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 05-29-2013, 07:25 PM   #1
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default Following Tesla's good news, Fox conveniently forgets government loan



The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-29-2013, 10:15 PM   #2
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,815

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Tesla's stock has doubled this year but they are a new company that has not turned a profit and owes a ton of money. It would be great to have a successful US company in almost 50 years but the production numbers, while they seem to be up, are still a very small number compared to gas guzzling cars.

I also noticed other companies that have gone belly up in the video. Would you consider forgetting about those disasters that left the only people with more money coming out were Obama's buddies? As a taxpayer, I know I am one of millions to get screwed.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:29 PM   #3
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn View Post
Tesla's stock has doubled this year but they are a new company that has not turned a profit and owes a ton of money. It would be great to have a successful US company in almost 50 years but the production numbers, while they seem to be up, are still a very small number compared to gas guzzling cars.
Tesla is profitable

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94716E20130508

And has paid off its government loans in full

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...tment/2351945/

Quote:
Originally Posted by broncocalijohn
I also noticed other companies that have gone belly up in the video. Would you consider forgetting about those disasters that left the only people with more money coming out were Obama's buddies? As a taxpayer, I know I am one of millions to get screwed.
We're reaping the benefits, not "getting screwed."

Quote:
“More than 90 percent of loan loss reserve Congress established remains intact, while losses to date represent about 2 percent of the overall $34 billion portfolio. The other 98 percent of the portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year – roughly equal to taking a million cars off the road.
http://environmental-expert.com/news...rtfolio-374792

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 05-29-2013 at 11:40 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:48 PM   #4
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

19 power plants for 1 million homes. What is the cost of them per killowat. If its not competitive with fossil fuels then its a waste of money.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2013, 11:48 PM   #5
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

No one is arguing that you can't build power plants and get them working. Solar, wind ones etc. The argument is the price per killowatt is not feasible or sustainable. Once the subsidies stop they will close.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:00 AM   #6
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
No one is arguing that you can't build power plants and get them working. Solar, wind ones etc. The argument is the price per killowatt is not feasible or sustainable. Once the subsidies stop they will close.
Uh huh. Back up your position with evidence or admit that you're making stuff up.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:45 AM   #7
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Uh huh. Back up your position with evidence or admit that you're making stuff up.
I posed that as a question. The person is making claims these power plants are such a great investment. But they didn't show any numbers. How is that me needing to back up anything? That is me asking what the numbers are before you go saying what a success it is.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:52 AM   #8
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,916
Default

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...city_by_source


There you go spells out how natural gas with co2 capture would still be way cheaper then solar or wind.

Solar and wind without govt subsidies on killowatts produced would not even be a viable business. Govt is giving them money to produce energy and its not sustainable.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 07:01 AM   #9
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

OP just proves that the only reason Fox exists is to spew RW propaganda.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 09:31 AM   #10
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,815

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post

Quote:
“More than 90 percent of loan loss reserve Congress established remains intact, while losses to date represent about 2 percent of the overall $34 billion portfolio. The other 98 percent of the portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year – roughly equal to taking a million cars off the road.



Seems many of the companies given loans had no money issues to begin with like Nissan and Goldman Sachs.
http://mercatus.org/expert_commentar...-loan-business

Those "start ups" given loans also happen to be buddies of the Obama administration and also give millions to the DNP.


"Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...een-graft.html

Last edited by broncocalijohn; 05-30-2013 at 09:37 AM..
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 10:51 AM   #11
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,036

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.
Fedaykin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 10:55 AM   #12
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,815

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.
I will ask our former VP about this when he gets back from his jet setting flights across the US.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 12:43 PM   #13
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,614
Default

the righties never like good news. ever. Unemployment down? Bad numbers.economy growing? won't last.obama visiting disaster areas? photo op.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 02:05 PM   #14
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.
Because Saudi-owned Faux News told them that EVs are bad. Imagine that.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 02:48 PM   #15
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Because Saudi-owned Faux News told them that EVs are bad. Imagine that.
Nobody said they're bad. They just don't fundamentally solve any real problems. They have advantages in limited scenarios, and in other scenarios they have severe limitations which render them nearly useless.

Nobody's rooting against Tesla. There's just nothing about what they're doing that's world changing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 03:27 PM   #16
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
Nobody said they're bad. They just don't fundamentally solve any real problems.
I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.

Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.

Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?

Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.

Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.

Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.

And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.

Now granted gas cars fuel up a lot faster that EVs. IMO that advantage is marginal. On long road trips almost everyone is going to want to take a rest break after hours behind the wheel. Tesla Superchargers can now get you 3 more hours of driving in the 20 minutes it takes to grab a coffee and read the paper. And rapid charging is unlimited.

