# Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50



## ScienceRocks

*Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*

Quote


> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.


It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!


----------



## MikeK

How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?  

Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.


----------



## Sunni Man

How much do they cost?

How many years will they last before needing replacement?

You do realize that Tesla is trying to become one of those big evil corporations you always rant about?        ......


----------



## Ringel05

In the US unit cost, inverter plus installation is around $7000, basically it's an ion battery backup system but it still isn't powerful enough to run energy hogs like air conditioners and driers.  Solar panels can store collected energy in it but solar panels are typically much more efficient in the southwest where average sunshine is high and their ability to produce useful electricity is still limited requiring multiple large panels to help offset grid electrical usage not replace it.  My house would require 54 solar panels to run 100% of my monthly usage based on my peak usage. 
Doesn't mean it's not currently viable for some applications/individuals or that the technology and cost won't improve a few more years down the road, one simply must research whether it's a currently viable option for them or not.


----------



## IsaacNewton

Matthew said:


> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
Click to expand...


I find it strange that the oil and coal companies could have been the ones leading the way to new clean renewables and would now be in the position to dominate the new emerging markets for this energy which will soon be the entire human race as prices continue to drop precipitously for renewable energy types, but they chose the 'we're lazy and don't want to do any more work than sucking stuff out of the ground and getting paid for it' path. 

They are dinosaurs now and will fade into history, bitching and screaming the whole way no doubt but even they know their days are numbered. 

Tesla just invented the steamboat and all the makers of sails are complaining about losing their jobs. Capitalism is a bitch for the slow and the dead, id'n it.


----------



## Old Rocks

There are many utilities using politics to fight the installation and use of solar and home batteries. They are operating on a losing plan. The utilities that will win, are those that regard the home solar as another generation source, and create a distributed grid to take advantage of it. The price of solar is at present far lower than was anticipated a decade ago, and is continuing to decline. In the meantime, Tesla is not alone in seeing the opportunities in the home batteries, and will have competition in the near future. A plus for us all.


----------



## Ringel05

Old Rocks said:


> There are many utilities using politics to fight the installation and use of solar and home batteries. They are operating on a losing plan. The utilities that will win, are those that regard the home solar as another generation source, and create a distributed grid to take advantage of it. The price of solar is at present far lower than was anticipated a decade ago, and is continuing to decline. In the meantime, Tesla is not alone in seeing the opportunities in the home batteries, and will have competition in the near future. A plus for us all.


There are also currently a few ways people can (sometimes substantially) reduce their energy costs, shading west and east windows with deciduous trees or even retractable awnings, heavy (insulated) lined curtains and draperies.  In cold climes have at least R30 insulation in the attic and seal as many air leaks as possible, in the hotter southern climes tile floors do help keep rooms cooler, wall to wall carpeting traps heat.  
At Fort Stanton where I currently do 1800s living histories the original buildings have 14" thick stone walls, 10 to 12' ceilings and double hung windows and high peaked gable roofs with wide overhanging eaves. During the summer the interior is usually 10 to 20 degrees cooler than the outside depending on how breezy it is and there is no air conditioning.  
Since we're in the desert southwest it's relatively dry so evaporative cooling works well until the temps get above 95 degrees then the AC units get fired up as evaporative cooling typically only cools the house to around 10 degrees cooler than the outside air.  The only other drawback to evaporative cooling is humidity levels, it works best as long as the relative humidity is below 35%, from July through August is the monsoon season down here often raising the humidity levels to 50% or more, it's also the hottest time of the year so unfortunately the AC gets used more often than not.


----------



## Ringel05

Oops, don't know what I was thinking with that last post when I stated gable roofs.  Those are better in cold climes, hip roofs allow for a wide overhanging eave all around the structure providing more shade.
Also in wet hilly/mountainous regions with a natural source of constant flowing sufficient water and sufficient drop a properly designed Pelton turbine (micro hydraulic generator) can produce enough electricity to fully power a house year round.


----------



## docmauser1

IsaacNewton said:


> ... Tesla just invented the steamboat ...


The Titanic 2?


----------



## elektra

15k for the Tesla Powerwall, plus another 25k for the solar panels! 40k investment for a 60.00 a month electric bill? No mention of the subsidies either. Traditional power companies love these things. You have to build them with heavy industry, where power companies make their profit.


----------



## Old Rocks

*What a fucked up liar you continue to be, Ms Elektra. The cost for the 10 kw/hr battery is $3500.*

Tesla Starts Off 2016 By Producing & Delivering Powerwall

Tesla is off to an early start in 2016, thanks to its Powerwall battery energy storage system. Tesla global communications director Khobi Brooklyn recently stated that Tesla Powerwalls were already being made and shipped.

Last year, Tesla launched its anticipated product to discuss one of the major questions with regards to solar energy: storage. Tesla’s Powerwall comes in two models: 7 kWh and 10 kWh. Both systems target residential homeowners, to store extra solar electricity or for backup/electricity security. Tesla’s utility-scale energy storage product can be much bigger, of course. It’s geared for businesses that are looking to store large backup amounts of solar electricity or wind electricity, or simply electricity.

The cost for Tesla’s 7kWh Powerwall is $3,000, while the 10kWh one is $3500.


----------



## Old Rocks

Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems

A five kw system for about 10K. And that is everything.


----------



## flacaltenn

Matthew said:


> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
Click to expand...


Math doesn't work out. If that's a MONTHLY bill, at 7KWhr of storage, that $3.5 a day or $105 a month even if the electricity he had to buy at night was priced at $0.50/KWhr..  This is not believable at all. 

At $0.25/KWhr -- in the US -- that toxic battery box would take 14000 KWhr or 1400 nights to "pay" for itself.  IF you're solar installation is sized at about 2.5 times what you need during the day. !!!!!

Problem with Greenies is that they lie and suck at math..


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> *What a fucked up liar you continue to be, Ms Elektra. The cost for the 10 kw/hr battery is $3500.*



My source is the source that Matthew gave for this thread. If am a, "fucked up liar", then this is entire thread is a "fucked up lie". If this thread is a fucked up lie, your pro-renewable energy position is fucked up position.

Old Crock, you are simply fucked up, it is as easy as PIE to prove why (pie is an old joke between me and crock). Matthew's link states the price of just the Powerwall at $14k, I quote the article and Old Crock is pissed at me? Now that is simply fucked up in the head.

Good job Old Crock, I agree, the Tesla Powerwall is a fucked up lie.


----------



## elektra

The installation price of just the Powerwall is extreme, according to Matthews source, which is what this thread is based upon.

What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall



> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.


----------



## elektra

The payback time is very long, 6-7 years, again according to the article, which is using peak electrical rates for the calculation. Obviously, for over half the year Australians are not charged the peak rate, but who cares for this simple arguement. 

What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall



> “If the Pfitzner family keeps their energy consumption the same, they should expect to see a complete payback period of between six or seven years,” he said.


----------



## elektra

Funny thing is, there is no guarantee that the Tesla Powerwall will last 6-7 years. There is an implied guarantee that lithium batteries do degrade significantly over time. Every 6-7 years at the least, you will scrap this battery. More if you use it more, like to power your home.


----------



## elektra

It is apparent, Green Energy's/Renewable Power's great lithium hope, has already failed.

Is the Tesla Powerwall a failure in Australia with a whopping price of $16,500? - Quora


> With Origin's total system cost of $16,500, one  has a payback time of just over 24 years, or 2.4 times the warranty period.


----------



## Old Rocks

The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Funny thing is, there is no guarantee that the Tesla Powerwall will last 6-7 years. There is an implied guarantee that lithium batteries do degrade significantly over time. Every 6-7 years at the least, you will scrap this battery. More if you use it more, like to power your home.


*Once again, you pull numbers out of your ass, and they stink.*

read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com

If a person spent $3500 on the Powerwall and another $1500 on the inverter, it would take ten years (simple payback) for the unit to pay for itself. Since it has a 10 year warranty (and so do most inverters), it’s a break even situation at best.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.


