from "zero emissions." Over its entire lifetime, the electric car will be responsible for 8.7 tons of carbon dioxide less than the average conventional car.

Those 8.7 tons may sound like a considerable amount, but it's not. The current best estimate of the global warming damage of an extra ton of carbon-dioxide is about $5. This means an optimistic assessment of the avoided carbon-dioxide associated with an electric car will allow the owner to spare the world about $44 in climate damage. On the European emissions market, credit for 8.7 tons of carbon-dioxide costs $48.
Spend $70 grand on a Tesla to save $50 bucks in carbon coupons.

Sounds like a program that's really going to accomplish something.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:33 PM   #140
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
No, I said a car that can travel long distances at an effective rate of 6mph isn't "efficient" for the user. You know, the person that matters (as opposed to Gaia)
You're still pretending you weren't confused. That's fine.

Quote:
There's nothing inherently new about electric motors or batteries.
Irrelevant. The effort to make battery technology suitable as a replacement for ICE is indeed at an immature stage. Only the market pressure of increased need for efficiency has spurred significant development in that arena. And now that that market pressure is there, we're seeing big progress. Again, see Tesla building EVs with 300 mi range and 400hp that can be significantly recharged in 30 minutes. And, they've reduced the absolute cost by 40% in 3 years. That's near miraculous progress without even a fundamental breakthrough in the technology. You don't get that kind of rapid improvement in a mature technology.

We've been burning things for energy for hundreds of thousands of years -- doesn't mean trying make a gas powered vehicle wasn't an immature technology when it first came out.

Quote:
Meanwhile, companies like Volkswagen keep pushing envelopes in other directions. Their diesel hybrid stuff is pretty groundbreaking. And you could drive it for 23.5 hours a day (with a break or two for filling up)
The reason Volkwagon (and other companies) are down that path is we've reached the end of any significant gains in ICE technology -- we've hit a fundamental limit of that technology. Without a fundamental change, ICEs are not going to be able to leap forward like EV tech currently is.

Quote:
Like I said, I have no beef with EVs. Only with people acting like we need market incentives (distortion) to get people to pick the best product that meets their needs (the important part)
The market incentives only make it a no brainier for someone who is looking to intelligently pick a car for moving their ass from one place to the other. Of course they are not suitable for all uses, but they suitable for a significant subset, perhaps even a majority subset.

And to imply that people pick the best product that suits their needs is quite hilarious. Many people buy trucks and SUVs, etc. not because they NEED it, but because they are cool or they are particularly terrible at making decisions (i.e. your suggestion that you'd need to buy a car just to take a vacation).
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:34 PM   #141
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 21,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:
Just price carbon, then let the market react to the corrected price.

Or would that be impossible for the market to handle?

It's a pity you can't dump used motor oil into the gutter any more, eh?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:38 PM   #142
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,123

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Yeah, we totally need another byzantine federal program and regulatory body just to deliver improvements like:



Spend $70 grand on a Tesla to save $50 bucks in carbon coupons.

Sounds like a program that's really going to accomplish something.
Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)

They are developing standard full size sedan and SUV (same platform different body) that will be a cheaper, non-luxury evolution of their Model S and Model X.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:55 PM   #143
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)
uhuh

  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:02 PM   #144
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Just price carbon, then let the market react to the corrected price.

Or would that be impossible for the market to handle?

It's a pity you can't dump used motor oil into the gutter any more, eh?
You act like it's just a matter of setting some price and watching the proceeds roll in. You do realize there'd have to be a ton of tracking and scorekeeping involved.

Needless to say, none of it is nearly as simple as you like to make it sound.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...et-is-crashing

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4557f...44feabdc0.html
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:26 PM   #145
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Electricity already really high in so calif. Some parts of the country cant afford more tax from carbon wgs. We are taxed as far as we can go in CA, NY etc etc. A carbon tax is out of the question and won't pass in Congress. In fact Obama knows he doesn't have the juice to get it done. He thought 2nd term would be some roll. I said when it started Obama should be smart and come to the center and get things done. What would he have to lose he already has been elected. But instead he thought he could put the screws to the repubs and he is paying dearly. He may only get immigration done and that it. Also I love how dems trying to say the IRS scandal because of campaign finance reform didn't go through. They blame everything on something else.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:27 PM   #146
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Tesla is currently targeting the luxury buyer market, and absolutely dominating it. Outselling BMW, Audi and several other luxury makers combined. Good strategy to target the high margin markets first (see: Apple)

They are developing standard full size sedan and SUV (same platform different body) that will be a cheaper, non-luxury evolution of their Model S and Model X.
They only make what 5000 a yr? How can they dominate anything like that? Not saying its not a cool car. Its the only electric I would want.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 05:36 PM   #147
Arkie
Ring of Famer
 
Arkie's Avatar
 
The f--- y'all motherf-ckas want?

Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You act like it's just a matter of setting some price and watching the proceeds roll in. You do realize there'd have to be a ton of tracking and scorekeeping involved.

Needless to say, none of it is nearly as simple as you like to make it sound.

and since it's a global problem that requires a global solution, we'll have to track and keep score in remote villages of the developing world.
Arkie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 06:00 PM   #148
baja
Headmaster
 
baja's Avatar
 
The Fixer

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 61,394

Adopt-a-Bronco:
C J Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arkie View Post
and since it's a global problem that requires a global solution, we'll have to track and keep score in remote villages of the developing world.

Hey I got an idea let's erase all borders end all Sovereignty; submit to a global authority consolidate power into One World Order.... It is the only way to save ourselves from this global problem that, lest resolved we all die.

There's a movie script there for ya if you like.

I leave the ending to you.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 06:37 PM   #149
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Electricity already really high in so calif. Some parts of the country cant afford more tax from carbon wgs. We are taxed as far as we can go in CA, NY etc etc. A carbon tax is out of the question and won't pass in Congress. In fact Obama knows he doesn't have the juice to get it done. He thought 2nd term would be some roll. I said when it started Obama should be smart and come to the center and get things done. What would he have to lose he already has been elected. But instead he thought he could put the screws to the repubs and he is paying dearly. He may only get immigration done and that it. Also I love how dems trying to say the IRS scandal because of campaign finance reform didn't go through. They blame everything on something else.
My electric bill last month was $21.

After switching to LED lights, a Sunfrost refrig, and after changing from electric hot water to a propane heat-on-demand water heater.

MHG
mhgaffney is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 06:57 PM   #150
El Minion
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
uhuh

Tesla only has two models, not the dozens that the other offer.

Tesla sales beating Mercedes, BMW and Audi

El Minion is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:05 PM.


Denver Broncos