# Tesla Bankruptcy Looms!



## elektra

How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive? 

Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie. 

Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow

Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha

Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha


----------



## ScienceRocks

You people have no honesty. Tesla will be around 5 years from now...I doubt you'll be posting on this board then.


----------



## Moonglow

How many times have the auto industry with internal combustion engines get bailed out ?


----------



## JGalt

Not surprising. Anyone ever see a Chevy Volt?


----------



## Rambunctious

Something about rolling to a dead stop between cities just doesn't sound good.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Like running out of gas?

"Winner" - bwahahaha!


----------



## Old Rocks

Rambunctious said:


> Something about rolling to a dead stop between cities just doesn't sound good.


Well now, when someone like you is stupid enough not to stop for fuel, or electrons in this case, they deserve a little walk. Maybe it will clear a little of the cobwebs from your old noggin. And the roadster shows the direction that Tesla is moving. 620 miles on a single charge. I bet within 3 to 5 years that will be the range of the S, 3, and X. A semi with a 500 mile range with an 80,000 lb load. Those are figures that will get Tesla a lot of business.


----------



## Old Rocks

*TESLA (TSLA) STOCK *
NAS


306.53
 USD 
-2.32

(-0.75%)

Official Close 12/1/2017
 NAS

TSLA Stock | TESLA Stock Price Today

*Pretty good for a company going bankrupt. LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks

*Tesla: Enormous Battery Powers Australia's Outback*

RTTNews
 Dec. 1, 2017, 10:18 AM



(RTTNews) - Tesla has switched on the world's biggest lithium ion battery in Australia, delivering on Chief Executive Elon Musk's promise to build the battery in 100 days. The giant battery was plugged into the Australian state grid on Friday - the first day of the Australian summer.

South Australia Premier Jay Weatherill said that the battery began delivering power into the state grid. It will provide power enough for more than 30,000 homes.

"South Australia is now leading the world in dispatchable renewable energy," Weatherill said Thursday at the official launch of the battery.

Tesla built the giant battery under an agreement between the company, French renewable energy provider Neoen and the South Australian government.

Tesla said in July that it was selected through a competitive bidding process by the South Australian government to provide a 100 MW/129 MWh Powerpack system. This will be paired with Neoen's Hornsdale Wind Farm near Jamestown in South Australia.

Under the agreement, Tesla was required to deliver the battery within 100 days of the contract being signed or it would be handed over to the South Australian government for free.
Tesla: Enormous Battery Powers Australia's Outback

*Another bet Tesla has won.*


----------



## Old Rocks

The new Tesla roadster. 0 to 60, 1.9 Seconds    0 to 100  4.2 Seconds   Top end, 250+ mph   range on one charge  620 miles    Price $250,000

That price is 1/2 to 1/10 the price of the exotics that it will beat the pants off of. And it is an American car, made in America.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

elektra said:


> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha



It depends how long the tax payers of California are willing to prop the company up. Tesla loses money every year and the federal subsidies for buyers of Tesla EVs will be running out soon. Then it will all be up to California to subsidize the purchase of these cars.


----------



## Old Rocks

Why do you think these cars will have to subsidized? As the prices for the batteries comes down, and the energy density goes up, they will not only compete head on with the ICE's, they will do so very successfully.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Old Rocks said:


> Why do you think these cars will have to subsidized? As the prices for the batteries comes down, and the energy density goes up, they will not only compete head on with the ICE's, they will do so very successfully.



Why do you think California’s government thinks they need to be subsidized? I think it is because they are more  expensive than other  EVs and way more expensive than ICEs.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> Why do you think California’s government thinks they need to be subsidized? I think it is because they are more  expensive than other  EVs and way more expensive than ICEs.


And what would seem expensive if all ICE subsidies were removed?


----------



## Pop23

Grumblenuts said:


> Like running out of gas?
> 
> "Winner" - bwahahaha!



Infrastructure exists for gas. 

So there’s that


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think California’s government thinks they need to be subsidized? I think it is because they are more  expensive than other  EVs and way more expensive than ICEs.
> 
> 
> 
> And what would seem expensive if all ICE subsidies were removed?
Click to expand...

Just bought a new Ford F-150. I didn’t get any subsidy. I would have gotten one had I bought an EV. I am not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Pop23 said:


> Infrastructure exists for gas.
> 
> So there’s that


As it did for the electric trolley long before polluting, gas fueled buses and cars.


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.


Here.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Grumblenuts said:


> Pop23 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure exists for gas.
> 
> So there’s that
> 
> 
> 
> As it did for the electric trolley long before polluting, gas fueled buses and cars.
Click to expand...


  You going to take the trolley from LA to Dallas?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Grumblenuts said:


> Like running out of gas?
> 
> "Winner" - bwahahaha!



   I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.


----------



## Hossfly

TheOldSchool said:


> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring



Oil is what keeps the factories running that makes every part of a Tesla. 
Oil is perpetual. You don't have to recharge a can of Quaker State.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hossfly said:


> Oil is perpetual.


Perhaps as perpetual as the Sun itself that provides it all, including nonpolluting energy sources. Sunlight requires no can.


----------



## Grumblenuts

HereWeGoAgain said:


> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.





> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*


----------



## Hossfly

Grumblenuts said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


28 years? Hell, most of us won't be around. By that time they'll have man flying around like Superman. Won't need Teslas.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Grumblenuts said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


  Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Not to mention electricity travels at around the speed of light to and between charging stations that aren't powered more locally by the Sun.  No trucks, trains, pipelines needed.


----------



## Grumblenuts

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.


Often argue with stuff things don't mean?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Grumblenuts said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
Click to expand...


  What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
   And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.


----------



## Old Rocks

Pop23 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like running out of gas?
> 
> "Winner" - bwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infrastructure exists for gas.
> 
> So there’s that
Click to expand...

1043 supercharging stations in the US, more being built as we post. Many malls now have regular charging stations in their parking lots. 
Supercharger | Tesla

Toshiba now has a solid state battery that takes a charge very rapidly;
Toshiba claims 6-minute recharge for new electric-car battery cell


----------



## Old Rocks

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
Click to expand...

Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?


----------



## Old Rocks

Grumblenuts said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Given the efficiency with which EV's operate, that means that amount of energy will take the EV 4 to 5 times as far that the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline. The Carnot cycle is not very efficient.


----------



## Old Rocks

Hossfly said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28 years? Hell, most of us won't be around. By that time they'll have man flying around like Superman. Won't need Teslas.
Click to expand...

Tesla Roadster, 620 miles on a single charge. Tesla semi, 500 miles on a single charge with an 80,000 lb load. By 2020, I bet we are seeing these kinds of range in the S, 3, and X.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Old Rocks said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the efficiency with which EV's operate, that means that amount of energy will take the EV 4 to 5 times as far that the equivalent amount of energy in gasoline. The Carnot cycle is not very efficient.
Click to expand...


  I dont have a problem with electric because it does have it's place.
   But I do have a problem with a vehicle that the average Joe cant afford and is being subsidized with our tax dollars.

  If they can get the charge times down to the time it takes me to pump the 38 gallons my truck holds and they have charging stations everywhere I could buy gas would help as well.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Old Rocks said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28 years? Hell, most of us won't be around. By that time they'll have man flying around like Superman. Won't need Teslas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tesla Roadster, 620 miles on a single charge. Tesla semi, 500 miles on a single charge with an 80,000 lb load. By 2020, I bet we are seeing these kinds of range in the S, 3, and X.
Click to expand...


  If you have a couple hundred grand lying around.....


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Grumblenuts said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is perpetual.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps as perpetual as the Sun itself that provides it all, including nonpolluting energy sources. Sunlight requires no can.
Click to expand...

*Green Wagons Carry Corpses*

"Pollution" kills harmful microbes long before it harms humans.  Go all alt, and we will have plague after plague, as it was before the Industrial Revolution.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is perpetual.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps as perpetual as the Sun itself that provides it all, including nonpolluting energy sources. Sunlight requires no can.
Click to expand...







Try charging your tesla up from solar panels.  It will take you slightly over two MONTHS.  Sounds like a great plan!  That's the problem you die hard faith based believers have, you are divorced from reality.


----------



## toobfreak

Old Rocks said:


> The new Tesla roadster. 0 to 60, 1.9 Seconds    0 to 100  4.2 Seconds   Top end, 250+ mph   range on one charge  620 miles    Price $250,000.



No one needs to go 0 to 60, 1.9 Seconds    0 to 100  4.2 Seconds   Top end, 250+ mph and few can afford a quarter million for a stupid fucking car whose half the body weight is batteries ready to explode in a crash.  I used to build Pontiacs and Chevys that came close enough to the first two stats to throw you in the back seat, topped out at 165 (3X the legal limit already) and had unlimited range because there was a gas pump every 5 miles.  It took 2 minutes to get a refill, no recharging needed.  And they only cost $10,000 for body and build.  Screw Tesla.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?
Click to expand...







Wow.  A whole 1,000.  Care to guess how many gas stations there are in the USA?  Here, I'll help, 114,533 at last estimate.


----------



## Lewdog

Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.

Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.
> 
> Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.








He is certainly the greatest con man of this era.  Take a look at the history of the company, it has never even come close to turning a profit.  Everytime bankruptcy looms he trots out a "new" latest, greatest product to sucker in the faithful yet again.  It is the second most successful Ponzi scheme in history.  That is for sure.


----------



## AquaAthena

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is perpetual.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps as perpetual as the Sun itself that provides it all, including nonpolluting energy sources. Sunlight requires no can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try charging your tesla up from solar panels.  It will take you slightly over two MONTHS.  Sounds like a great plan!  That's the problem you die hard faith based believers have, you are divorced from reality.
Click to expand...

  love you so much, westwall.


----------



## boedicca

Tesla is alive only due to huge government subsidies.   Once those end, ka-blash ka-pow ka-blam!


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.
> 
> Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly the greatest con man of this era.  Take a look at the history of the company, it has never even come close to turning a profit.  Everytime bankruptcy looms he trots out a "new" latest, greatest product to sucker in the faithful yet again.  It is the second most successful Ponzi scheme in history.  That is for sure.
Click to expand...



Con man?  He's done something NASA could never do.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.
> 
> Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly the greatest con man of this era.  Take a look at the history of the company, it has never even come close to turning a profit.  Everytime bankruptcy looms he trots out a "new" latest, greatest product to sucker in the faithful yet again.  It is the second most successful Ponzi scheme in history.  That is for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Con man?  He's done something NASA could never do.
Click to expand...









No, he hasn't.  He has some very good engineer's, I will grant you that, but he is the new model of billionaire.  You silly people whine about the koch bros. who actually provide a product that the entire world needs and uses, and this fraud has made his "billions" by stealing money from you, me, and every other citizen of the USA.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Old Rocks said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?
Click to expand...