I quoted the source in this thread, so you are a fucking liar, Old Crock. But that is the classic Liberal Democrat two step, when caught in one lie, start another lie. You could never power a home with Tesla batteries, one they are not designed to power homes and thus you will void the warranty. Two, it would be very unsafe, most likely you will burn down your house. They have problems powering cell phones with rechargeable batteries, now Old Crock makes the ridiculous claim that a Tesla Battery can power a house. Telsa does not even go that far!


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny thing is, there is no guarantee that the Tesla Powerwall will last 6-7 years. There is an implied guarantee that lithium batteries do degrade significantly over time. Every 6-7 years at the least, you will scrap this battery. More if you use it more, like to power your home.
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again, you pull numbers out of your ass, and they stink.*
> 
> read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com
> 
> If a person spent $3500 on the Powerwall and another $1500 on the inverter, it would take ten years (simple payback) for the unit to pay for itself. Since it has a 10 year warranty (and so do most inverters), it’s a break even situation at best.
Click to expand...

The numbers are in the link Matthew gave, the only thing in anyone's ass, is Old Crock's head up his ass, how you get it by your hemorrhoids is something none of want to know.


----------



## Old Rocks

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Math doesn't work out. If that's a MONTHLY bill, at 7KWhr of storage, that $3.5 a day or $105 a month even if the electricity he had to buy at night was priced at $0.50/KWhr..  This is not believable at all.
> 
> At $0.25/KWhr -- in the US -- that toxic battery box would take 14000 KWhr or 1400 nights to "pay" for itself.  IF you're solar installation is sized at about 2.5 times what you need during the day. !!!!!
> 
> Problem with Greenies is that they lie and suck at math..
Click to expand...

And you would prefer lead acid storage batteries? No, it is not a toxic box, no more than the many batteries I have for the devices I own are toxic cylinders. Don't know why you are parroting the "Conservative" line, but that line sucks, and has no truth.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the source in this thread, so you are a fucking liar, Old Crock. But that is the classic Liberal Democrat two step, when caught in one lie, start another lie. You could never power a home with Tesla batteries, one they are not designed to power homes and thus you will void the warranty. Two, it would be very unsafe, most likely you will burn down your house. They have problems powering cell phones with rechargeable batteries, now Old Crock makes the ridiculous claim that a Tesla Battery can power a house. Telsa does not even go that far!
Click to expand...

*read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com*

*Batteries Included; Inverter Not*
The first thing to note is that the Powerwall does not include an inverter - it’s just the battery bank, charge controller, and a liquid thermal control system that allows the unit to withstand temperatures from -20C (-4F) to 43C (110F). Tesla says that the device is compatible with “a growing list of inverters” without specifying which brands or models. The Powerwall can deliver 2 kW of continuous power and 3.3 kW of peak power. An inverter capable of handling that costs around $1500, give or take a few hundred. That brings the price tag up to $5000, not including installation. (It must be installed by a qualified electrician.) Powerwalls can be combined to create up to 90 kWh of storage - enough to meet the needs of virtually any residential customer.



*Efficiency and Effective Storage*
The storage system has a round-trip DC-DC efficiency of 92%. Factor in the typical efficiency of a good inverter, around 95%, and we’re looking at a total round-trip efficiency of 87%. That 10 kWh battery, for all practical purposes, provides 8.7 kWh of AC electricity.


*Can You Power Your House with It?*
The Powerwall provides three services to residential users who are on the grid: load shifting, photovoltaic (PV) storage, and backup power.


*Load Shifting*
In this application the battery charges during non-peak hours when the rates are low, and provides power during peak hours when rates are high. For customers enrolled in time-of-day (ToD) pricing plans, this can be a significant cost saver. 


Let’s do the math on that using actual ToD numbers from a US power company and assuming the battery is delivering power during the entire stretch of peak hours.

*So a for real engineer, one with a Phd in the field, says it can power a house, but you state that it cannot. LOL Oh my, who is one going to believe?*


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the source in this thread, so you are a fucking liar, Old Crock. But that is the classic Liberal Democrat two step, when caught in one lie, start another lie. You could never power a home with Tesla batteries, one they are not designed to power homes and thus you will void the warranty. Two, it would be very unsafe, most likely you will burn down your house. They have problems powering cell phones with rechargeable batteries, now Old Crock makes the ridiculous claim that a Tesla Battery can power a house. Telsa does not even go that far!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com*
> 
> *Batteries Included; Inverter Not*
> The first thing to note is that the Powerwall does not include an inverter - it’s just the battery bank, charge controller, and a liquid thermal control system that allows the unit to withstand temperatures from -20C (-4F) to 43C (110F). Tesla says that the device is compatible with “a growing list of inverters” without specifying which brands or models. The Powerwall can deliver 2 kW of continuous power and 3.3 kW of peak power. An inverter capable of handling that costs around $1500, give or take a few hundred. That brings the price tag up to $5000, not including installation. (It must be installed by a qualified electrician.) Powerwalls can be combined to create up to 90 kWh of storage - enough to meet the needs of virtually any residential customer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Efficiency and Effective Storage*
> The storage system has a round-trip DC-DC efficiency of 92%. Factor in the typical efficiency of a good inverter, around 95%, and we’re looking at a total round-trip efficiency of 87%. That 10 kWh battery, for all practical purposes, provides 8.7 kWh of AC electricity.
> 
> 
> *Can You Power Your House with It?*
> The Powerwall provides three services to residential users who are on the grid: load shifting, photovoltaic (PV) storage, and backup power.
> 
> 
> *Load Shifting*
> In this application the battery charges during non-peak hours when the rates are low, and provides power during peak hours when rates are high. For customers enrolled in time-of-day (ToD) pricing plans, this can be a significant cost saver.
> 
> 
> Let’s do the math on that using actual ToD numbers from a US power company and assuming the battery is delivering power during the entire stretch of peak hours.
> 
> *So a for real engineer, one with a Phd in the field, says it can power a house, but you state that it cannot. LOL Oh my, who is one going to believe?*
Click to expand...

Are you about done, huffing and puffing Old Crock, we would not want a guy of your age to have a heart attack on his computer keyboard. You have supported this thread and Matthew, you have argued with those who have disagreed with this thread. Now I have used Matthew's source, which you agree with, for my source of the cost, and you somehow think I am wrong but the thread and source you have been arguing in favor of is right? You can't have it both ways dumb ass! 

Once again for the Old Man, Old Crock, from the link given by matthew. 
What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall


> *When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.*


----------



## Lewdog

What kind of price can you put on saving the world's environment?  Even if it was a wash, you get two distinct benefits, first you are helping the environment, and secondly you are no longer grid dependent and have to worry if someone knocks down an electric pole that your electricity will be out for a couple of days.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the source in this thread, so you are a fucking liar, Old Crock. But that is the classic Liberal Democrat two step, when caught in one lie, start another lie. You could never power a home with Tesla batteries, one they are not designed to power homes and thus you will void the warranty. Two, it would be very unsafe, most likely you will burn down your house. They have problems powering cell phones with rechargeable batteries, now Old Crock makes the ridiculous claim that a Tesla Battery can power a house. Telsa does not even go that far!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com*
> 
> *Batteries Included; Inverter Not*
> The first thing to note is that the Powerwall does not include an inverter - it’s just the battery bank, charge controller, and a liquid thermal control system that allows the unit to withstand temperatures from -20C (-4F) to 43C (110F). Tesla says that the device is compatible with “a growing list of inverters” without specifying which brands or models. The Powerwall can deliver 2 kW of continuous power and 3.3 kW of peak power. An inverter capable of handling that costs around $1500, give or take a few hundred. That brings the price tag up to $5000, not including installation. (It must be installed by a qualified electrician.) Powerwalls can be combined to create up to 90 kWh of storage - enough to meet the needs of virtually any residential customer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Efficiency and Effective Storage*
> The storage system has a round-trip DC-DC efficiency of 92%. Factor in the typical efficiency of a good inverter, around 95%, and we’re looking at a total round-trip efficiency of 87%. That 10 kWh battery, for all practical purposes, provides 8.7 kWh of AC electricity.
> 
> 
> *Can You Power Your House with It?*
> The Powerwall provides three services to residential users who are on the grid: load shifting, photovoltaic (PV) storage, and backup power.
> 
> 
> *Load Shifting*
> In this application the battery charges during non-peak hours when the rates are low, and provides power during peak hours when rates are high. For customers enrolled in time-of-day (ToD) pricing plans, this can be a significant cost saver.
> 
> 
> Let’s do the math on that using actual ToD numbers from a US power company and assuming the battery is delivering power during the entire stretch of peak hours.
> 
> *So a for real engineer, one with a Phd in the field, says it can power a house, but you state that it cannot. LOL Oh my, who is one going to believe?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you about done, huffing and puffing Old Crock, we would not want a guy of your age to have a heart attack on his computer keyboard. You have supported this thread and Matthew, you have argued with those who have disagreed with this thread. Now I have used Matthew's source, which you agree with, for my source of the cost, and you somehow think I am wrong but the thread and source you have been arguing in favor of is right? You can't have it both ways dumb ass!
> 
> Once again for the Old Man, Old Crock, from the link given by matthew.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> *When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*And you continue to be a lying dumb fuck. That price is for Australia. The price that a US citizen in the US would have to pay is $3500, according to this*;