And free. Can you get free gas anywhere?


Quote:
Nobody's rooting against Tesla. There's just nothing about what they're doing that's world changing.
Faux News has clearly been rooting against Tesla and other EVs.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 03:33 PM   #17
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.

Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.

Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?

Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.

Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.

Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.

And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.

Now granted gas cars fuel up a lot faster that EVs. IMO that advantage is marginal. On long road trips almost everyone is going to want to take a rest break after hours behind the wheel. Tesla Superchargers can now get you 3 more hours of driving in the 20 minutes it takes to grab a coffee and read the paper. And rapid charging is unlimited.

And free. Can you get free gas anywhere?




Faux News has clearly been rooting against Tesla and other EVs.
Dayum! That about wraps that up.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 03:41 PM   #18
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Dayum! That about wraps that up.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:17 PM   #19
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.
You must lead a pretty boring life if your car is free to just sit and do nothing but charge every night of the week. On a standard 110v outlet, it looks like you get about 5 miles of travel for every hour of charge. So I can spend 10 minutes at the pump every week or two to get 300-500 miles of travel. Or I can put my EV out of commission for the equivalent of a few days to obtain that same amount of travel.

And you call this a problem solved.

Quote:
Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...arranty-voided

Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided

$600 a year will buy you a whole assload of maintenance. And any time involved will be infinitesimal compared to the inherent every-day downtime required by an EV.


Quote:
Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?
You're forgetting about managing all that battery heat and current that brings a whole new set of problems. It remains to be seen whether there's any payoff in reliability.

Quote:
Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.
I don't think this performance 'difference' would be defined as much of a 'problem' by most everyday drivers.

Quote:
Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.
That's one perspective. But it will take years to learn the real safety implications of strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and acid blocks to see how that all plays out. In the luxury segment, it's pretty difficult to call the Tesla any safer than it's expensive competition.

Quote:
Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.
As we've been over before, from an economic standpoint, a Tesla would take many many years to pay off it's price premium. Whether Liquid-fueled or Dino-powered-by-wire is only one part of that picture.

Quote:
And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.
Because there really isn't one.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:28 PM   #20
broncocalijohn
Famer of Rings
 
broncocalijohn's Avatar
 
I said Do It!

Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Lake Forest, Orange County, Calif.
Posts: 22,815

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Simon Fletcher
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Dayum! That about wraps that up.
and cost vs a gas guzzling car? I don't think it wrapped it completely up. It has not replaced it...yet.
broncocalijohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:35 PM   #21
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 55,400

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Malik Jackson
Default

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/auto...html?hpt=hp_t3

The automobile will never replace horses. They're noisy. They stink. They emit smoke. They're always breaking down. We have no roads to accommodate them. They get stuck in the mud. The ride is horrible. etcetera etcetera etcetera
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:40 PM   #22
BroncoLifer
Living the Dream
 
BroncoLifer's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Boulder County
Posts: 1,486

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chris Harris
Default

A different perspective on Tesla here:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/t...tml/?a=viewall



"Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) stock has rocketed up after the company reported positive earnings and operating cash flow for the first quarter. The stock had been heavily shorted, and short covering evidently fueled the stock’s take-off.


Color me skeptical. The company was heavily shorted for good reason, and is even more ripe for shorting after the run-up. (Personal opinion. Not investment advice. You’re on your own about that.)


For one thing, although operating results did improve from the (really terrible 3/4Q12), the much hyped earnings number was put into positive territory by two items: a write-down of a warrant that Tesla granted the U.S. Department of Energy as part of a $465 million DOE loan to the company, and FX gains (mainly on yen). Not repeatable. And the first seems highly dodgy to me — a squishy number based on an assumption that Tesla will be able to pay off the loan.


I’m also skeptical because of the near miraculous nature of the turnaround. Mere months ago, the company was in dire straits:
It’s a lucky thing for Tesla Motors shareholders that the U.S. Department of Energy loves the companys loan applications.
Without the hundreds of millions of dollars Tesla has received from the federal government this year, the electric-car makers financials would be gasping for air as 2012 winds down.

Given the ugly state of Tesla’s finances — and the company’s sky-high valuation: almost $4 billion — it will rank among the top candidates in Silicon Valley for a 2013 stock collapse, unless it receives significantly more cash next year.
I get a whiff of a company that needed a miracle to stave off disaster. Maybe it got one, but I am always skeptical of miracles whenever accounting is involved. And that’s certainly the case here. The shorts have been bloodied, but they’ll be back. Indeed, this seems like a typical battle in a war between a dodgy company and short sellers.
(..)