   A 1000? 
There's 1300 in Houston alone.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.
> 
> Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly the greatest con man of this era.  Take a look at the history of the company, it has never even come close to turning a profit.  Everytime bankruptcy looms he trots out a "new" latest, greatest product to sucker in the faithful yet again.  It is the second most successful Ponzi scheme in history.  That is for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Con man?  He's done something NASA could never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he hasn't.  He has some very good engineer's, I will grant you that, but he is the new model of billionaire.  You silly people whine about the koch bros. who actually provide a product that the entire world needs and uses, and this fraud has made his "billions" by stealing money from you, me, and every other citizen of the USA.
Click to expand...



Elon Musk's Space X is being used by the Government to deliver items to space because they can do it much more effectively and cheaper... because they can reuse rockets due to the fact they figured out how to land the rockets upon re-entry, something NASA couldn't figure out.

Calling a man a con man that has been so successful and done things that one of the top space agencies in the world can't do, is absurd.

You just don't like green reusable energy or items involved with it.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Here.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I thought you were referring to subsidies for people buying ICE cars, not the fuel source for those cars. That is quite a different matter. Fossil fuels are not only used in ICE, but also heating homes, running machinery and manufacturing. Your comparison fails.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?  Tesla isn't going under... they are about to send a Tesla car to Mars.
> 
> Elon Musk isn't going to let his baby die.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is certainly the greatest con man of this era.  Take a look at the history of the company, it has never even come close to turning a profit.  Everytime bankruptcy looms he trots out a "new" latest, greatest product to sucker in the faithful yet again.  It is the second most successful Ponzi scheme in history.  That is for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Con man?  He's done something NASA could never do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he hasn't.  He has some very good engineer's, I will grant you that, but he is the new model of billionaire.  You silly people whine about the koch bros. who actually provide a product that the entire world needs and uses, and this fraud has made his "billions" by stealing money from you, me, and every other citizen of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Elon Musk's Space X is being used by the Government to deliver items to space because they can do it much more effectively and cheaper... because they can reuse rockets due to the fact they figured out how to land the rockets upon re-entry, something NASA couldn't figure out.
> 
> Calling a man a con man that has been so successful and done things that one of the top space agencies in the world can't do, is absurd.
> 
> You just don't like green reusable energy or items involved with it.
Click to expand...






Certainly cheaper.  But, as we all know anything the government does is usually three times more costly than the private sector.  NASA didn't even bother to try and figure it out because, yet again, when you're spending other peoples money you don't seem to care as much.  

I call him a con man because he has figured out how to sucker the US government, and others, to give him loads of cash for producing a product that only the wealthy can afford, that only the wealthy will use, and yet every poor person pays more for their electricity so that the wealthy can get their free cash.  

Musk did one thing that was good, and that was create Paypal.  That was a good idea and he made some good money off of it.  The rest of what he has done is come up with "ideas" most of which are other people's, and sucker investors into giving him large amounts of cash for doing not much.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> charging your tesla up from solar panels


----------



## HenryBHough

Ponzi didn't die.


----------



## Synthaholic

Hossfly said:


> 28 years? Hell, most of us won't be around.


Speak for yourself, Grandpa.


----------



## Synthaholic

*Tesla Going At 'Warp Speed,' But Lags In Race To Produce Mass Market Electric Cars*





That's the Model 3.  Pretty sharp.  I love the glass roof.


----------



## gipper

Old Rocks said:


> *TESLA (TSLA) STOCK *
> NAS
> 
> 
> 306.53
> USD
> -2.32
> 
> (-0.75%)
> 
> Official Close 12/1/2017
> NAS
> 
> TSLA Stock | TESLA Stock Price Today
> 
> *Pretty good for a company going bankrupt. LOL*


When you have the backing of the federal government, it’s easy.


----------



## toobfreak

gipper said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *TESLA (TSLA) STOCK *
> NAS
> 
> 
> 306.53
> USD
> -2.32
> 
> (-0.75%)
> 
> Official Close 12/1/2017
> NAS
> 
> TSLA Stock | TESLA Stock Price Today
> 
> *Pretty good for a company going bankrupt. LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> When you have the backing of the federal government, it’s easy.
Click to expand...



Just another example of the Gov picking its winners and losers, but the real loser is the electric car buyer who does not wait for the hydrogen fuel cell to be made affordable.


----------



## Synthaholic

toobfreak said:


> Just another example of the Gov picking its winners and losers


^^^ Just another example of a whiny little bitch, talking out of his ass.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oil is perpetual.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps as perpetual as the Sun itself that provides it all, including nonpolluting energy sources. Sunlight requires no can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try charging your tesla up from solar panels.  It will take you slightly over two MONTHS.  Sounds like a great plan!  That's the problem you die hard faith based believers have, you are divorced from reality.
Click to expand...

LOL The P100D has a 100 kw/hr battery. A 10 kw installation would put out about 60 kw/hrs in the summer. That average home takes about 30 kw/hrs a day. So that leaves about 30 kw/hrs for charging the car. So in less than four days, you have your car charged. And, since the car gets over 300 miles per charge, if you are commuting less than 100 miles a day, you can maintain a full charge on the car by charging it every night. And that can come from the grid, net zero, or from your own Tesla storage battery setup.


----------



## Old Rocks

toobfreak said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The new Tesla roadster. 0 to 60, 1.9 Seconds    0 to 100  4.2 Seconds   Top end, 250+ mph   range on one charge  620 miles    Price $250,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one needs to go 0 to 60, 1.9 Seconds    0 to 100  4.2 Seconds   Top end, 250+ mph and few can afford a quarter million for a stupid fucking car whose half the body weight is batteries ready to explode in a crash.  I used to build Pontiacs and Chevys that came close enough to the first two stats to throw you in the back seat, topped out at 165 (3X the legal limit already) and had unlimited range because there was a gas pump every 5 miles.  It took 2 minutes to get a refill, no recharging needed.  And they only cost $10,000 for body and build.  Screw Tesla.
Click to expand...

Fucking liar. You never built a Chevy or Pontiac that would even come close to 0 to 60 in 1.9. So why did you need those cars? Why does anyone need a Ferrari or a Lambo? And the Tesla will drive through a Safeway parking lot without shaking your dentures loose, as those highly cammed and stroked engines are prone to doing.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  A whole 1,000.  Care to guess how many gas stations there are in the USA?  Here, I'll help, 114,533 at last estimate.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how many homes there are in the US with electricity? Do you realize that these are only the Supercharging station, not the plugin's at motels, malls, and supermarkets? And as Tesla brings up the range of it's vehicles, the range will exceed what most of us wish to drive in a day. Unless you are on a trip, you can plug in at home for a cheaper rate, or, if you have adequate solar, into your own system for free.


----------



## Old Rocks

So here we have a bunch of 'Conservatives' wishing bankruptcy on an American company, building a world leading technology into an automobile. And that automobile is much less costly than the luxury sports sedans it goes head to head with. In fact, to legal  speeds, the P100D runs right with the best of the exotic sports cars. And the Roadster has no competition at present. And will only have some competition when Ferrari, Porsche, and the rest build their own EV's. But the 'Conservatives' just hate the idea of an American car besting everything in it's class in the world. LOL And listen to the 'Conservatives' braying how much they love America, they just hate everything in America. LOL


----------



## westwall

Synthaholic said:


> *Tesla Going At 'Warp Speed,' But Lags In Race To Produce Mass Market Electric Cars*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Model 3.  Pretty sharp.  I love the glass roof.






Yeppers, especially out in the hot Sun.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesnt mean you can carry a spare battery.
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  A whole 1,000.  Care to guess how many gas stations there are in the USA?  Here, I'll help, 114,533 at last estimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how many homes there are in the US with electricity? Do you realize that these are only the Supercharging station, not the plugin's at motels, malls, and supermarkets? And as Tesla brings up the range of it's vehicles, the range will exceed what most of us wish to drive in a day. Unless you are on a trip, you can plug in at home for a cheaper rate, or, if you have adequate solar, into your own system for free.
Click to expand...






Yeah, I do know.  Clearly you don't.  I have a solar system, it wasn't free.  Where do you clowns come from.  And, more to the point, using my albeit antiquated system, it would take 72 DAYS to recharge a tesla.


----------



## Old Rocks

Well, todays systems are far better than what you have. And far cheaper. Wake up, Gramps, this is not 1970 anymore. A grid-tie 10 kw system package, panels, wires, inverter, about $10,500. And that price will be less next year.


----------



## yiostheoy

TheOldSchool said:


> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring


Gasoline is ideal for cars.

Diesel is ideal for big trucks.

Hydroelectric power is ideal for cities -- speaking of which goddam California needs to dam more canyons and build more hydroe plants.

Coal fired electricity is ideal for Midwestern and New England and Southern states that have no dams.

Nuclear power is ideal for aircraft carriers and submarines.

God has already sorted all this out.

The morons who inhabit the planet and are called humans just need to get a clue.


----------



## yiostheoy

So, I was driving to work one morning on the freeway and headed down a long off ramp that leads to a city intersection.

In the middle -- not on the shoulder -- of the roadway was a Tesla dead in the water.  All the gasoline cars were wending their way around it.

So I stopped and asked the guy, "Do you need a jump start?"

"No," he replied, "you can't jump start a Tesla."

"Oh, ok, do you need a tow?" I answered.

"No, I already called Triple-A," he said.

"Ok, I guess you're all set then, bye!" and I went on my way.

Can't jump start a Tesla -- that would be a major hurtle for me.

Bummer.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> Well, todays systems are far better than what you have. And far cheaper. Wake up, Gramps, this is not 1970 anymore. A grid-tie 10 kw system package, panels, wires, inverter, about $10,500. And that price will be less next year.







Yes, they are, and they are still not very good.  For life off the Grid they are essential, and when the storms are blowing, and the power lines are down, we still have power for up to 10 hours which is very nice, but ultimately the Grid is essential.


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to subsidies for people buying ICE cars, not the fuel source for those cars. That is quite a different matter. Fossil fuels are not only used in ICE, but also heating homes, running machinery and manufacturing. Your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

No, your comparison/rationalization fails. Wind and solar electric is also widely used to heat homes, run machinery, and manufacture. Wake up.


----------



## Grumblenuts

yiostheoy said:


> So, I was driving to work one morning on the freeway and headed down a long off ramp that leads to a city intersection.
> 
> In the middle -- not on the shoulder -- of the roadway was a Tesla dead in the water.  All the gasoline cars were wending their way around it.
> 
> So I stopped and asked the guy, "Do you need a jump start?"
> 
> "No," he replied, "you can't jump start a Tesla."
> 
> "Oh, ok, do you need a tow?" I answered.
> 
> "No, I already called Triple-A," he said.
> 
> "Ok, I guess you're all set then, bye!" and I went on my way.
> 
> Can't jump start a Tesla -- that would be a major hurtle for me.
> 
> Bummer.