read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com

The 7-kWh model costs $3,000, while the 10-kWh version is $3,500. Both come with a 10-year warranty, according to Tesla, although details of the warranty have yet to be spelled out. If purchased with a photovoltaic (PV) system and recharged primarily through the PV array, Powerwall could be eligible for the 30 percent solar investment tax credit, the BTS report notes.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

MikeK said:


> How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?
> 
> Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.



Those panels were incredibly inefficient compared to those produced today. What if the government stopped giving money to companies like Solyndra, that was over $500 billion by the way, and gave it to scientist to actually advance the research to improve the technology. So.ar can provide a large amount of energy for the world, but the government needs to approach it likesendi g a man to the moon and stop tying to support companies, instead support research and development.


----------



## Old Rocks

BuckToothMoron said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?
> 
> Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those panels were incredibly inefficient compared to those produced today. What if the government stopped giving money to companies like Solyndra, that was over $500 billion by the way, and gave it to scientist to actually advance the research to improve the technology. So.ar can provide a large amount of energy for the world, but the government needs to approach it likesendi g a man to the moon and stop tying to support companies, instead support research and development.
Click to expand...

*Your claim is about three orders of magnitude too high.*

Solyndra - Wikipedia

Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[22] By 2014 the loan program had wiped out its losses, including a $528 million loss from Solyndra, and was operating in the black.[23] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[24]

Following the bankruptcy, the government was expected to recoup $27 million under the Solyndra restructuring plan, or up to 100% of loaned funds from a $1.5 billion lawsuit filed against Chinese solar-panel makers for alleged price fixing.[2] The outcome of the lawsuits were that: In November 2015 Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $7.5 million; in April 2016 Trina Solar Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $45 million; as of April 2016, Solyndra's suit against Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd. has not yet settled.[25]


----------



## Lewdog

Ok let me add a couple things too.  In the U.S. there is also a tax credit people can get when they install solar energy in their homes, which can help offset the price of the system.

Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)

Not to mention, some home owners with solar panel systems not just get reduced electric bills, but some actually produce enough electricity they get a check from the electric companies.  

Zero energy homeowners in Issaquah get checks, not bills, from electric company


----------



## BuckToothMoron

IsaacNewton said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that the oil and coal companies could have been the ones leading the way to new clean renewables and would now be in the position to dominate the new emerging markets for this energy which will soon be the entire human race as prices continue to drop precipitously for renewable energy types, but they chose the 'we're lazy and don't want to do any more work than sucking stuff out of the ground and getting paid for it' path.
> 
> They are dinosaurs now and will fade into history, bitching and screaming the whole way no doubt but even they know their days are numbered.
> 
> Tesla just invented the steamboat and all the makers of sails are complaining about losing their jobs. Capitalism is a bitch for the slow and the dead, id'n it.
Click to expand...


You might do some research on the subject of solar  energy before declaring oil companies dinosaurs. The technology/pricing is a long way off from being on par with fossil fuels, and the only thing driving people to install panels here are the subsidies. Sorry fig newton, capitalism is a bitch, and solar can't compete right now.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?
> 
> Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those panels were incredibly inefficient compared to those produced today. What if the government stopped giving money to companies like Solyndra, that was over $500 billion by the way, and gave it to scientist to actually advance the research to improve the technology. So.ar can provide a large amount of energy for the world, but the government needs to approach it likesendi g a man to the moon and stop tying to support companies, instead support research and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your claim is about three orders of magnitude too high.*
> 
> Solyndra - Wikipedia
> 
> Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[22] By 2014 the loan program had wiped out its losses, including a $528 million loss from Solyndra, and was operating in the black.[23] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[24]
> 
> Following the bankruptcy, the government was expected to recoup $27 million under the Solyndra restructuring plan, or up to 100% of loaned funds from a $1.5 billion lawsuit filed against Chinese solar-panel makers for alleged price fixing.[2] The outcome of the lawsuits were that: In November 2015 Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $7.5 million; in April 2016 Trina Solar Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $45 million; as of April 2016, Solyndra's suit against Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd. has not yet settled.[25]
Click to expand...


Typo on my part, I meant millions, and that is not 3 0rders of magnitude, it's 1000. Guess we were both wrong


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Lewdog said:


> What kind of price can you put on saving the world's environment?  Even if it was a wash, you get two distinct benefits, first you are helping the environment, and secondly you are no longer grid dependent and have to worry if someone knocks down an electric pole that your electricity will be out for a couple of days.



There it is, the typical liberal response. Appeal to the emotion of saving the world. That appeal only works on the weak minded, and it isn't vein close to a wash.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> What kind of price can you put on saving the world's environment?  Even if it was a wash, you get two distinct benefits, first you are helping the environment, and secondly you are no longer grid dependent and have to worry if someone knocks down an electric pole that your electricity will be out for a couple of days.


That is a great question! You are not helping the environment buy building Solar Panels or Wind Turbines. How does building something save the environment? In this case, how does building millions and millions of things save the Environment? In the past, and today, one electrical power plant supplies power for 100,000's of homes. To replace that one plant, you must use Heavy Industry to process millions of tons of raw materials into a product, that is a million times bigger than that one tiny plant! You are using more stuff to produce much less, which pollutes the environment much more. It is like using 10 renewable cars to go the distant of one car. How is producing 10 instead of 1, help. 

In the case of Solar Panels, how does producing a billion solar panels help? 

And you can not power your home on Tesla Poweralls. They were designed to slowly charge your car overnight. They are not designed to have a 25 amp drain on them for a hour, or a 10 amp drain for two days.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Ok let me add a couple things too.  In the U.S. there is also a tax credit people can get when they install solar energy in their homes, which can help offset the price of the system.
> 
> Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
> 
> Not to mention, some home owners with solar panel systems not just get reduced electric bills, but some actually produce enough electricity they get a check from the electric companies.
> 
> Zero energy homeowners in Issaquah get checks, not bills, from electric company