It received the $465 mm loan from DOE, but it also benefits from a $7500/car federal subsidy for electric cars. Moreover, it benefits from the State of California’s Zero Emissions Credit program. In its infinite wisdom, CA mandated that all the major auto companies sell a certain number of zero emissions vehicles. If they don’t they have to buy credits from companies that do make them — namely Tesla. This was also essential in putting the company in the black in Q1, and the company is sitting on $250 mm worth of these credits.


IOW, Tesla’s profits are courtesy of you, the taxpayer — and also courtesy of the shareholders of Ford (NYSE:F), GM (NYSE:GM), Toyota (NYSE:TM), Honda (NYSE:HMC), etc."
BroncoLifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 04:59 PM   #23
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
You must lead a pretty boring life if your car is free to just sit and do nothing but charge every night of the week. On a standard 110v outlet, it looks like you get about 5 miles of travel for every hour of charge. So I can spend 10 minutes at the pump every week or two to get 300-500 miles of travel. Or I can put my EV out of commission for the equivalent of a few days to obtain that same amount of travel.

And you call this a problem solved.
Every home has a 220v outlet. That will fully charge your car as you sleep. You know, while you're "doing nothing"?

Quote:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...arranty-voided

Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided

$600 a year will buy you a whole assload of maintenance. And any time involved will be infinitesimal compared to the inherent every-day downtime required by an EV.
You're behind the times here. The service plan is now optional and does not void the warranty.

Quote:
You're forgetting about managing all that battery heat and current that brings a whole new set of problems. It remains to be seen whether there's any payoff in reliability.
So far Tesla, and GM for that matter, have had no problems with their battery thermal management systems -- with millions of miles logged on their cars. I think the verdict is in on this one.

Quote:
I don't think this performance 'difference' would be defined as much of a 'problem' by most everyday drivers.
It becomes one once they drive an EV.

Quote:
That's one perspective. But it will take years to learn the real safety implications of strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and acid blocks to see how that all plays out. In the luxury segment, it's pretty difficult to call the Tesla any safer than it's expensive competition.
As opposed to strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and explosive liquid? Really?

Pretty weak argument.

Quote:
As we've been over before, from an economic standpoint, a Tesla would take many many years to pay off it's price premium. Whether Liquid-fueled or Dino-powered-by-wire is only one part of that picture.
For now. The prices are going to come down as time goes by. Battery tech has a long way to go. ICE tech is reaching it's peak and won't see any more dramatic improvements.

Quote:
Because there really isn't one.
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...tric-cars.html

But I'm sure you're much smarter than them, right?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 06:21 PM   #24
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Every home has a 220v outlet. That will fully charge your car as you sleep. You know, while you're "doing nothing"?
In the garage? Not likely. I know I know, you can bring in the electrician. Still, even at 220v, you're talking about hours every day of a car being unavailable. Far more downtime than 10 minutes every couple weeks at a gas station.

I'm not saying you can't do things to live with the Tesla's limitations in certain scenarios. But calling refueling an ICV a 'problem' when in reality it's far more convenient (to an ordinary lifestyle) than charging an EV is comical.


Quote:
You're behind the times here. The service plan is now optional and does not void the warranty.
That's nice. But from a price perspective, it matters little. Tesla's (virtually non-existent) service network and tiny scale is going to make long-term service inarguably more expensive than maintaining more common mass-produced vehicle brands.

Quote:
So far Tesla, and GM for that matter, have had no problems with their battery thermal management systems -- with millions of miles logged on their cars. I think the verdict is in on this one.
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...r-fire-hazard/

Tesla Recalling 439 Roadsters for Fire Hazard

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Fire+...ticle23684.htm

After Fire Issues, GM Prepares for Volt "Recall"

Boeing decided to use this same type of battery in it's dreamliners. They tested and tested and got FAA clearance. Then the realities of a production environment kicked in. And it was back to the drawing board. And that doesn't even touch the aging issues. These vehicles are extremely new. It's ridiculous to be saying they're comparable over the long term, when there is virtually zero long-term record to base that on.


Quote:
As opposed to strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and explosive liquid? Really?
I meant heavy metal in the chemistry sense. And cars have had to improve their fuel handling over the decades for safety's sake. With EV's, you're starting all over again.