Had a dog once. Died. Bummer.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to subsidies for people buying ICE cars, not the fuel source for those cars. That is quite a different matter. Fossil fuels are not only used in ICE, but also heating homes, running machinery and manufacturing. Your comparison fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your comparison/rationalization fails. Wind and solar electric is also widely used to heat homes, run machinery, and manufacture. Wake up.
Click to expand...


True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.


As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
Click to expand...


The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars.


That is an abomination of logic in so many ways it deserves its own topic, but nice try. I'm sure something will continue trickling down upon your head from the billionaire club to compensate your stubbornness here - in your imagination at least.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Why do you think these cars will have to subsidized? As the prices for the batteries comes down, and the energy density goes up, they will not only compete head on with the ICE's, they will do so very successfully.


It is not that we think, they have to be subsidized. It is the fact that they are subsidized!


----------



## elektra

ScienceRocks said:


> You people have no honesty. Tesla will be around 5 years from now...I doubt you'll be posting on this board then.


Excellent comment, completely avoiding the links and the facts. How do you come up with such intellect?


----------



## elektra

Grumblenuts said:


> No, your comparison/rationalization fails. Wind and solar electric is also widely used to heat homes, run machinery, and manufacture. Wake up.


Solar and Wind are not used to manufacture either Wind or Solar components. That is done with coal and amounts of electricity neither solar nor wind can provide. Those are facts. If you think differently how about showing us how a, "submerged electric arc furnace" operates without coal and uses pure solar power.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> not sure what subsidies you’re referring to.
> 
> 
> 
> Here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to subsidies for people buying ICE cars, not the fuel source for those cars. That is quite a different matter. Fossil fuels are not only used in ICE, but also heating homes, running machinery and manufacturing. Your comparison fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, your comparison/rationalization fails. Wind and solar electric is also widely used to heat homes, run machinery, and manufacture. Wake up.
Click to expand...







Only in fantasyland.  Renewables aren't consistent enough with their generation so industry MUST use fossil fuel powered or hydroelectric (the sole renewable that is consistent) power generation systems because they can't afford the damage done to machinery when the "green" energy system fails.  As they do so frequently.


----------



## elektra

Synthaholic said:


> *Tesla Going At 'Warp Speed,' But Lags In Race To Produce Mass Market Electric Cars*
> 
> That's the Model 3.  Pretty sharp.  I love the glass roof.




TESLA-SOLYNDRA


----------



## elektra

Analysis | Sleepless nights, broken robots and mounting pressure: Musk offers rare glimpse inside Tesla’s ‘production hell’




> Tesla is mired in what is probably the hardest portion of that test, and it’s beginning to show. Minutes after the company reported a loss of $671.1 million for the third quarter, Wednesday, Musk’s voice sounded monotone, dispassionate and a more than a tinge irritable. The company hoped to produce 1,500 Model 3s during that period, but managed only 260.


----------



## HenryBHough

Could it be possible that the company name will be changed to "Solyndra II" just prior to bankruptcy?


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> Only in fantasyland.  Renewables aren't consistent enough with their generation so industry MUST use fossil fuel powered or hydroelectric (the sole renewable that is consistent) power generation systems because they can't afford the damage done to machinery when the "green" energy system fails.  As they do so frequently.


Yes, heavily subsidized coal and oil power MUST eventually be replaced with far more consistent battery stored power akin to Tesla Powerwall technology. But nice red herring. The point was solar and wind are used. No one even suggested fossil sources played no role currently. But go nuts why don't ya?


----------



## elektra

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in fantasyland.  Renewables aren't consistent enough with their generation so industry MUST use fossil fuel powered or hydroelectric (the sole renewable that is consistent) power generation systems because they can't afford the damage done to machinery when the "green" energy system fails.  As they do so frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heavily subsidized coal and oil power MUST eventually be replaced with far more consistent battery stored power akin to Tesla Powerwall technology. But nice red herring. The point was solar and wind are used. No one even suggested fossil sources played no role currently. But go nuts why don't ya?
Click to expand...

Solar and Wind are not sustainable. You can not build nor maintain Solar and Wind without fossil fuels to include coal. You can not manufacture Solar or Wind without coal, period. Batteries? How much will the manufacture of batteries increase the use of Coal? It will be substantial, after all, the Batteries will result in the next, largest, increase in the use of Heavy Industry, that is after Wind and Solar.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Often argue with stuff things don't mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it matter if a battery is more efficient if there's nowhere to recharge it?
> And you also get to pay premium prices to go along with that limitation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Either you are blind, stupid, or purposely lying. Many malls, motels, and stores have charging stations right now, and Tesla has over 1000 supercharging stations right now in North America, and more being built as we post. Also, why would anyone buying an EV not put a charging connection in their home? Do you install washing machines without any plumbing? Premium prices? Link? Or is that something you just pulled out of your ass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  A whole 1,000.  Care to guess how many gas stations there are in the USA?  Here, I'll help, 114,533 at last estimate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how many homes there are in the US with electricity? Do you realize that these are only the Supercharging station, not the plugin's at motels, malls, and supermarkets? And as Tesla brings up the range of it's vehicles, the range will exceed what most of us wish to drive in a day. Unless you are on a trip, you can plug in at home for a cheaper rate, or, if you have adequate solar, into your own system for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I do know.  Clearly you don't.  I have a solar system, it wasn't free.  Where do you clowns come from.  And, more to the point, using my albeit antiquated system, it would take 72 DAYS to recharge a tesla.
Click to expand...

Goddamn, is that one of those 2' X 2' panels for battery charges from Harbor Freight? Here is the reality of solar panels.


----------



## Old Rocks

yiostheoy said:


> So, I was driving to work one morning on the freeway and headed down a long off ramp that leads to a city intersection.
> 
> In the middle -- not on the shoulder -- of the roadway was a Tesla dead in the water.  All the gasoline cars were wending their way around it.
> 
> So I stopped and asked the guy, "Do you need a jump start?"
> 
> "No," he replied, "you can't jump start a Tesla."
> 
> "Oh, ok, do you need a tow?" I answered.
> 
> "No, I already called Triple-A," he said.
> 
> "Ok, I guess you're all set then, bye!" and I went on my way.
> 
> Can't jump start a Tesla -- that would be a major hurtle for me.
> 
> Bummer.


OK, You run out of gasoline in the middle of that off ramp, what good is a jump going to do you? Lordy, lordy, at least use a smidgen of logic when you post.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, todays systems are far better than what you have. And far cheaper. Wake up, Gramps, this is not 1970 anymore. A grid-tie 10 kw system package, panels, wires, inverter, about $10,500. And that price will be less next year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, they are, and they are still not very good.  For life off the Grid they are essential, and when the storms are blowing, and the power lines are down, we still have power for up to 10 hours which is very nice, but ultimately the Grid is essential.
Click to expand...

Now when have I said that the grid was not essential? In fact, in all my posts concerning the present price of solar, I have used grid tied systems for the price examples. And, if you have a couple of Powerwalls in addition to your solar system, you can last a lot longer than ten hours. Like indefinitely.


----------



## Old Rocks

BuckToothMoron said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.
Click to expand...

Now $7500 might make a difference when you are buying a Leaf or a Bolt. But a $100,000 to 160,000 auto? Not really.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Analysis | Sleepless nights, broken robots and mounting pressure: Musk offers rare glimpse inside Tesla’s ‘production hell’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla is mired in what is probably the hardest portion of that test, and it’s beginning to show. Minutes after the company reported a loss of $671.1 million for the third quarter, Wednesday, Musk’s voice sounded monotone, dispassionate and a more than a tinge irritable. The company hoped to produce 1,500 Model 3s during that period, but managed only 260.
Click to expand...

Yes, that prediction by Musk is being fulfilled. An easy prediction to make. I have been in on the break in period in a couple of new mills. There is a reason why they call it a 'break' in period. It is hell. You find out about every mistake the engineers made in design, and the millwrights and electricians made in installation.


----------



## Old Rocks

HenryBHough said:


> Could it be possible that the company name will be changed to "Solyndra II" just prior to bankruptcy?


Could it be that a lessor mind is very jealous of a more competent mind? Musk has done wonders in several different fields, and when his manufacturing is up and going, I suspect that he will be strong competition for Ford and GM, worldwide.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars.
> 
> 
> 
> That is an abomination of logic in so many ways it deserves its own topic, but nice try. I'm sure something will continue trickling down upon your head from the billionaire club to compensate your stubbornness here - in your imagination at least.
Click to expand...


Alright numbnuts, you are hung up on thinking that any subsidy for fossil fuels is a subsidy for ICE cars. Here is just another HUGE problem with you (lack of) logic. Just how are those electrons generated to charge your beloved EVs? Oops, yep, the vast majority is fossil fuels, non-renewables, and nuclear. Sorry, you loose AGAIN. Let me know when you tire of getting your head handed to you.
Electricity in the United States - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration
About 65% of utility-scale *electricity generation in the United States* was *produced*from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and petroleum), about 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 15% was from renewable energy sources in 2016: Natural gas —34% ... Nonhydroelectric renewables—8.4% Hydroelectric—6.5%


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now $7500 might make a difference when you are buying a Leaf or a Bolt. But a $100,000 to 160,000 auto? Not really.
Click to expand...


Well if that is your position, then you stepped into a shit hole with both feet. Who spends $100,000 to $160,000 on a car? Yep, those people are millionaires getting those subsidies. So the subsidies for Tesla is very regressive. 
Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
Tesla buyers also get a $7,500 federal income tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from the state of California. The federal government has capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer; Tesla is about a quarter of the way to that limit. In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates.


----------



## Viacheslav

Tesla is in a very difficult situation. Tesla is trying to enter with Tesla 3 in the market of those who are in this business a hundred years.  The mass production of "cheap" cars is fundamentally different from the production of "elite" cars. And mass production of "cheap" cars  is a serious debugged process first of all work with providers, constant search the optimal solution between cheap, reliable, comfortable  and so on. The main producers have taken a wait-and-see attitude on electromobile markets, that have resources for resources for mass production of electric vehicles.

And more one "bad" thing is a "low entry threshold" in the electric vehicle industry, "collecting Panasonic batteries in cassettes and connecting the inverter to an asynchronous motor" is not the most complicated engineering problems


----------



## Taz

elektra said:


> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha


Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now $7500 might make a difference when you are buying a Leaf or a Bolt. But a $100,000 to 160,000 auto? Not really.
Click to expand...







Then why take those thousands of dollars from the poor and the middle class to give to the rich?  Hmmmm?


----------



## westwall

Taz said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
Click to expand...








What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!


----------



## Taz

westwall said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
Click to expand...

Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.


----------



## westwall

Taz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
Click to expand...









Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.


----------



## Taz

westwall said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.
Click to expand...