Those are tax payer and rate payer subsidies, meaning you are forcing me to work for you. Why, because your solar panels do not work, so in order to sell them, the government gives you money, and makes me pay for it. That is Tyranny.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stated price for a 10 kw/hr Tesla battery for the US is $3500. Why it costs that much in Australia, I don't know. And you can put up to 9 of the batteries together to give one 90 kw/hr storage. With a 5 kw to 10 kw solar array, this is enough to power a home independent of the grid. And, as with everything else associated with home power, the prices will come down significantly as there are other companies developing home power systems as we post.
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the source in this thread, so you are a fucking liar, Old Crock. But that is the classic Liberal Democrat two step, when caught in one lie, start another lie. You could never power a home with Tesla batteries, one they are not designed to power homes and thus you will void the warranty. Two, it would be very unsafe, most likely you will burn down your house. They have problems powering cell phones with rechargeable batteries, now Old Crock makes the ridiculous claim that a Tesla Battery can power a house. Telsa does not even go that far!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com*
> 
> *Batteries Included; Inverter Not*
> The first thing to note is that the Powerwall does not include an inverter - it’s just the battery bank, charge controller, and a liquid thermal control system that allows the unit to withstand temperatures from -20C (-4F) to 43C (110F). Tesla says that the device is compatible with “a growing list of inverters” without specifying which brands or models. The Powerwall can deliver 2 kW of continuous power and 3.3 kW of peak power. An inverter capable of handling that costs around $1500, give or take a few hundred. That brings the price tag up to $5000, not including installation. (It must be installed by a qualified electrician.) Powerwalls can be combined to create up to 90 kWh of storage - enough to meet the needs of virtually any residential customer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Efficiency and Effective Storage*
> The storage system has a round-trip DC-DC efficiency of 92%. Factor in the typical efficiency of a good inverter, around 95%, and we’re looking at a total round-trip efficiency of 87%. That 10 kWh battery, for all practical purposes, provides 8.7 kWh of AC electricity.
> 
> 
> *Can You Power Your House with It?*
> The Powerwall provides three services to residential users who are on the grid: load shifting, photovoltaic (PV) storage, and backup power.
> 
> 
> *Load Shifting*
> In this application the battery charges during non-peak hours when the rates are low, and provides power during peak hours when rates are high. For customers enrolled in time-of-day (ToD) pricing plans, this can be a significant cost saver.
> 
> 
> Let’s do the math on that using actual ToD numbers from a US power company and assuming the battery is delivering power during the entire stretch of peak hours.
> 
> *So a for real engineer, one with a Phd in the field, says it can power a house, but you state that it cannot. LOL Oh my, who is one going to believe?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you about done, huffing and puffing Old Crock, we would not want a guy of your age to have a heart attack on his computer keyboard. You have supported this thread and Matthew, you have argued with those who have disagreed with this thread. Now I have used Matthew's source, which you agree with, for my source of the cost, and you somehow think I am wrong but the thread and source you have been arguing in favor of is right? You can't have it both ways dumb ass!
> 
> Once again for the Old Man, Old Crock, from the link given by matthew.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> *When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And you continue to be a lying dumb fuck. That price is for Australia. The price that a US citizen in the US would have to pay is $3500, according to this*;
> 
> read:Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers > ENGINEERING.com
> 
> The 7-kWh model costs $3,000, while the 10-kWh version is $3,500. Both come with a 10-year warranty, according to Tesla, although details of the warranty have yet to be spelled out. If purchased with a photovoltaic (PV) system and recharged primarily through the PV array, Powerwall could be eligible for the 30 percent solar investment tax credit, the BTS report notes.
Click to expand...

Hey lying Old Crock, that is the price, according to this thread.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let me add a couple things too.  In the U.S. there is also a tax credit people can get when they install solar energy in their homes, which can help offset the price of the system.
> 
> Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
> 
> Not to mention, some home owners with solar panel systems not just get reduced electric bills, but some actually produce enough electricity they get a check from the electric companies.
> 
> Zero energy homeowners in Issaquah get checks, not bills, from electric company
> 
> 
> 
> Those are tax payer and rate payer subsidies, meaning you are forcing me to work for you. Why, because your solar panels do not work, so in order to sell them, the government gives you money, and makes me pay for it. That is Tyranny.
Click to expand...


Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.



Wrong, I pay for them, and it is not just a tax deduction you get, you get a subsidy. The solar companies get subsidies, the money you get from the utility is a subsidy, somebody pays for those subsidies. That someone is me.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I pay for them, and it is not just a tax deduction you get, you get a subsidy. The solar companies get subsidies, the money you get from the utility is a subsidy, somebody pays for those subsidies. That someone is me.
Click to expand...


No, it's not you.  Since when do you pay all the taxes?  Maybe YOU should pay more taxes and help get down the national debt then.  I never knew only one person paid all the taxes in the United States!  WoW!


----------



## elektra

IsaacNewton said:


> I find it strange that the oil and coal companies could have been the ones leading the way to new clean renewables and would now be in the position to dominate the new emerging markets for this energy which will soon be the entire human race as prices continue to drop precipitously for renewable energy types, but they chose the 'we're lazy and don't want to do any more work than sucking stuff out of the ground and getting paid for it' path.
> 
> They are dinosaurs now and will fade into history, bitching and screaming the whole way no doubt but even they know their days are numbered.
> 
> Tesla just invented the steamboat and all the makers of sails are complaining about losing their jobs. Capitalism is a bitch for the slow and the dead, id'n it.


Ha, ha, ha. Yes, Tesla "invented" the steamboat? Batteries did not exist before Tesla, if that is what you think you have zero understanding of this subject. Maybe Tesla made them bigger, that is hardly an advance in technology or a step into the future. Technically it is a step backwards. 

Oil Companies are a dinosaur and they will fade into history? The days are numbered? That means Solar and Wind companies days are numbered are even more of a dinosaur. You can not make a Wind Turbine or one Solar panel without Oil or Coal, period. It is impossible. 

The great technological advance of Liberal Democrats has been to simply build a lot more, and to make them bigger. Building more uses more oil, making them bigger uses more oil. Liberals and Democrats are destroying the World to save the World. Small minds thinking big? What a joke.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> No, it's not you.  Since when do you pay all the taxes?  Maybe YOU should pay more taxes and help get down the national debt then.  I never knew only one person paid all the taxes in the United States!  WoW!


Yes, moron, what I stated meant exactly how you took it. Idiot!


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> No, it's not you.  Since when do you pay all the taxes?  Maybe YOU should pay more taxes and help get down the national debt then.  I never knew only one person paid all the taxes in the United States!  WoW!


Wow! The Democrats dictate that we pay them to install Solar Panels. The Democrats drive up the National Debt researching Solar Panels in our Universities. The Democrats drive up the National Debt giving money to campaign donors who build Solar Panels. The Democrats drive up the National Debt creating huge Government Departments devoted to Solar Panels and Emissions. And then they Dictate that I must pay down the National Debt through tax!

Never in my life have I seen a more tyrannical government.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not you.  Since when do you pay all the taxes?  Maybe YOU should pay more taxes and help get down the national debt then.  I never knew only one person paid all the taxes in the United States!  WoW!
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! The Democrats dictate that we pay them to install Solar Panels. The Democrats drive up the National Debt researching Solar Panels in our Universities. The Democrats drive up the National Debt giving money to campaign donors who build Solar Panels. The Democrats drive up the National Debt creating huge Government Departments devoted to Solar Panels and Emissions. And then they Dictate that I must pay down the National Debt through tax!
> 
> Never in my life have I seen a more tyrannical government.
Click to expand...


Do you not understand that coal and natural gas is not a renewable energy source?  Do you not understand that our world population is growing exponentially?  Do you NOT understand that not everyone lives in areas where they can have power plants?  Do you NOT understand that as a society we HAVE to find new, clean, renewable, energy sources?  Obviously, you don't understand the importance of such things, as you are more worried about reading your check stub each week to see if you paid off the national debt with all the taxes you are paying for the entire country, by yourself.


----------



## elektra

Prove me wrong, you can't do it, you have not the education nor ability, to prove what you contend to be true.

You can not build Solar Panels or Wind Turbines without oil, and further, you must increase the use of Oil to build the biggest monstrosities that produce next to no electricity, compared to traditional sources of electricity.

Show how smart you are, engage the idea you posted, you can not do it, which frustrates you. I can't wait to see your response, I imagine it will be the smartest thing you ever posted.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain pulled the pin on a grenade and forgot to throw it.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove me wrong, you can't do it, you have not the education nor ability, to prove what you contend to be true.
> 
> You can not build Solar Panels or Wind Turbines without oil, and further, you must increase the use of Oil to build the biggest monstrosities that produce next to no electricity, compared to traditional sources of electricity.
> 
> Show how smart you are, engage the idea you posted, you can not do it, which frustrates you. I can't wait to see your response, I imagine it will be the smartest thing you ever posted.
Click to expand...


You don't get it... you most likely will never totally phase out oil and coal, but it needs to be limited so it lasts.  And it will not last as long as you continue to make it your primary source of energy.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> You don't get it... you most likely will never totally phase out oil and coal, but it needs to be limited so it lasts.  And it will not last as long as you continue to make it your primary source of energy.


Oil? Oil is not used to make electricity, hence building Solar Panels and Wind Turbines does not save Oil, in fact, it increases the use of Oil, in the manufacturing and maintenance of of Wind and Solar. Coal, again, you must use Coal to build Solar and Wind, you actually increase the use of Coal to build Solar and Wind. I agree we do not need to make electricity from Coal, which will leave Wind and Solar manufacture as the largest source of pollution utilizing coal. 