Quote:
For now. The prices are going to come down as time goes by. Battery tech has a long way to go. ICE tech is reaching it's peak and won't see any more dramatic improvements.
Battery 'tech' is basically as old as the ICE. We're back again to this idea that putting a battery on wheels makes it a 'new' technology. There might be progress there. But there is progress everywhere.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/hon...n-car-year.php

Honda Civic Natural Gas is 2012 Green Car of the Year

Meanwhile, in the real world we have a bunch of Lawyers in Washington picking the best (politically connected) technology to subsidize. That sounds like just about the least rational approach anyone could ever come up with.

Quote:
The Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles...tric-cars.html

But I'm sure you're much smarter than them, right?
We've seen this article before. The one where they compare super-expensive EVs to fictionally comparable cars only getting 27mpg. I had a 5-passenger car 15 years ago that could get 27mpg.

Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 05-30-2013 at 06:26 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-30-2013, 08:03 PM   #25
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
In the garage? Not likely. I know I know, you can bring in the electrician. Still, even at 220v, you're talking about hours every day of a car being unavailable. Far more downtime than 10 minutes every couple weeks at a gas station.

I'm not saying you can't do things to live with the Tesla's limitations in certain scenarios. But calling refueling an ICV a 'problem' when in reality it's far more convenient (to an ordinary lifestyle) than charging an EV is comical.
Dude, if you have a 265 mile range your car will almost never be "unavailable." You're typically just topping off overnight. Most people drive maybe 40 miles a day.

And if you drive over 200 miles every day you could use a rapid charger station to make up for it. So once again, the car will be available.

Quote:
That's nice. But from a price perspective, it matters little. Tesla's (virtually non-existent) service network and tiny scale is going to make long-term service inarguably more expensive than maintaining more common mass-produced vehicle brands.
Let's review shall we? No oil changes. No tuneups. No fluid changes of any kind. Only one moving part in an electric motor. What makes you think that the service and repair requirements will be the same as an ICE car?

Quote:
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...r-fire-hazard/

Tesla Recalling 439 Roadsters for Fire Hazard

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Fire+...ticle23684.htm

After Fire Issues, GM Prepares for Volt "Recall"

Boeing decided to use this same type of battery in it's dreamliners. They tested and tested and got FAA clearance. Then the realities of a production environment kicked in. And it was back to the drawing board. And that doesn't even touch the aging issues. These vehicles are extremely new. It's ridiculous to be saying they're comparable over the long term, when there is virtually zero long-term record to base that on.
Oh yes, this baloney. First of all the Volt battery:

Quote:
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's official word on the Chevrolet Volt fire incident is out, and it's all good. Following a two-month investigation into the crash test that resulted in a fire three weeks after the fact last summer, NHTSA says it "does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles."
http://green.autoblog.com/2012/01/23...do-not-pose-a/

And there's no reason to believe that there are any long-term safety concerns. Wake me when you have evidence of any.

As far as the Tesla Roadster, your own linked article reports:

Quote:
The automaker told the safety agency that the defect was not part of the “electric drive main power system” that moves the vehicle. The recalled models are the 2010 Roadster 2.0 and Roadster 2.5 with “a 12-volt auxiliary cable.”

Tesla said the system used “a small lead acid battery as a backup power source to the vehicle’s main electrical system. The auxiliary power system provides power to various other systems, including the headlamps, taillights, stop lamps, turn signals (including hazard lights), air bags and the E.C.U. in the unlikely event that primary 12V power from the lithium-ion battery pack fails or drops below a minimum threshold value.”
So this was not a problem with the battery thermal management system.


Quote:
I meant heavy metal in the chemistry sense.
You said a "ton or two." That's the weight of the whole car.

Quote:
And cars have had to improve their fuel handling over the decades for safety's sake. With EV's, you're starting all over again.
Maybe. But results in the real world so far have been very good. And in the opinion of NHTSA, they're just as safe as gas cars.

Quote:
Battery 'tech' is basically as old as the ICE. We're back again to this idea that putting a battery on wheels makes it a 'new' technology. There might be progress there. But there is progress everywhere.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/hon...n-car-year.php

Honda Civic Natural Gas is 2012 Green Car of the Year

Meanwhile, in the real world we have a bunch of Lawyers in Washington picking the best (politically connected) technology to subsidize. That sounds like just about the least rational approach anyone could ever come up with.
Not sure you can prove that the reason was political connections.


Quote:
We've seen this article before. The one where they compare super-expensive EVs to fictionally comparable cars only getting 27mpg. I had a 5-passenger car 15 years ago that could get 27mpg.
This may surprise you but not every car gets 39 MPG.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 05-30-2013 at 08:24 PM..
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:17 AM.


Denver Broncos