It'll take until the next generation when there aren't so many doofuses who are against renewable power. Young people aren't so afraid of change, especially when it's for the better.

PS People are already experimenting with car paint that acts as a solar panel.


----------



## westwall

Taz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How long can a car company survive, not making a profit with zero competition? Or, when that competition comes, how long will Tesla survive?
> 
> Tesla is a dream that is bankrupt. Everyone knows it, everyone is talking about it, yet they continue to lie.
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow
> 
> Assessing Tesla's Real Cash Flow - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> Tesla: 10-Q Deep Dive - Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) | Seeking Alpha
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll take until the next generation when there aren't so many doofuses who are against renewable power. Young people aren't so afraid of change, especially when it's for the better.
Click to expand...







No, it will take until there is a renewable power source that is more efficient than the fossil fuel powered system they wish to replace.  Take a look at biofuels.  They sound great on paper but the reality is they cost ten times more than the fossil fuel they are replacing, and they USE fossil fuel in their creation.  That is what is known as reality.


----------



## Taz

westwall said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll take until the next generation when there aren't so many doofuses who are against renewable power. Young people aren't so afraid of change, especially when it's for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will take until there is a renewable power source that is more efficient than the fossil fuel powered system they wish to replace.  Take a look at biofuels.  They sound great on paper but the reality is they cost ten times more than the fossil fuel they are replacing, and they USE fossil fuel in their creation.  That is what is known as reality.
Click to expand...

As I added to my post, people are already trying out car paint that acts as a solar panel. Don't be afraid. There, there.


----------



## westwall

Taz said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is you are so stupid you can't seem to get the simple fact that there is not enough actual real fossil fuel powered power plants to charge all of the cars that would be needed to replace the ICE powered vehicles already in the world.  A complete switch over to EV's would INCREASE the fossil fuel industries profits you gasconading booby!
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll take until the next generation when there aren't so many doofuses who are against renewable power. Young people aren't so afraid of change, especially when it's for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will take until there is a renewable power source that is more efficient than the fossil fuel powered system they wish to replace.  Take a look at biofuels.  They sound great on paper but the reality is they cost ten times more than the fossil fuel they are replacing, and they USE fossil fuel in their creation.  That is what is known as reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I added to my post, people are already trying out car paint that acts as a solar panel. Don't be afraid. There, there.
Click to expand...







I have a solar system silly boy.  You?  I also have a water wheel that is in use when the creek isn't frozen over.  You?  I have been a proponent of USEFUL renewable power systems for probably longer than you've been alive.  What I despise are idiots who claim that wind power is the "newest" and bestest, when they were abandoned decades ago in favor of the more efficient fossil fuel power.  

Let me put it in simple terms so you can understand, you would not be able to live in your cushy apartment, tapping away on your computer if your sole power source were wind and solar.  I am happy that you get you power  from hydroelectric, that is one of the best power systems that has ever been developed, but the overwhelming majority of the world doesn't get to.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in fantasyland.  Renewables aren't consistent enough with their generation so industry MUST use fossil fuel powered or hydroelectric (the sole renewable that is consistent) power generation systems because they can't afford the damage done to machinery when the "green" energy system fails.  As they do so frequently.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, heavily subsidized coal and oil power MUST eventually be replaced with far more consistent battery stored power akin to Tesla Powerwall technology. But nice red herring. The point was solar and wind are used. No one even suggested fossil sources played no role currently. But go nuts why don't ya?
Click to expand...

*OLD SCHOOL:  Drive
NEW AGE:  Drift*

Maybe ecobuggies can be powered by snowflakes.  But hurry up; they are melting as we speak.


----------



## elektra

Taz said:


> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?


Electric cars increase oil stocks. It requires more energy to charge an electric car, no matter where that energy comes from, it is not a direct source as is pouring gasoline in my tank. We will get to pump oil to make you charging station. We will pump oil to make your secondary charging station where you work. We will pump oil to manufacture batteries. Batteries at your home that will charge while you are away. Batteries for your car. It all takes oil to be made. Of course you will now be using all the energy your solar panels produce to charge your car at night. So we will get to sell you more energy. We will also sell more energy to your place of work. That will come from fossil fuels or Nuclear power. There is no way around it, you buying an electric car raises the price of all stocks. The stock market benefits from building more stuff. You buying lousy electric cars ensures we will be using oil to build whatever the government brainwashes you into buying, to save the earth. Yes, to save the earth you must buy a lot more stuff. Technically, you are a real sucker. Sorry to be blunt, but how else can I put it. To save the Earth you must destroy it, buy buying more stuff, and more stuff, and more stuff.


----------



## Yarddog

Hossfly said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can carry an extra ten gallons if need be...but those batteries are kinda heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EV Battery Energy Density To Be At Parity With Gasoline By 2045, But That Misses The Point*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 28 years? Hell, most of us won't be around. By that time they'll have man flying around like Superman. Won't need Teslas.
Click to expand...



You'll still be around Hoss,  we need you to kick some ass then.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> OK, You run out of gasoline in the middle of that off ramp, what good is a jump going to do you? Lordy, lordy, at least use a smidgen of logic when you post.


If I run out of gas on the, "off ramp", you can bet your ass nobody is going to risk their life or mine, or others by showing up in an electric tow truck.


----------



## Old Rocks

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now $7500 might make a difference when you are buying a Leaf or a Bolt. But a $100,000 to 160,000 auto? Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if that is your position, then you stepped into a shit hole with both feet. Who spends $100,000 to $160,000 on a car? Yep, those people are millionaires getting those subsidies. So the subsidies for Tesla is very regressive.
> Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
> Tesla buyers also get a $7,500 federal income tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from the state of California. The federal government has capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer; Tesla is about a quarter of the way to that limit. In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates.
Click to expand...

Tesla has sold over 180,000 vehicles so far, so that rebate is just about gone.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, You run out of gasoline in the middle of that off ramp, what good is a jump going to do you? Lordy, lordy, at least use a smidgen of logic when you post.
> 
> 
> 
> If I run out of gas on the, "off ramp", you can bet your ass nobody is going to risk their life or mine, or others by showing up in an electric tow truck.
Click to expand...

What?  What difference does it make as to whether the tow truck is a diesel, gas powered, or an EV? Given what Tesla and others, including Cummins, are doing, in a decade there is a good chance it would be an EV.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but we are, or at least I was, referring to subsidies for cars, not fuel or power. Tesla sales would plummet if the buyers were not getting tax payer money to help purchase the cars they produce.
> 
> 
> 
> As would everything currently powered by highly govt subsidized fossil fuels. It's you - clearly, desperately, deliberately, repeatedly - missing the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is Tesla would have failed long ago without the government giving money to people to buy their cars. Go ahead and end subsidies for fossil fuels. Then watch the cost of driving your car go up, but not enough to convince you to buy a Tesla. Sorry sport, you took a tangent and ran into a brick wall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now $7500 might make a difference when you are buying a Leaf or a Bolt. But a $100,000 to 160,000 auto? Not really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if that is your position, then you stepped into a shit hole with both feet. Who spends $100,000 to $160,000 on a car? Yep, those people are millionaires getting those subsidies. So the subsidies for Tesla is very regressive.
> Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies
> Tesla buyers also get a $7,500 federal income tax credit and a $2,500 rebate from the state of California. The federal government has capped the $7,500 credit at a total of 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer; Tesla is about a quarter of the way to that limit. In all, Tesla buyers have qualified for an estimated $284 million in federal tax incentives and collected more than $38 million in California rebates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tesla has sold over 180,000 vehicles so far, so that rebate is just about gone.
Click to expand...


Yep, and California wants to pick up the Federal subsidy and more. People in Callie are looking to subsidize  buyers of Tesla EVs to the tune of another $3billion. 
It looks like the state of California is bailing out Tesla
The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Tesla has sold over 180,000 vehicles so far, so that rebate is just about gone.


Tesla has lost over $1 billion dollars, just this year. Tesla has lost at least $100 million dollars every quarter since it began business. That is at least 18 quarters in a row! Well over $2 billion dollars. Funny thing is, Tesla's building is right next to Solyndra.


----------



## Viacheslav

Taz said:


> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?



Tesla plans to produce half a million cars a year in 2018, Tesla 3 has a battery of 50-70 kWh, and for half a million Tesla 3 you need installed power 25GW and this without taking into account the energy loss for charging. Only one Tesla will increase power consumption by at least 25GWh for example 
installed power Grand Coulee Dam is 7GWh.


----------



## Taz

westwall said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the imbecile is you, since my electricity comes from hydro power. Must be getting harder to find qualified staff here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are one of those who gets to use the 2.4% of the electricity generated by hydroelectric power.  How about the rest of the world doofus?  Do they not count?  It is sure getting harder to find qualified posters around here, more and more they are uneducated morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It'll take until the next generation when there aren't so many doofuses who are against renewable power. Young people aren't so afraid of change, especially when it's for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it will take until there is a renewable power source that is more efficient than the fossil fuel powered system they wish to replace.  Take a look at biofuels.  They sound great on paper but the reality is they cost ten times more than the fossil fuel they are replacing, and they USE fossil fuel in their creation.  That is what is known as reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I added to my post, people are already trying out car paint that acts as a solar panel. Don't be afraid. There, there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a solar system silly boy.  You?  I also have a water wheel that is in use when the creek isn't frozen over.  You?  I have been a proponent of USEFUL renewable power systems for probably longer than you've been alive.  What I despise are idiots who claim that wind power is the "newest" and bestest, when they were abandoned decades ago in favor of the more efficient fossil fuel power.
> 
> Let me put it in simple terms so you can understand, you would not be able to live in your cushy apartment, tapping away on your computer if your sole power source were wind and solar.  I am happy that you get you power  from hydroelectric, that is one of the best power systems that has ever been developed, but the overwhelming majority of the world doesn't get to.
Click to expand...

I have a solar system, a water wheel AND a wind turbine, as well as getting the rest of my energy for hydro. You lose nimrod. Now go ban yourself for being a rude, pompous jackass. A week will do for this time.


----------



## Taz

elektra said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> 
> 
> Electric cars increase oil stocks. It requires more energy to charge an electric car, no matter where that energy comes from, it is not a direct source as is pouring gasoline in my tank. We will get to pump oil to make you charging station. We will pump oil to make your secondary charging station where you work. We will pump oil to manufacture batteries. Batteries at your home that will charge while you are away. Batteries for your car. It all takes oil to be made. Of course you will now be using all the energy your solar panels produce to charge your car at night. So we will get to sell you more energy. We will also sell more energy to your place of work. That will come from fossil fuels or Nuclear power. There is no way around it, you buying an electric car raises the price of all stocks. The stock market benefits from building more stuff. You buying lousy electric cars ensures we will be using oil to build whatever the government brainwashes you into buying, to save the earth. Yes, to save the earth you must buy a lot more stuff. Technically, you are a real sucker. Sorry to be blunt, but how else can I put it. To save the Earth you must destroy it, buy buying more stuff, and more stuff, and more stuff.
Click to expand...