You speak as if Wind Turbines and Solar Panels last forever, and that they actually produce more than a trickle of power. 

Your idea is beautiful, save the World. Technically the idea is not thought through and the real World implementation of Renewable power is a very big problem. 

Renewables are not renewable, and do not conserve energy, they simply make government powerful, and Wall St. rich, period.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it... you most likely will never totally phase out oil and coal, but it needs to be limited so it lasts.  And it will not last as long as you continue to make it your primary source of energy.
> 
> 
> 
> Oil? Oil is not used to make electricity, hence building Solar Panels and Wind Turbines does not save Oil, in fact, it increases the use of Oil, in the manufacturing and maintenance of of Wind and Solar. Coal, again, you must use Coal to build Solar and Wind, you actually increase the use of Coal to build Solar and Wind. I agree we do not need to make electricity from Coal, which will leave Wind and Solar manufacture as the largest source of pollution utilizing coal.
> 
> You speak as if Wind Turbines and Solar Panels last forever, and that they actually produce more than a trickle of power.
> 
> Your idea is beautiful, save the World. Technically the idea is not thought through and the real World implementation of Renewable power is a very big problem.
> 
> Renewables are not renewable, and do not conserve energy, they simply make government powerful, and Wall St. rich, period.
Click to expand...


Let me guess, you are a Georgia Guide Stone follower?


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> What kind of price can you put on saving the world's environment?  Even if it was a wash, you get two distinct benefits, first you are helping the environment, and secondly you are no longer grid dependent and have to worry if someone knocks down an electric pole that your electricity will be out for a couple of days.








You seem to ignore the toxic mess that lithium battery production leaves behind.  Nothing in life is free.  No matter what you do to create energy there is a cost.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Let me guess, you are a Georgia Guide Stone follower?


You are not here to discuss anything scholarly or technical, only your feelings? And if one disagrees with your feelings, than you must scorn and ridicule them? 

That is how Renewables are sold, first you give a name to Solar and Wind that has nothing to do with what they actually are, in this case, Renewables. There is nothing Renewable about a Wind Turbine or Solar Panel. Then if anyone points out the facts of your belief, then they must be ridiculed. 

Renewables have been a success, Wall St. has profited from Government dictating that we will purchase what they produce. Government has grown larger, with many departments now dedicating to furthering the lie of Renewable power. Government departments are dedicated to advertising, public relations, to sell the public on something that does not work, which will cost us $44 Trillion dollars. I get that figure from the originator of this post, Matthew, who inadvertently led me to the EIA and CERES reports that document this to be fact. $44 Trillions of dollars to be created, added to our debt, and given to corporations of Wall st.


----------



## westwall

BuckToothMoron said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?
> 
> Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those panels were incredibly inefficient compared to those produced today. What if the government stopped giving money to companies like Solyndra, that was over $500 billion by the way, and gave it to scientist to actually advance the research to improve the technology. So.ar can provide a large amount of energy for the world, but the government needs to approach it likesendi g a man to the moon and stop tying to support companies, instead support research and development.
Click to expand...









The theoretical maximum efficiency for a solar module, of any era, is 24%.  No module has ever even come close to that.  My panels are producing around 9% efficiency as i check my meter, that is pretty good.  Usually it is in the 7% range.  They are old however.  Modern modules are going to give you 13% on the low end up to 18% on the high end.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> Ok let me add a couple things too.  In the U.S. there is also a tax credit people can get when they install solar energy in their homes, which can help offset the price of the system.
> 
> Solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC)
> 
> Not to mention, some home owners with solar panel systems not just get reduced electric bills, but some actually produce enough electricity they get a check from the electric companies.
> 
> Zero energy homeowners in Issaquah get checks, not bills, from electric company







A tax credit paid for by non solar power users.  In other words we get our tax credits by taxing those who don't have the systems.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Do you NOT understand that not everyone lives in areas where they can have power plants?



In the areas that can not have power plants, we have run WIRES!


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Do you not understand that coal and natural gas is not a renewable energy source?


Then, why is using more coal and natural gas to make Solar Panels and Wind Turbines a good idea. When you deplete the Coal and Natural Gas supply making Solar Panels and Wind Turbines, that is it, you will not be able to continue with your idea of a Renewable Energy Source. A source of electricity that is entirely dependent on the continued use of Oil, Natural Gas, and Coal is simply a bad idea, and that is Solar and Wind.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Do you not understand that our world population is growing exponentially?


Using the Wind and Solar to produce electricty does not increase electricity production exponentially nor increase the production of electricity at the same rate the population grows. And lets not forget the component you leave out, Industry, Solar and Wind do not and can not supply power to industry, which is needed to produce solar and wind in the 1st place.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not understand that our world population is growing exponentially?
> 
> 
> 
> Using the Wind and Solar to produce electricty does not increase electricity production exponentially nor increase the production of electricity at the same rate the population grows. And lets not forget the component you leave out, Industry, Solar and Wind do not and can not supply power to industry, which is needed to produce solar and wind in the 1st place.
Click to expand...


So genius, you are the one that said it is a waste of time, money, and resources for our government to help fund research for our universities to research renewable energy.  Since coal, oil, and gas is a non-renewable energy, and our population is growing exponentially, what is YOUR answer to future energy sources when the others dry up?  

Or are you one of those people with the mind set, "I don't care, I'll be dead by then."


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Do you NOT understand that as a society we HAVE to find new, clean, renewable, energy sources?



Solar and Wind is not clean, they destroy the environment. First, they take millions of acres of land, measured in square miles, which kills animals, birds, lizards, turtles, bats, and insects. Solar and Wind require more manufacturing and heavy industry than any other source of Electricity. That is very damaging to the the environment. No matter how you look at it, to describe Wind and Solar as clean is a complete lie. I have addressed all your beliefs. Maybe you can actually prove something that you believe, like show us how Clean Energy is clean, in a technical way.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> So genius, you are the one that said it is a waste of time, money, and resources for our government to help fund research for our universities to research renewable energy.  Since coal, oil, and gas is a non-renewable energy, and our population is growing exponentially, what is YOUR answer to future energy sources when the others dry up?
> 
> Or are you one of those people with the mind set, "I don't care, I'll be dead by then."


Solar Panels and Wind Turbines are more of a non-renewable than Coal, Oil, and Gas. You can not build them without coal, oil, or gas. What is your solution when you can no longer build or maintain the failed system you are actively promoting. All you can do is question everyone else, you can never support the premise of this thread or your own idea. 

If you can not support your own idea, you idea has failed. 

Sorry, but when we run out of oil, life is over. Life is dependent on oil, using more Oil, faster, to produce, to manufacture Wind and Solar plants, is about as crazy as it gets. But hey, it is the Democrats that dream of a Utopia with no people. Wind and Solar drive us to extinction quicker. Period.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> So genius, you are the one that said it is a waste of time, money, and resources for our government to help fund research for our universities to research renewable energy.  Since coal, oil, and gas is a non-renewable energy, and our population is growing exponentially, what is YOUR answer to future energy sources when the others dry up?
> 
> Or are you one of those people with the mind set, "I don't care, I'll be dead by then."
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Panels and Wind Turbines are more of a non-renewable than Coal, Oil, and Gas. You can not build them without coal, oil, or gas. What is your solution when you can no longer build or maintain the failed system you are actively promoting. All you can do is question everyone else, you can never support the premise of this thread or your own idea.
> 
> If you can not support your own idea, you idea has failed.
> 
> Sorry, but when we run out of oil, life is over. Life is dependent on oil, using more Oil, faster, to produce, to manufacture Wind and Solar plants, is about as crazy as it gets. But hey, it is the Democrats that dream of a Utopia with no people. Wind and Solar drive us to extinction quicker. Period.
Click to expand...



REALLY?  When oil is gone life is over?  That's your answer?


----------



## MikeK

westwall said:


> The theoretical maximum efficiency for a solar module, of any era, is 24%.  No module has ever even come close to that.  My panels are producing around 9% efficiency as i check my meter, that is pretty good.  Usually it is in the 7% range.  They are old however.  Modern modules are going to give you 13% on the low end up to 18% on the high end.