I haven't bought an electric car yet because they don't make sense economically or length-of-trip-wise, for where I live. It'll take another decade or two for them to get it all right. But they are for sure on the right path. They are working on car paint that acts as a solar panel, which for a lot of people, will be enough, ex: drive to work, leave it outside all day, drive home..


----------



## Grumblenuts

BuckToothMoron said:


> Yep, and California wants to pick up the Federal subsidy and more. People in Callie are looking to subsidize  buyers of Tesla EVs to the tune of another $3billion.
> It looks like the state of California is bailing out Tesla
> The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.


While I agree with the author there in that the rich stand to benefit too much from this deal, that's always appeared to be Musk's business strategy. But if the people of CA prefer the potential long term benefits over the current cost that's up to them.  Democracy. Horrors.


----------



## Taz

Viacheslav said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you against electric cars? They might hurt your oil stocks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla plans to produce half a million cars a year in 2018, Tesla 3 has a battery of 50-70 kWh, and for half a million Tesla 3 you need installed power 25GW and this without taking into account the energy loss for charging. Only one Tesla will increase power consumption by at least 25GWh for example
> installed power Grand Coulee Dam is 7GWh.
Click to expand...

People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel. Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.


----------



## Viacheslav

Taz said:


> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..



It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh




Taz said:


> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.



I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Grumblenuts said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, and California wants to pick up the Federal subsidy and more. People in Callie are looking to subsidize  buyers of Tesla EVs to the tune of another $3billion.
> It looks like the state of California is bailing out Tesla
> The California state Assembly passed a $3-billion subsidy program for electric vehicles, dwarfing the existing program. The bill is now in the state Senate. If passed, it will head to Governor Jerry Brown, who has not yet indicated if he’d sign what is ostensibly an effort to put EV sales into high gear, but below the surface appears to be a Tesla bailout.
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree with the author there in that the rich stand to benefit too much from this deal, that's always appeared to be Musk's business strategy. But if the people of CA prefer the potential long term benefits over the current cost that's up to them.  Democracy. Horrors.
Click to expand...


Hey, I got no issue with Callie continuing to prop up Tesla. But lets see what happens to Tesla Inc in an economic downturn, when money is tight. I think Musk is a genius and a visionary, but Tesla has survived on Government money, extraordinary low interest rates, and low inflation. None of those things will continue forever, and it remains to be seen if Tesla can survive with out all 3.


----------



## Taz

Viacheslav said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".
Click to expand...

Sure, not now, but as time goes on, less and less people will be paying for gas, which won't help the price at the pump, and it'll be less and less profitable to explore for gas, because all the easy pickings have already been taken, well, except for those stinky arabs, lol.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Taz said:


> Viacheslav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, not now, but as time goes on, less and less people will be paying for gas, which won't help the price at the pump, and it'll be less and less profitable to explore for gas, because all the easy pickings have already been taken, well, except for those stinky arabs, lol.
Click to expand...


Ultimately you will be correct, fewer people will be using gas because fossil fuels are finite. However you, nor anybody else can’t predict exactly when that will occur. Can we both agree it is decades in the future?


----------



## Old Rocks

No, I cannot agree at all. You see, the development of the fast charging glass batteries is going much faster than expected. In less than a decade, the EV's will be less costly than the ICE's, as well as faster and more dependable.


----------



## Viacheslav

Old Rocks said:


> No, I cannot agree at all. You see, the development of the fast charging glass batteries is going much faster than expected. In less than a decade, the EV's will be less costly than the ICE's, as well as faster and more dependable.



it is very likely that EV will be less than the ICE, but if the number of EVs increases not less than one million a year (this is just a plan for only one Tesla in 2020), it needs to increase the installed "real" power by at least 50 GWh  per year. And without "fossil" energy this is unsolvable.


----------



## Old Rocks

Viacheslav, we have an area hundreds of miles wide from Texas, through the mid-West to the Dakotas and Eastern Montana that has prime wind generation potential. Put in the grids, and we can easily supply that amount just with wind. Our Southwest and Texas has huge solar potential. All it takes is putting in a grid, and there is profit to be made, they will build the solar and turbines.

WINDExchange: U.S. Installed and Potential Wind Power Capacity and Generation


----------



## Old Rocks

*Notable Statistics*
In 2016, the United States solar market produced these key figures:


The U.S. solar market nearly doubled its capacity in 2016 compared to results from 2015.
Solar ranked as the #1 source of new electric generating capacity additions.
Non-residential PV was up 49% from 2015.
For Q2 2017, U.S. solar added 2.4 GW of capacity, making it the second-largest second quarter in history.
The Emerging United States Solar Market | Seeking Alpha

*As the demand for electricity grows with the sale of more and more EV's, you will see more individual households installing residential PV solar in 5 kw and 10 kw packages in the US. That will take care of some of the demand. At the same time, I think that we are going to see and explosion of PV mounted on the roofs of warehouses, malls, industrial, and commercial businesses. A source of income for the businesses, and a source of generation for the utilities for which they do not have to pay the maintenance or installation bill.*


----------



## Grumblenuts

Viacheslav said:


> it is very likely that EV will be less than the ICE, but if the number of EVs increases not less than one million a year (this is just a plan for only one Tesla in 2020), it needs to increase the installed "real" power by at least 50 GWh  per year. And without "fossil" energy this is unsolvable.



What's actually unsolvable is all this desperate, breathless crying in obvious defense of nothing but pure corporate profit for billionaires. Mom/pop investor and corporate tax revenues gained? Who cares? Net great, American, long term jobs generated? _Pffft!_ New technology produced and open sourced, thereby "subsidizing" the entire planet...? _Crickets..._ Apparently couldn't care less.  D_amn the environment and all hope of preserving anything for our children's children. Max waste and pollution full speed ahead!_

And 'Without "fossil" energy'? This one keeps reappearing?.. Who's the putz who asserted that it was ever in danger of disappearing altogether?
_BAAAMP. S_urvey says: Shameless Red Herring!





Putting "fossil" in quotes? As if there were some mystery as to its true meaning or something? _BAAAMP._  Bullshit!
*"Tesla Bankruptcy Looms!" BAAAMP.  Baloney!*


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Grumblenuts said:


> Like running out of gas?
> 
> "Winner" - bwahahaha!


I can walk to a station and get gas.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Old Rocks said:


> *Notable Statistics*
> In 2016, the United States solar market produced these key figures:
> 
> 
> The U.S. solar market nearly doubled its capacity in 2016 compared to results from 2015.
> Solar ranked as the #1 source of new electric generating capacity additions.
> Non-residential PV was up 49% from 2015.
> For Q2 2017, U.S. solar added 2.4 GW of capacity, making it the second-largest second quarter in history.
> The Emerging United States Solar Market | Seeking Alpha
> 
> *As the demand for electricity grows with the sale of more and more EV's, you will see more individual households installing residential PV solar in 5 kw and 10 kw packages in the US. That will take care of some of the demand. At the same time, I think that we are going to see and explosion of PV mounted on the roofs of warehouses, malls, industrial, and commercial businesses. A source of income for the businesses, and a source of generation for the utilities for which they do not have to pay the maintenance or installation bill.*


How well is that going to work now that the massive Obama administration subsidies are gone ?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TheOldSchool said:


> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring


Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia


----------



## TheOldSchool

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
Click to expand...

Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?


----------



## westwall

Viacheslav said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".
Click to expand...






24% is the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar modules.  This should increase as technology improves, but over the last 30 years it hasn't.  My system (which I grant you is ancient) only produces around 11% efficiency, and that on a good day.


----------



## westwall

TheOldSchool said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
Click to expand...






We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> No, I cannot agree at all. You see, the development of the fast charging glass batteries is going much faster than expected. In less than a decade, the EV's will be less costly than the ICE's, as well as faster and more dependable.







And when that wonderful day happens there won't be any need to compel people to change over.  They will do so happily because people aren't dumb.  Unlike your low opinion of them.


----------



## TheOldSchool

westwall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
Click to expand...


Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TheOldSchool said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resources but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed something in my post, the important part where I state that we need to take advantage of our own resources. Electric cars are nowhere near as cost effective as internal combustion


----------



## TheOldSchool

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resources but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have missed something in my post, the important part where I state that we need to take advantage of our own resources. Electric cars are nowhere near as cost effective as internal combustion
Click to expand...

Yeah, and once upon a time horse salesmen were telling people that engines were stupid.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TheOldSchool said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
Click to expand...

No its not, but forcing underperforming technology on the public just so a few can get super rich and feel warm and fuzzy isn't the way a modern society should act


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TheOldSchool said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resources but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have missed something in my post, the important part where I state that we need to take advantage of our own resources. Electric cars are nowhere near as cost effective as internal combustion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and once upon a time horse salesmen were telling people that engines were stupid.
Click to expand...

What ? No one is saying that electric cars are stupid. For now they can't compare to a internal combustion engine.


----------



## TheOldSchool

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No its not, but forcing underperforming technology on the public just so a few can get super rich and feel warm and fuzzy isn't the way a modern society should act
Click to expand...

God you fucks are always such victims 

Let's keep doing it your way to keep your super rich heroes happy:


----------



## flewism

Tesla just has to start delivering cars, today have over 400,000 on backorder and that plant isn't producing shit.
I've seen some of the tooling, and they have plenty of issues. as there tooling is not designed to produce quality in large volumes.
 They were better off with there $150K hand built vehicles.
The market is about to be flooded with electric urban commuter vehicles from both foreign and domestic manufactures .   An100% electric still doesn't work for me for range and charging time, but maybe some day soon.


----------



## westwall

TheOldSchool said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
Click to expand...







The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.


----------



## TheOldSchool

westwall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
Click to expand...

Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.


----------



## westwall

TheOldSchool said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> 
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
Click to expand...









Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.


----------



## TheOldSchool

westwall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.
Click to expand...

Yeah the terrorists all funded by oil are really thrilled that people are working on dropping oil 

God your such a trash poster.


----------



## westwall

TheOldSchool said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the terrorists all funded by oil are really thrilled that people are working on dropping oil
> 
> God your such a trash poster.
Click to expand...







Terrorists funded by oil seek out weak people to attack.  Renewables, as they are now, and for the moderate future, are losers.  They can't compete with fossil fuels.  Thus, a thinking person can figure out that switching over now, before they can compete is stupid, and will weaken us, which will enable those bastards to harm us more.  In other words, moron, it is you who are the "trash poster".

You are divested from reality which is a common problem with morons, like you.


----------



## elektra

Taz said:


> I haven't bought an electric car yet because they don't make sense economically or length-of-trip-wise, for where I live. It'll take another decade or two for them to get it all right. But they are for sure on the right path. They are working on car paint that acts as a solar panel, which for a lot of people, will be enough, ex: drive to work, leave it outside all day, drive home..


I am building a better bridge, it will be ready next year, you want to buy it?


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> What?  What difference does it make as to whether the tow truck is a diesel, gas powered, or an EV? Given what Tesla and others, including Cummins, are doing, in a decade there is a good chance it would be an EV.


What difference does it make? If you have to ask that question you will never understand the answer. Of course you have proven yourself to be indifferent to the facts so there is no reason to answer your question. As in your reply, your answer will be the same to anything I post, either an insult or another belief of what might happen if we only spend $2 trillion dollars a year for the next 30 years (ceres.org and the eia).


----------



## Old Rocks

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Notable Statistics*
> In 2016, the United States solar market produced these key figures:
> 
> 
> The U.S. solar market nearly doubled its capacity in 2016 compared to results from 2015.
> Solar ranked as the #1 source of new electric generating capacity additions.
> Non-residential PV was up 49% from 2015.
> For Q2 2017, U.S. solar added 2.4 GW of capacity, making it the second-largest second quarter in history.
> The Emerging United States Solar Market | Seeking Alpha
> 
> *As the demand for electricity grows with the sale of more and more EV's, you will see more individual households installing residential PV solar in 5 kw and 10 kw packages in the US. That will take care of some of the demand. At the same time, I think that we are going to see and explosion of PV mounted on the roofs of warehouses, malls, industrial, and commercial businesses. A source of income for the businesses, and a source of generation for the utilities for which they do not have to pay the maintenance or installation bill.*
> 
> 
> 
> How well is that going to work now that the massive Obama administration subsidies are gone ?
Click to expand...

Very well, because, even without the subsidies, solar and wind are now cheaper even than dirty coal.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Viacheslav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24% is the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar modules.  This should increase as technology improves, but over the last 30 years it hasn't.  My system (which I grant you is ancient) only produces around 11% efficiency, and that on a good day.
Click to expand...

*Again Mr. Westwall demonstrates his ignorance, or intent to lie. Max efficiency for a silicon single junction panel is about 30%*

Solar Efficiency Limits

Junctions & Band Gaps page. The best modern production silicon cell efficiency is 24% at the cell level and 20% at the module level as reported by SunPower in March of, 2012. In a laboratory, the record solar cell efficiency is held by the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia at 25%.

There are a number of assumptions associated with the SQ Limit that restrict its general applicability to all types of solar cells. Although there are numerous programs underway to find ways around the SQ Limit, it is still applicable to 99.9% of the solar cells on the market today.   







The earliest and most frequent work around to the SQ Limit has been the use of multiple p/n junctions, each one tuned to a different frequency of the solar spectrum. Since sunlight will only react strongly with band gaps roughly the same width as their wavelength, the top layers are made very thin so they are almost transparent to longer wavelengths. This allows the junctions to be stacked, with the layers capturing the shortest wavelengths on top, and the longer wavelength photons passing through them to the lower layers.

The example of a multi-junction cell on the left has a top cell of gallium indium phosphide, then a "tunnel diode junction", and a bottom cell of gallium arsenide. The tunnel junction allows the electrons to flow between the cells and keeps the electric fields of the two cells separate. Most of today's research in multi-junction cells focuses on gallium arsenide as one of the component cells as it has a very desirable band gap.* Performing a calculation using the SQ methodology; a two-layer cell can reach a maximum theoretical efficiency of 42% and three-layer cells 49%. The record for a multi-junction cell is held by the University Of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia at 43% using a five cell tandem approach. *However, the UNSW tandem cell is very expensive. In addition to the cost issue, there are other constraints that make the tandem cells complex. For example, all the layers must be lattice compatible with one another in their crystalline structure and the currents from each individual cell must match the other cells. Multi-junction cells are commercially used in only special applications because their expense currently outweighs any efficiency improvement. At the moment they are used in space where weight is most important and in concentrated PV systems where the sunlight is focused on a very small cell area requiring only small amounts of semiconductors per cell.  






*Multi-junction cells too expensive and difficult to manufacture at present, but a 43% efficient cell would definitely be a game changer.*


----------



## Old Rocks

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are desperate to keep the Middle East’s oil industry roaring
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resources but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to have missed something in my post, the important part where I state that we need to take advantage of our own resources. Electric cars are nowhere near as cost effective as internal combustion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and once upon a time horse salesmen were telling people that engines were stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What ? No one is saying that electric cars are stupid. For now they can't compare to a internal combustion engine.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean your Cadillac can beat the Tesla in every department? LOL


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Viacheslav said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are already experimenting with things like car paint that acts like a solar panel..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’ll never fly becouse  effective area will not be more than two-three square meters, and if the paint has an efficiency of 30% (which is very much), then the cars will have "the installed power of solar charging" 600 -900Wh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the math doesn't add up now, but they're working on it, not just complaining like you folks here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree and I "don't mind" an electric vehicle, Tesla or renewable energy sources, I'm just trying to say that an electric car  isn't  a threat to the "oil reserves".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 24% is the theoretical maximum efficiency for solar modules.  This should increase as technology improves, but over the last 30 years it hasn't.  My system (which I grant you is ancient) only produces around 11% efficiency, and that on a good day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Again Mr. Westwall demonstrates his ignorance, or intent to lie. Max efficiency for a silicon single junction panel is about 30%*
> 
> Solar Efficiency Limits
> 
> Junctions & Band Gaps page. The best modern production silicon cell efficiency is 24% at the cell level and 20% at the module level as reported by SunPower in March of, 2012. In a laboratory, the record solar cell efficiency is held by the University Of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia at 25%.
> 
> There are a number of assumptions associated with the SQ Limit that restrict its general applicability to all types of solar cells. Although there are numerous programs underway to find ways around the SQ Limit, it is still applicable to 99.9% of the solar cells on the market today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The earliest and most frequent work around to the SQ Limit has been the use of multiple p/n junctions, each one tuned to a different frequency of the solar spectrum. Since sunlight will only react strongly with band gaps roughly the same width as their wavelength, the top layers are made very thin so they are almost transparent to longer wavelengths. This allows the junctions to be stacked, with the layers capturing the shortest wavelengths on top, and the longer wavelength photons passing through them to the lower layers.
> 
> The example of a multi-junction cell on the left has a top cell of gallium indium phosphide, then a "tunnel diode junction", and a bottom cell of gallium arsenide. The tunnel junction allows the electrons to flow between the cells and keeps the electric fields of the two cells separate. Most of today's research in multi-junction cells focuses on gallium arsenide as one of the component cells as it has a very desirable band gap.* Performing a calculation using the SQ methodology; a two-layer cell can reach a maximum theoretical efficiency of 42% and three-layer cells 49%. The record for a multi-junction cell is held by the University Of New South Wales (UNSW) in Sydney, Australia at 43% using a five cell tandem approach. *However, the UNSW tandem cell is very expensive. In addition to the cost issue, there are other constraints that make the tandem cells complex. For example, all the layers must be lattice compatible with one another in their crystalline structure and the currents from each individual cell must match the other cells. Multi-junction cells are commercially used in only special applications because their expense currently outweighs any efficiency improvement. At the moment they are used in space where weight is most important and in concentrated PV systems where the sunlight is focused on a very small cell area requiring only small amounts of semiconductors per cell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Multi-junction cells too expensive and difficult to manufacture at present, but a 43% efficient cell would definitely be a game changer.*
Click to expand...









So, where exactly did I lie?  You toss that word out there so frequently yet it always comes down to you who is doing the fibbing.  Be that as it may, my point still stands, the calculated max efficiency is 24%, the uni's results have not been checked by anyone else so that claim is still unconfirmed.  I do agree that a multi junction cell would be cool as hell, but, once again there's that little detail called cost rearing its ugly head yet again.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the terrorists all funded by oil are really thrilled that people are working on dropping oil
> 
> God your such a trash poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists funded by oil seek out weak people to attack.  Renewables, as they are now, and for the moderate future, are losers.  They can't compete with fossil fuels.  Thus, a thinking person can figure out that switching over now, before they can compete is stupid, and will weaken us, which will enable those bastards to harm us more.  In other words, moron, it is you who are the "trash poster".
> 
> You are divested from reality which is a common problem with morons, like you.
Click to expand...

God, do you actually believe the drivel you posted?
*Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions*




*Source: *U.S. Energy Information Administration, _Electric Power Monthly_
Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Looks to me as if the renewables are doing very well by any measure. And how much coal do you see on that chart? LOL


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated goals of the green silly people, are unobtainable without a draconian cut in production on the part of the USA.  This is based on what they want.  It is not my fault that you're too ignorant to understand what their demands entail.
> 
> 
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the terrorists all funded by oil are really thrilled that people are working on dropping oil
> 
> God your such a trash poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists funded by oil seek out weak people to attack.  Renewables, as they are now, and for the moderate future, are losers.  They can't compete with fossil fuels.  Thus, a thinking person can figure out that switching over now, before they can compete is stupid, and will weaken us, which will enable those bastards to harm us more.  In other words, moron, it is you who are the "trash poster".
> 
> You are divested from reality which is a common problem with morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, do you actually believe the drivel you posted?
> *Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Source: *U.S. Energy Information Administration, _Electric Power Monthly_
> Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Looks to me as if the renewables are doing very well by any measure. And how much coal do you see on that chart? LOL
Click to expand...







It's real easy to double your capacity when you begin with such a low number.  Why do you exaggerate the impact?  You got a personal investment you are desperate to protect?


----------



## Old Rocks

"*So, where exactly did I lie*? You toss that word out there so frequently yet it always comes down to you who is doing the fibbing. Be that as it may, my point still stands, the *calculated max efficiency is 24%*, the uni's results have not been checked by anyone else so that claim is still unconfirmed. I do agree that a multi junction cell would be cool as hell, but, once again there's that little detail called cost rearing its ugly head yet again."
Westwall

Solar Efficiency Limits

It was first calculated by William Shockley and Hans Queisser in 1961. A solar cell's energy conversion efficiency is the percentage of power converted from sunlight to electrical energy under "standard test conditions" (STC). The STC conditions approximate solar noon at the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with the surface of the solar cell aimed directly at the sun. *The modern SQ Limit calculation is a maximum efficiency of 33%* for any type of single junction solar cell.* The original calculation by Shockley and Queisser was 30% for a silicon solar cell.*


*Quite a bit of difference between 24% and 30%.*


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Khomeini and Al Baghdadi appreciate your war on new energies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and all the billionaires running your life thank you for being so stupid as to demand that everyone switch over to horribly inefficient systems to enrich them, and help those assholes that you named by weakening this country.  Great job, clown boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah the terrorists all funded by oil are really thrilled that people are working on dropping oil
> 
> God your such a trash poster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorists funded by oil seek out weak people to attack.  Renewables, as they are now, and for the moderate future, are losers.  They can't compete with fossil fuels.  Thus, a thinking person can figure out that switching over now, before they can compete is stupid, and will weaken us, which will enable those bastards to harm us more.  In other words, moron, it is you who are the "trash poster".
> 
> You are divested from reality which is a common problem with morons, like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God, do you actually believe the drivel you posted?
> *Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Source: *U.S. Energy Information Administration, _Electric Power Monthly_
> Solar, natural gas, wind make up most 2016 generation additions - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
> 
> Looks to me as if the renewables are doing very well by any measure. And how much coal do you see on that chart? LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's real easy to double your capacity when you begin with such a low number.  Why do you exaggerate the impact?  You got a personal investment you are desperate to protect?
Click to expand...