Does that mean they are worthwhile, or not?  

Everything I've read about Germany's progress in this area has been positive.  What do you know about that example?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> REALLY?  When oil is gone life is over?  That's your answer?


Your answer, to use more Oil, faster, and in greater quantities, is not a solution but a problem, so what you goin to do when you use up all the Oil? You Wind Turbine will die in the field, you Solar Panel will cease to be replaced and maintained as they burn up. You have no answers, only ridicule. I get it, everyone can see it, if they read these posts.


----------



## elektra

MikeK said:


> Does that mean they are worthwhile, or not?
> 
> Everything I've read about Germany's progress in this area has been positive.  What do you know about that example?


Germany is busy reversing course, building coal plants, and stopping subsidies to Solar and Wind.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> REALLY?  When oil is gone life is over?  That's your answer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your answer, to use more Oil, faster, and in greater quantities, is not a solution but a problem, so what you goin to do when you use up all the Oil? You Wind Turbine will die in the field, you Solar Panel will cease to be replaced and maintained as they burn up. You have no answers, only ridicule. I get it, everyone can see it, if they read these posts.
Click to expand...


Dude, you are not giving numbers as to the energy quotient, for the amount of energy produced over the life time for a solar panel compared the amount of energy used to produce them, or the amount of pollution created by the creation of the panels verses the amount of pollution created by the equivalent amount of energy produced by coal as to that created by the solar panel over its lifetime.

You are the one that is ridiculing answers, while providing no alternative answers other than, "When the oil is gone we die."  that's ignorance at it's best.


----------



## westwall

MikeK said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theoretical maximum efficiency for a solar module, of any era, is 24%.  No module has ever even come close to that.  My panels are producing around 9% efficiency as i check my meter, that is pretty good.  Usually it is in the 7% range.  They are old however.  Modern modules are going to give you 13% on the low end up to 18% on the high end.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean they are worthwhile, or not?
> 
> Everything I've read about Germany's progress in this area has been positive.  What do you know about that example?
Click to expand...





Germany is slowly abandoning solar.  They are building some new coal fired power plants because the people are tired of freezing in the winter.  I built my system over 25 years ago and I was off the grid at the time so it made perfect sense to do so.  Since then the grid has built out to where I am so i am now tied to it.  Solar works good for very limited things.  It does not work when scaled up to industrial levels.  It just doesn't.  It will power your home when the grid fails though and for that reason alone I think it is worthwhile to have a system.  Yes, there are savings, but when I calculate in the time I spend cleaning and maintaining them it isn't really all that great over all.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Dude, you are not giving numbers as to the energy quotient, for the amount of energy produced over the life time for a solar panel compared the amount of energy used to produce them, or the amount of pollution created by the creation of the panels verses the amount of pollution created by the equivalent amount of energy produced by coal as to that created by the solar panel over its lifetime.
> 
> You are the one that is ridiculing answers, while providing no alternative answers other than, "When the oil is gone we die."  that's ignorance at it's best.


Bro, you have not given an answer, a number, or even an argument, that is ignorance, as you describe. I am challenging you to support the assertion you claimed, that you claimed first. Why is it that you get to make an unsubstantiated claim? Certainly there is no greater example of ignorance. I have not, "ridiculed answers", YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN AN ANSWER TO RIDICULE!


----------



## Old Yeller

The earth seems to be producing more and more oil all the time (nat gas too?).

Ask Matthew and OldRocks how all those solar cells work out up in ORE (no sun most of the year).  Yes I know about the Willamette valley I-5 up to Portland.


----------



## Old Yeller

I was in Asia very nearby the equator for many many months.  It was incredibly hot. 

But I don't remember seeing much sun?  Kind of a low cloud cover all the time?  like a mist? you sweat as soon as you leave the A/C buildings.  Wet heat.  

Did not see much solar.........what happened to sunshine?


----------



## elektra

Oregon burns garbage to make electricity and imports electricity made with Coal from Wyoming. Oregon's governor resigned office for taking bribes from the Wind and Solar industry.


----------



## Old Rocks

BuckToothMoron said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that the oil and coal companies could have been the ones leading the way to new clean renewables and would now be in the position to dominate the new emerging markets for this energy which will soon be the entire human race as prices continue to drop precipitously for renewable energy types, but they chose the 'we're lazy and don't want to do any more work than sucking stuff out of the ground and getting paid for it' path.
> 
> They are dinosaurs now and will fade into history, bitching and screaming the whole way no doubt but even they know their days are numbered.
> 
> Tesla just invented the steamboat and all the makers of sails are complaining about losing their jobs. Capitalism is a bitch for the slow and the dead, id'n it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might do some research on the subject of solar  energy before declaring oil companies dinosaurs. The technology/pricing is a long way off from being on par with fossil fuels, and the only thing driving people to install panels here are the subsidies. Sorry fig newton, capitalism is a bitch, and solar can't compete right now.
Click to expand...

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story
And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

*Solar and wind have already won the price contest. *


----------



## Old Rocks

BuckToothMoron said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How big is his solar panel?  And what is the overall cost of his storage bank?
> 
> Jimmy Carter was pushing solar energy.  He put panels on the roof of the White House and Reagan removed them.  If Carter's plan had been carried through I wonder where it would have gone by now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those panels were incredibly inefficient compared to those produced today. What if the government stopped giving money to companies like Solyndra, that was over $500 billion by the way, and gave it to scientist to actually advance the research to improve the technology. So.ar can provide a large amount of energy for the world, but the government needs to approach it likesendi g a man to the moon and stop tying to support companies, instead support research and development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Your claim is about three orders of magnitude too high.*
> 
> Solyndra - Wikipedia
> 
> Solyndra received a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, the first recipient of a loan guarantee under President Barack Obama's economic stimulus program, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[22] By 2014 the loan program had wiped out its losses, including a $528 million loss from Solyndra, and was operating in the black.[23] Additionally, Solyndra received a $25.1 million tax break from California's Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority.[24]
> 
> Following the bankruptcy, the government was expected to recoup $27 million under the Solyndra restructuring plan, or up to 100% of loaned funds from a $1.5 billion lawsuit filed against Chinese solar-panel makers for alleged price fixing.[2] The outcome of the lawsuits were that: In November 2015 Yingli Green Energy Holding Co Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $7.5 million; in April 2016 Trina Solar Ltd. settled a claim filed by Solyndra for $45 million; as of April 2016, Solyndra's suit against Suntech Power Holdings Co Ltd. has not yet settled.[25]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typo on my part, I meant millions, and that is not 3 0rders of magnitude, it's 1000. Guess we were both wrong
Click to expand...

No, orders of magnitude are powers of ten. Ten, exponent 3 is 3 orders of magnitude.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I pay for them, and it is not just a tax deduction you get, you get a subsidy. The solar companies get subsidies, the money you get from the utility is a subsidy, somebody pays for those subsidies. That someone is me.
Click to expand...

Elektra, flipping burgers doesn't make enough money for you to be paying for anyone's subsidies. Those subsidies take the load off the grid, and that benefits us all in extreme cold or hot weather.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of price can you put on saving the world's environment?  Even if it was a wash, you get two distinct benefits, first you are helping the environment, and secondly you are no longer grid dependent and have to worry if someone knocks down an electric pole that your electricity will be out for a couple of days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to ignore the toxic mess that lithium battery production leaves behind.  Nothing in life is free.  No matter what you do to create energy there is a cost.
Click to expand...

Toxic mess that lithium battery production creates? Links? Or is this more of your usual lies.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The theoretical maximum efficiency for a solar module, of any era, is 24%.  No module has ever even come close to that.  My panels are producing around 9% efficiency as i check my meter, that is pretty good.  Usually it is in the 7% range.  They are old however.  Modern modules are going to give you 13% on the low end up to 18% on the high end.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that mean they are worthwhile, or not?
> 
> Everything I've read about Germany's progress in this area has been positive.  What do you know about that example?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germany is slowly abandoning solar.  They are building some new coal fired power plants because the people are tired of freezing in the winter.  I built my system over 25 years ago and I was off the grid at the time so it made perfect sense to do so.  Since then the grid has built out to where I am so i am now tied to it.  Solar works good for very limited things.  It does not work when scaled up to industrial levels.  It just doesn't.  It will power your home when the grid fails though and for that reason alone I think it is worthwhile to have a system.  Yes, there are savings, but when I calculate in the time I spend cleaning and maintaining them it isn't really all that great over all.
Click to expand...