LOL What a liar by deflection you are. Total numbers for installation in 2016. Solar  9.5 GW,  Wind  6.8 GW  That is a combined amount added of 16.3 GW. Throw natural gas and nuclear together, and you only get an added 9.1 GW. That is not talking about doubling capacity of any one source, but the amount of generation added by each source in 2016.


----------



## Grumblenuts

*The Oil Industry Needs Taxpayers To Prop Up Nearly Half Of Its New U.S. Drilling*
*A new study shows the oil companies’ addiction to government subsidies — the very thing used by fossil fuel advocates to criticize renewables.*

Read^ then continue to weep like you just don't care.


----------



## Viacheslav

Old Rocks said:


> Viacheslav, we have an area hundreds of miles wide from Texas, through the mid-West to the Dakotas and Eastern Montana that has prime wind generation potential. Put in the grids, and we can easily supply that amount just with wind. Our Southwest and Texas has huge solar potential. All it takes is putting in a grid, and there is profit to be made, they will build the solar and turbines.



Without "buffer battery" its unreliable solution, because you can't guarantee a permanent electricity supply, in Russia we also have good solar and wind potential, but the problems are about the same. And we're talking about the next few years (where Tesla according to their plans will annually produce a million EV) and I doubt that at this time a "super battery" will be invented with a density of energy and cost as that of fossil fuels.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like running out of gas?
> 
> "Winner" - bwahahaha!
> 
> 
> 
> I can walk to a station and get gas.
Click to expand...

Yet you must run to be out of it. Go figure?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TheOldSchool said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not me I want to take advantage of our own resouces but the left doesn't .  Why do you lefties want us reliant on foreign oil ?
> The US now has more oil than Saudi Arabia or Russia
> 
> 
> 
> Already knew that.  Until we do away with oil, all those nutjobs in the Middle East get to fund terrorists with billions of dollars.  Why do you want that to continue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We don't, but the current level of technology for renewables means that we, the first world, would have to devolve to Bronze Age tech to meet the fantasy goals of the green silly people.  That would make us easy pickings for those terrorists you claim to care so much about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dumbfuck, developing new technologies is not "devolving to the bronze age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No its not, but forcing underperforming technology on the public just so a few can get super rich and feel warm and fuzzy isn't the way a modern society should act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God you fucks are always such victims
> 
> Let's keep doing it your way to keep your super rich heroes happy:
Click to expand...

You seem to have a problem with selective cognition. As I've said more than once if we take advantage of our own resources the oil producers of the Middle East can go fuck themselves. When electric cars  become as affordable, reliable and have the range of an internal combustion car.  I'll be the first to trade in any gas burner I may own, unless it's a classic  then the eco-nuts can kiss my ass on that score.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> As I've said more than once if we take advantage of our own resources the oil producers of the Middle East can go fuck themselves.


1. Both here and there, the Sun shines for free.
2. Crude oil is stored, transported, and traded as a global commodity, vastly by multinational (stateless), zero tax paying corporations. There is no "our own". There exists only a tiny cadre of billionaires robbing us all blind, destroying the planet, and corrupting our govts into stupidly and endlessly warring with one another on their behalf... because they are psychotic... will simply never have enough... and we let them get away with it. Many of us even go way out our way to help them screw us. Go figure.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> "*So, where exactly did I lie*? You toss that word out there so frequently yet it always comes down to you who is doing the fibbing. Be that as it may, my point still stands, the *calculated max efficiency is 24%*, the uni's results have not been checked by anyone else so that claim is still unconfirmed. I do agree that a multi junction cell would be cool as hell, but, once again there's that little detail called cost rearing its ugly head yet again."
> Westwall
> 
> Solar Efficiency Limits
> 
> It was first calculated by William Shockley and Hans Queisser in 1961. A solar cell's energy conversion efficiency is the percentage of power converted from sunlight to electrical energy under "standard test conditions" (STC). The STC conditions approximate solar noon at the spring and autumn equinoxes in the continental United States with the surface of the solar cell aimed directly at the sun. *The modern SQ Limit calculation is a maximum efficiency of 33%* for any type of single junction solar cell.* The original calculation by Shockley and Queisser was 30% for a silicon solar cell.*
> 
> 
> *Quite a bit of difference between 24% and 30%.*









Wow, I am a few years out of date.  Not exactly a lie as when i was doing the research for my solar modules that was the number.  Forgive me for not being as up to date as you wish.  Far, far from an intentional lie clown boy.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said more than once if we take advantage of our own resources the oil producers of the Middle East can go fuck themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Both here and there, the Sun shines for free.
> 2. Crude oil is stored, transported, and traded as a global commodity, vastly by multinational (stateless), zero tax paying corporations. There is no "our own". There exists only a tiny cadre of billionaires robbing us all blind, destroying the planet, and corrupting our govts into stupidly and endlessly warring with one another on their behalf... because they are psychotic... will simply never have enough... and we let them get away with it. Many of us even go way out our way to help them screw us. Go figure.
Click to expand...







And if solar were the end all and be all you claim IT WOULD ALREADY BE THE DOMINANT ENERGY SOURCE ON THE PLANET.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Grumblenuts said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I've said more than once if we take advantage of our own resources the oil producers of the Middle East can go fuck themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Both here and there, the Sun shines for free.
> 2. Crude oil is stored, transported, and traded as a global commodity, vastly by multinational (stateless), zero tax paying corporations. There is no "our own". There exists only a tiny cadre of billionaires robbing us all blind, destroying the planet, and corrupting our govts into stupidly and endlessly warring with one another on their behalf... because they are psychotic... will simply never have enough... and we let them get away with it. Many of us even go way out our way to help them screw us. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Solar power for the time being does not have the efficiency or output that fossil fuels do. The sun doesn't shine 24/7 and storage capacity needs serious improvement,  and solar will never be able to touch nuclear. 

I'm curious how are the Billionaires robbing you or anyone else.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> And if solar were the end all and be all you claim


What did I claim now? Got a quote? Any clothes on at all? No?.. SHOCKING!


----------



## HenryBHough

If you're 3 years old...OK, maybe 12...and plan to stay in the house YOU personally own right now for the next 15 or so years then, yeah, you might break even on solar.  But if you wait much longer to dump the house on the market you'll have to replace those spendy batteries to get a sale moving and then you might as well settle in for another decade or so.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Solar power for the time being does not have the efficiency or output that fossil fuels do.


That's so incoherent it's no wonder you provide no evidence attempting to support it. But never let clarity stop you..

Efficiency you say? An array of solar panels converts free sunlight immediately and directly into substantial electrical power. In terms of creating shaft power you can probably only get more "efficient" with a wind turbine. But, like fossil fuels, the wind itself is a byproduct of sunlight. An *installed* solar panel requires no gasoline, lubrication, gas can, walk to a gas station, special bridge/highway, tanker ride, pipeline, permanent federal subsidy, drilling, blasting, enormous storage tank, scrubber, ... and on,.. and on...

But, clearly you two are shameless, clueless, or both.


----------



## Grumblenuts

HenryBHough said:


> If you're 3 years old...OK, maybe 12...and plan to stay in the house YOU personally own right now for the next 15 or so years then, yeah, you might break even on solar.  But if you wait much longer to dump the house on the market you'll have to replace those spendy batteries to get a sale moving and then you might as well settle in for another decade or so.


Actually, if you want an easy, cost effective way to increase the resale value of your home? Call Tesla. Then shop around. They'll negotiate such a satisfactory deal that you can literally take it to the bank.


----------



## Grumblenuts

By the way, I have a solar powered home. No batteries. SHOCKING, I know.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Grumblenuts said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Solar power for the time being does not have the efficiency or output that fossil fuels do.
> 
> 
> 
> That's so incoherent it's no wonder you provide no evidence attempting to support it. But never let clarity stop you..
> 
> Efficiency you say? An array of solar panels converts free sunlight immediately and directly into substantial electrical power. In terms of creating shaft power you can probably only get more "efficient" with a wind turbine. But, like fossil fuels, the wind itself is a byproduct of sunlight. An *installed* solar panel requires no gasoline, lubrication, gas can, walk to a gas station, special bridge/highway, tanker ride, pipeline, permanent federal subsidy, drilling, blasting, enormous storage tank, scrubber, ... and on,.. and on...
> 
> But, clearly you two are shameless, clueless, or both.
Click to expand...

Most solar panel only convert 14% of the energy that reaches them that number drops significantly on cloudy days. No sun no power. Wind turbines are great unless there's no wind. It's a fact neither of these can produce power as reliably or as efficiently as fossil fuels or nuclear power.


----------



## Windparadox

`
According to my portfolio accountant, Tesla is still very viable investment. I also happen to own a couple of Tesla "Powerwall" batteries which perform flawlessly, so I may be bias in that respect.


----------



## Grumblenuts

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> No sun no power. Wind turbines are great unless there's no wind.


Gee, no fossil or nuclear fuel, no power! No sunlight, no fossil fuel to begin with! Actual logic. SHOCKING! I know.


> It's a fact neither of these can produce power as reliably or as efficiently as fossil fuels or nuclear power.


Again, incoherent. Define your terms "reliably" and "efficiently" unambiguously - then scientifically compare each attribute side by side... Careful - requires honesty and some actual caring. One can't get more cheap and reliable than the Sun. Even only 14% of something free and reliable is still something free and reliable. Beats 25% of something costly and of questionable reliability any day. Remember Enron? If you can't afford the electricity. what good is it? Now you know where the people you're copying from got the idea (_Tesla cars cost too damn much - bad - waah!_) from in the first place. The stole it. Just like they stole everything else.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Windparadox said:


> `
> According to my portfolio accountant, Tesla is still very viable investment. I also happen to own a couple of Tesla "Powerwall" batteries which perform flawlessly, so I may be bias in that respect.


Oh no, not another one biased toward facts! 
How about green energy stocks in general these days compared to the polluters? Haven't been following it lately.


----------



## Old Rocks

As you can see in the charts above and table below, renewable energy absolutely dominated to electricity generation capacity in the USA in Q1 2016, even more so than it did in Q1 2015.

Renewables = 99% Of New Electricity Capacity In Q1 2016 In USA (CleanTechnica Electricity Reports) | CleanTechnica

*Seems a bunch of someones like wind and solar.*


----------



## Viacheslav

The "patient" is rather alive than dead. 



> Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
> In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).
> 
> Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.
> 
> Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.
> 
> The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.


Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers


----------



## Syriusly

Viacheslav said:


> The "patient" is rather alive than dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
> In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).
> 
> Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.
> 
> Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.
> 
> The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers
Click to expand...


Stock Market doesn't seem to think there is an impending bankruptcy.
343.45USD5.56 (1.65%)
After-hours: 343.010.13%


----------



## Viacheslav

> *Tesla Model 3 quality is terrible, but will it matter to buyers?*
> 
> So we've finally had the chance to spend time with a 2018 Tesla Model 3, courtesy of a generous and devoted _Green Car Reports_ reader.
> We'll have our first-drive report and a full review of the car within a day or two—but that's not what this article is about.
> The build quality of the early Model 3 we tested in late February was, in a word, appalling.
> 
> Before we were even able to visit the owner, the car had to go back to the Tesla service center to have the central touchscreen replaced.
> You know, the one required to control virtually any aspect of the car except for turn signals, headlights, and wipers?
> The car we drove was configured in early January, and received a Vehicle Identification Number (between 4200 and 4300) in mid-January. It was delivered the last week of the month.
> As the owner wrote to us:
> 
> _We took delivery of our Model 3 today. It looked like everything was working OK until we got within about 10 miles of the house. That was when the touchscreen started to malfunction._
> 
> _It is getting random touches along the right side of the screen. The worst part is that the stereo will go to full volume without notice. It also makes the map and navigation mostly useless. I called Tesla and they had me try rebooting the screen several times.  _
> 
> _Unfortunately it didn't resolve the issue. They said they would call me back [within 24 hours] to attempt a software update or to schedule a service call. Nothing like paying $50,000 to be a beta tester. Again.
> _
> He later added, "It also causes problems charging, as the charging screen pops up and it constantly presses the button in the upper right corner that stops and starts charging."
> Also, "I have found the car twice in the garage, locked, with the stereo blasting at full volume for who knows how long."
> In the end, Tesla replaced the screen and the new unit seemed to function properly. We scheduled our test drive for a couple of weeks later.
> During the test itself, two things became clear: The Model 3 works largely as intended, and the build quality was the worst we have seen on any new car from any maker over the last 10 years.
> The flaws and defects broke down into two categories: those that affected the functioning of the car or the owner's driving experience, and those that didn't.
> The first group included:The defective touchscreen and all the follow-on effects (above)
> 
> Persistent creaks and groans from the console or dash
> An intermittent loud buzz from the upper right-hand center door pillar at highway speeds on some road surfaces
> A steering vibration (in a car with just 1,000 miles)


Tesla Model 3 quality is terrible, but will it matter to buyers?

I think that these were the expected "problems" for the "new man" in the "mass" automobile industry.


----------



## Grumblenuts

The complaint quality here by our anti-America biased, Tesla hating contingent has been, in a word, appalling.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> The complaint quality here by our anti-America biased, Tesla hating contingent has been, in a word, appalling.









That's funny, you don't defend any of the bad actions, and terrible quality of Tesla, and instead merely attack those who point out the flaws and the fact that tesla has never turned a profit.  How a company can still command the stock prices it does, when it has never turned a profit in ANY year of its existence is more a testament of how gullible people are, and how they will still fall for Ponzi schemes, even when they have all the information they could ever want at their fingertips.


----------



## Grumblenuts

"Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> "Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.







Oh?  What is "at stake" here?


----------



## Syriusly

Syriusly said:


> Viacheslav said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "patient" is rather alive than dead.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
> In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).
> 
> Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.
> 
> Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.
> 
> The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stock Market doesn't seem to think there is an impending bankruptcy.
> 343.45USD5.56 (1.65%)
> After-hours: 343.010.13%
Click to expand...


Still no impending bankruptcy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  What is "at stake" here?
Click to expand...

Fails to address several direct, simple questions? Check!
Sig line reveals to be proud climate science denier? Check!
So doesn't care? Check! 

Well, I would try to explain some of what's at stake here, but you would simply deny it and most everyone who would listen already knows. The future of all life on Earth to be blunt. But you don't care about that, do you? Just admit it.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  What is "at stake" here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fails to address several direct, simple questions? Check!
> Sig line reveals to be proud climate science denier? Check!
> So doesn't care? Check!
> 
> Well, I would try to explain some of what's at stake here, but you would simply deny it and most everyone who would listen already knows. The future of all life on Earth to be blunt. But you don't care about that, do you? Just admit it.
Click to expand...








If you make the claim that there is something truly at stake then you have to present evidence to support that contention.  I can show you chapter and verse that hybrids like the Prius are more harmful to the environment than a Ford F-150.  I can show you chapter and verse that biofuels are horrible for the environment.  A new study shows beyond doubt that organic cotton grocery bags do more harm to the environment than the plastic bags they are replacing.  You don't care about any of that because your motives are good.  I WANT a clean world, I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.


Simply repeating your ridiculous claims above, thereby lending them undue credence, fits that description to a tee: "to engage in behaviors that are harmful" regardless of what you really know or how deliberately you spread all this denier propaganda. Seem hard core though. Quite shameless indeed.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> Simply repeating your ridiculous claims above, thereby lending them undue credence, fits that description to a tee: "to engage in behaviors that are harmful" regardless of what you really know or how deliberately you spread all this denier propaganda. Seem hard core though. Quite shameless indeed.
Click to expand...







Here's just one example of how greenies get it wrong...



"For at least a few decades, Americans have been drilled in the superiority of tote bags. Reusable bags are good, we’re told, because they’re friendly for the environment. Disposable bags, on the other hand, are dangerous. Municipalities across the country have moved to restrict the consumption of plastic shopping bags to avoid waste. Many businesses have stopped offering plastic sacks, or provide them for a modest but punitive price. Bag-recycling programs have been introduced nationwide.

But canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace. In 2008, the UK Environment Agency (UKEA) published a study of resource expenditures for various bags: paper, plastic, canvas, and recycled-polypropylene tote bags. Surprisingly, the authors found that in typical patterns of use and disposal, consumers seeking to minimize pollution and carbon emissions should use plastic grocery bags and then reuse those bags at least once—as trash-can liners or for other secondary tasks. Conventional plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, the plastic sacks found at grocery stores) had the smallest per-use environmental impact of all those tested. Cotton tote bags, by contrast, exhibited the highest and most severe global-warming potential by far since they require more resources to produce and distribute.

Such results feel deeply counterintuitive. HDPE bags seem foreign, artificial. They lodge in trees, catch in the esophagi of animals, fester in landfills, clot cities, and are reduced to small particles floating in ocean gyres—for hundreds of years into the future. But even though they don’t easily degrade, they require very few resources to manufacture and transport. They produce less carbon, waste, and byproducts than cotton or paper bags. They’re recyclable. They’re cheap. For all those reasons, they’re ubiquitous. And they remain, long after their usefulness is exhausted.

The UKEA study calculated an expenditure of a little less than two kilograms of carbon per HDPE bag. For paper bags, seven uses would be needed to achieve the same per-use ratio. Tote bags made from recycled polypropylene plastic require 26, and cotton tote bags require 327 uses. (Although they weren’t included in the study, one can presume that designer totes, made with leather adornments, metal, and so on drive the required number of uses into basically astronomical numbers.)



*Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006*
A study to assess the life cycle environmental impacts of carrier bags for the UK in 2006

Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006 - GOV.UK


----------



## Grumblenuts

Link (to phony controversy story)


> The 96-page report comes amid an ongoing controversy over plastic bags and plans by Wales to introduce a 5p plastic bag tax in October.
> 
> Six billion plastic bags are used across the UK annually and there is no doubt that they cause environmental problems such as litter and marine pollution as well as using up oil, and limiting their use and re-using them reduces their harm.
> 
> However the new report suggests that if shoppers to switch to alternatives, they have to use those time and time again to be greener.


Like, Duh! That's been the idea all along, Sherlock. Stop immediately tossing brand new stuff away after a single use.

_Oh, well I work for the packaging industry so creating ever more packages must be good! Must be you bastards reusing your bags who are evil or stupid or something!
_
There will always be clowns.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> But canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace.


And... nothing. You can read on until you're blue in the face. Nothing. Not a hint of scientific evidence or reasoning provided to prompt such a wacko assertion. Pure propaganda. No doubt brought to you - indirectly, underhandedly, corruptly - by Big Oil and the single use package manufacturing industry. You done been snookered, son. And no doubt, again, the irony was lost.


----------



## westwall

Grumblenuts said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> But canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace.
> 
> 
> 
> And... nothing. You can read on until you're blue in the face. Nothing. Not a hint of scientific evidence or reasoning provided to prompt such a wacko assertion. Pure propaganda. No doubt brought to you - indirectly, underhandedly, corruptly - by Big Oil and the single use package manufacturing industry. You done been snookered, son. And no doubt, again, the irony was lost.
Click to expand...









Didn't even bother to read the study did you.  Typical progressive loon.  The study is well documented and takes into account all the little details that you morons always ignore in your diatribes.  You know, like water usage to grow the cotton, the pesticides that aren't used so the amount of crops that are lost because of that withe the commensurate loss of product, and the need to grow more etc. etc. etc.  

In other words, a well thought out study that you ignore for political reasons because those facts blow your religious values out of the water.  You anti science, religious nutjobs, are all the same.


----------



## Grumblenuts

westwall said:


> In other words, a well thought out study that you ignore for political reasons because those facts blow your religious values out of the water. You anti science, religious nutjobs, are all the same.


Wow, probably your entire biography in a nutshell. Such projection! And, again, sadly, the irony is no doubt lost. Climate science denier cries whaa?? Derails topic with whaa?? Pulls a single "study" out of whaa?? Makes a mountain out of whaa?? Rationally asserts whaa?? Tesla going bankrupt whaa??


> The results, published today in_ Scientific Reports_, reveal that the GPGP, defined as the area with more than 10 kg of plastic per km2, measures 1.6 million square kilometers, three times the size of continental France. Accumulated in this area are 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic, weighing 80,000 metric tons, the equivalent of 500 Jumbo Jets. These figures are four to sixteen times higher than previous estimates.


_^See, stupid greenies, that obviously beats everyone reusing their own cotton bag_


----------



## Grumblenuts

> That’s because eating plastic, which contains several harmful chemicals, can be toxic, so the birds and fish that eat it and the humans who in turn eat them can suffer health problems.
> 
> It is a particularly difficult problem to stop because the discarded plastic collects algae that smells to birds like seafood, according to a 2016 UC Davis study. Other studies have shown that as many as 90 percent of seabirds have plastic in their guts.


----------