*
What a liar Mr. Westwall is.*

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents

Cheapest Solar Ever: Austin Energy Gets 1.2 Gigawatts of Solar Bids for Less Than 4 Cents


“We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour.”

by Stephen Lacey 
June 30, 2015




“We expect to see prices out in the future that are possibly below $20 a megawatt-hour.”

by Stephen Lacey 
June 30, 2015
84

_Correction: Khalil Shalabi said was that 1,295 megawatts were priced below the Recurrent solar deal from last year, which was under 5 cents per kilowatt-hour not under 4 cents per kilowatt-hour._

A lot more cheap solar is coming for Austin, Texas.

The city's utility, Austin Energy, just released new data on developer bids for PV projects as part of a 600-megawatt procurement. The numbers show how far solar prices have come down over the last year -- and will continue to drop.

According to Khalil Shalabi, Austin Energy's vice president of resource planning, the utility received offers for 7,976 megawatts of projects after issuing a request for bids in April. Out of those bids, 1,295 megawatts of projects were priced below 4 cents per kilowatt-hour.
*The solar installations are getting cheaper every year. And there are no more coal fired plants being built. Soon, a couple of decades, they will not even be building gas fired plants.*


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it strange that the oil and coal companies could have been the ones leading the way to new clean renewables and would now be in the position to dominate the new emerging markets for this energy which will soon be the entire human race as prices continue to drop precipitously for renewable energy types, but they chose the 'we're lazy and don't want to do any more work than sucking stuff out of the ground and getting paid for it' path.
> 
> They are dinosaurs now and will fade into history, bitching and screaming the whole way no doubt but even they know their days are numbered.
> 
> Tesla just invented the steamboat and all the makers of sails are complaining about losing their jobs. Capitalism is a bitch for the slow and the dead, id'n it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You might do some research on the subject of solar  energy before declaring oil companies dinosaurs. The technology/pricing is a long way off from being on par with fossil fuels, and the only thing driving people to install panels here are the subsidies. Sorry fig newton, capitalism is a bitch, and solar can't compete right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
> 
> Advertisement
> 
> Continue reading the main story
> And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
> 
> “Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
> 
> “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> *Solar and wind have already won the price contest. *
Click to expand...

That is all based on the Lazard study, which was easily debunked. But, the biggest elephant in the room is, Wind does not work and never will. On an industrial scale, it always fails to deliver, the cost is too high. 

$44 Trillion is to be spent, at least that is what they state today. Not a bargain for the price.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I pay for them, and it is not just a tax deduction you get, you get a subsidy. The solar companies get subsidies, the money you get from the utility is a subsidy, somebody pays for those subsidies. That someone is me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elektra, flipping burgers doesn't make enough money for you to be paying for anyone's subsidies. Those subsidies take the load off the grid, and that benefits us all in extreme cold or hot weather.
Click to expand...

Your a liar, you lied about the price of the powerwall, now you are lying about taking the load off the grid. If that was the case, why does Oregon burn garbage to make electricity or why does Oregon import power made from Coal in Wyoming? You never prove any of your crazy lies Old Crock, you have not the intelligence to do anything but link to the first paid advertisement in a google search. How about telling us the total price the U.S. has spent on Renewables, I bet you won't even be honest about the cost. Go ahead, answer any of the questions you always ignore.


----------



## Old Rocks

Elektra, Oregon imports electricity from Wyoming because the Californians paid for the windmills, therefore get the power they produce. Also gets much of the power from our dams on the Columbia.


----------



## Old Rocks

Energy & Environment 
*Texas Is Wired for Wind Power, and More Farms Plug In*


By MATTHEW L. WALDJULY 23, 2014

Continue reading the main story Share This Page
Continue reading the main story

Share
Tweet
Email
More
Save
Slide Show




*Slide Show|10 Photos*
*Turning Wind Into Electricity*
*Turning Wind Into Electricity*
CreditDavid Bowser for The New York Times

PANHANDLE, Tex. — The wind is so relentless that a week can go by before it is calm enough for a crane operator to install the 30-ton blades atop the 260-foot towers at the Panhandle 2 wind farm here. It’s worth the wait; a single turbine at the farm can produce 40 percent more energy than an average one.

But turning wind into electricity is one thing; moving the energy to a profitable market is another. For years, the wind industry has been hampered by such a severe lack of transmission lines that when the wind is strong, a local power surplus forces some machines to be shut down.

Now, Texas is out to change that by conducting a vast experiment that might hold lessons for the rest of the United States. This year, a sprawling network of new high-voltage power lines was completed, tying the panhandle area and West Texas to the millions of customers around Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin and Houston.

The project, its supporters say, is essential if states are ever to wean their reliance on fossil fuels and meet new federally mandated rules to reduce carbon emissions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/24/b...ed-for-wind-power-and-more-farms-plug-in.html

*A Texas Utility Offers a Nighttime Special: Free Electricity*
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS and DIANE CARDWELLNOV. 8, 2015
DALLAS — In Texas, wind farms are generating so much energy that some utilities are giving power away.

Briana Lamb, an elementary school teacher, waits until her watch strikes 9 p.m. to run her washing machine and dishwasher. It costs her nothing until 6 a.m. Kayleen Willard, a cosmetologist, unplugs appliances when she goes to work in the morning. By 9 p.m., she has them plugged back in.

And Sherri Burks, business manager of a local law firm, keeps a yellow sticker on her townhouse’s thermostat, a note to guests that says: “After 9 p.m. I don’t care what you do. You can party after 9.”

The women are just three of the thousands of TXU Energy customers who are at the vanguard of a bold attempt by the utility to change how people consume energy. TXU’s free overnight plan, which is coupled with slightly higher daytime rates, is one of dozens that have been offered by more than 50 retail electricity companies in Texas over the last three years with a simple goal: for customers to turn down the dials when wholesale prices are highest and turn them back up when prices are lowest.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/b...ers-a-nighttime-special-free-electricity.html

*Now if you had 5 of the 10 kw/hr Powerwalls, you could run your home on that free electricity. The average home uses about 32 kw/hr of electricity a day. So 50 kw/hr would give you a days worth of normal use, with an excess in case of need. The combination of grid scale storage, and home storage will make the grid far more robust, and the homeowner far more independent of the utility.*


----------



## Old Rocks

The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.

SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall

_For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_

Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those tax deductions are for anyone that chooses to use them.  You can also get tax deductions for putting in better insulation in your home, energy efficient windows, and other such home improvements.  Get over yourself.  You aren't paying for everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, I pay for them, and it is not just a tax deduction you get, you get a subsidy. The solar companies get subsidies, the money you get from the utility is a subsidy, somebody pays for those subsidies. That someone is me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Elektra, flipping burgers doesn't make enough money for you to be paying for anyone's subsidies. Those subsidies take the load off the grid, and that benefits us all in extreme cold or hot weather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your a liar, you lied about the price of the powerwall, now you are lying about taking the load off the grid. If that was the case, why does Oregon burn garbage to make electricity or why does Oregon import power made from Coal in Wyoming? You never prove any of your crazy lies Old Crock, you have not the intelligence to do anything but link to the first paid advertisement in a google search. How about telling us the total price the U.S. has spent on Renewables, I bet you won't even be honest about the cost. Go ahead, answer any of the questions you always ignore.
Click to expand...


Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?


I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.


Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you. 

Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall


> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
Click to expand...


No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
Click to expand...


AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Matthew said:


> *Tesla Powerwall in Australia: Electricity bill dives from $660 to $50*
> 
> Quote
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN self-confessed nerd Nick Pfitzner became the first Australia resident to have a Tesla Powerwall installed, he expected to save some money when his electricity bill arrived.
> However, he was shocked to discover just how efficient the highly anticipated home battery power storage unit had been.
> After receiving his latest electricity bill in the post, Mr Pfitzner was pleased to see the amount to be paid was a mere $50.39 (Incl. GST).
> Compare this to his previous bill for the same quarter last year and Mr Pfitzner was facing a bill totalling $660.77 (Incl. GST), which means his family had a saving more than 90 per cent.
> “It’s an awesome feeling to see we are only paying an average of just $0.59 per day for our power usage,” he told news.com.au.
> “I knew it would save me money, but I had never expected to see a saving that big.”
> Each Powerwall has a 7 kWh energy storage capacity and works by using a solar panel to convert sunlight into electricity that charges the device.
> “The inverter converts direct current electricity from solar panels, the grid and Powerwall into the alternating current used by your home’s lights, appliances and devices,” the website states.
> 
> 
> 
> It is nice to see Telsa fucking big corporate energy in the ass!
Click to expand...

It's just like switching to Obamacare


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Free enterprise drives down costs and benefits the consumer, why are progressives always the last to learn about this?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
Click to expand...

Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information. 

You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?

Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.
Click to expand...

No shit, Tryanasourisdummy. But this is a thread about Arustralia, is it not? This is the system we are talking about? Correct, not some made up bullshit the second dumbest (you I think may be dumber) person on the board posted. 

Everything Old Crock posts, gets proven wrong, every single post. Ask anybody here, they will tell you, half the time Old Crock links to stuff that shows he is wrong, just like here where the link shows a price that Old Crock agreed with, but now he disagrees.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, Tryanasourisdummy. But this is a thread about Arustralia, is it not? This is the system we are talking about? Correct, not some made up bullshit the second dumbest (you I think may be dumber) person on the board posted.
> 
> Everything Old Crock posts, gets proven wrong, every single post. Ask anybody here, they will tell you, half the time Old Crock links to stuff that shows he is wrong, just like here where the link shows a price that Old Crock agreed with, but now he disagrees.
Click to expand...


No derpty- Derp...he has said many times, many many many times, that the prices he is quoting is for the united States, and has on multiple occasions provided links showing the prices in the United States.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
Click to expand...

How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, Tryanasourisdummy. But this is a thread about Arustralia, is it not? This is the system we are talking about? Correct, not some made up bullshit the second dumbest (you I think may be dumber) person on the board posted.
> 
> Everything Old Crock posts, gets proven wrong, every single post. Ask anybody here, they will tell you, half the time Old Crock links to stuff that shows he is wrong, just like here where the link shows a price that Old Crock agreed with, but now he disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No derpty- Derp...he has said many times, many many many times, that the prices he is quoting is for the united States, and has on multiple occasions provided links showing the prices in the United States.
Click to expand...

Old Crock links to a battery that charges a car, not a house, moron. Just cause you link to it does not make it true.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Coming from the same guy that said when the oil is gone we all die?
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
Click to expand...


Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?


You think Manhattan, a city of millions will be able to grow its own food with horses and slaves? Did you really just state that? This is why you deserve ridicule.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?


No Fertilizers? No Pesticides? No Steel? We will grow food as they did during the time of Christ? Truly stupid is your idea.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> 
> 
> You think Manhattan, a city of millions will be able to grow its own food with horses and slaves? Did you really just state that? This is why you deserve ridicule.
Click to expand...


People will have to move to the outlying areas... they will have to adapt... that's why humans have brains.  Sure, some people will probably die, but it won't be the end of the world.  Hell we are trying to move to Mars.  Does Mars have oil?  Oh how will we survive THERE!?!?  OMGZ!


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> 
> 
> No Fertilizers? No Pesticides? No Steel? We will grow food as they did during the time of Christ? Truly stupid is your idea.
Click to expand...


No Steel?  There is steel all over the fucking place.  It will get used.  Someone can take a car hood and bend it into a till.  Are you really that dense?


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy that you only address me, personally. That shows that is your only response, you can not answer any question I pose to you. Thank you for confirming what I posted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
Click to expand...






Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...


Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.
Click to expand...







We will always be able to grow food.  That's not the issue.  the issue is efficiency.  Oil won't be running out any time soon, and neither will coal.  Technology will keep us going for quite a while.  What annoys me is there are so many other, better uses for oil than using them to power our cars.  I would love to see a broadcast energy system as envisioned by Tesla.  That would be revolutionary, and environmentally friendly unlike the battery powered monstrosities we currently see.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.


I guess you just do not understand the many products and uses we get from oil or the amount of people that are fed by modern farming. Without oil, you can not feed 300,000,000 people, let alone the billions of people on earth.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> 
> 
> You think Manhattan, a city of millions will be able to grow its own food with horses and slaves? Did you really just state that? This is why you deserve ridicule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People will have to move to the outlying areas... they will have to adapt... that's why humans have brains.  Sure, some people will probably die, but it won't be the end of the world.  Hell we are trying to move to Mars.  Does Mars have oil?  Oh how will we survive THERE!?!?  OMGZ!
Click to expand...

Move to mars? That is what you believe? How you gonna get there, without oil?


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, Tryanasourisdummy. But this is a thread about Arustralia, is it not? This is the system we are talking about? Correct, not some made up bullshit the second dumbest (you I think may be dumber) person on the board posted.
> 
> Everything Old Crock posts, gets proven wrong, every single post. Ask anybody here, they will tell you, half the time Old Crock links to stuff that shows he is wrong, just like here where the link shows a price that Old Crock agreed with, but now he disagrees.
Click to expand...

No, dumb fuck, this thread is about a new technology that allows the homeowner to save a lot of money if he is In an area where the cost of electricity is high. Yes, the cost of the Powerwall is high in Australia, but so is the cost of electricity.

As for the accuracy of my posts, I post my sources, whereas all you do is post preposterous claims that you have pulled out of your ass.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> The full cost of a 10 kw/hr Tesla Powerwall.
> 
> SolarCity Reveals Installed Pricing For Tesla Powerwall
> 
> _For a 10 kilowatt-hour system, customers can prepay $5,000 for a nine-year lease, which includes installation, a maintenance agreement, the electrical inverter and control systems. Customers can also buy the same system outright for $7,140, Bass said.”_
> 
> Solar City will begin installations of Powerwall this October.
> 
> 
> 
> Use the link that this thread is based upon, that you agreed with, that you argued in favor of. The price is $15k, according the link you "agree" with you.
> 
> Old Crock, you really are complete fucking moron.
> What this bill shows us about Tesla’s Powerwall
> 
> 
> 
> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 95136
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AND he has told you numerous times, that's the cost in AUSTRALIA, not the United States.  Derpty Derp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No shit, Tryanasourisdummy. But this is a thread about Arustralia, is it not? This is the system we are talking about? Correct, not some made up bullshit the second dumbest (you I think may be dumber) person on the board posted.
> 
> Everything Old Crock posts, gets proven wrong, every single post. Ask anybody here, they will tell you, half the time Old Crock links to stuff that shows he is wrong, just like here where the link shows a price that Old Crock agreed with, but now he disagrees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No derpty- Derp...he has said many times, many many many times, that the prices he is quoting is for the united States, and has on multiple occasions provided links showing the prices in the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old Crock links to a battery that charges a car, not a house, moron. Just cause you link to it does not make it true.
Click to expand...

LOL  So now you claiming that it takes a different kind of electricity to charge a car than to power a home? LOL Then, for God's sake, how do they charge the Tesla S from plugin's in the houses? Elektra, old gal, you are getting more ludicrous every day.


----------



## Old Rocks

One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.

And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, all you could do is criticize, but you ignored my questions for you.  What is the cost, benefit analysis for the lifetime of a solar panel?  Not just the production cost to the environment, but how much pollution it will save verses the amount it causes at production.
> 
> 
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
Click to expand...

An electric motor can do anything that a ICE can do. And, most of the time, do it better. As the energy density of batteries continues to increase, there will come a time when the ICE is relegated to the same role as the horse is today.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will always be able to grow food.  That's not the issue.  the issue is efficiency.  Oil won't be running out any time soon, and neither will coal.  Technology will keep us going for quite a while.  What annoys me is there are so many other, better uses for oil than using them to power our cars.  I would love to see a broadcast energy system as envisioned by Tesla.  That would be revolutionary, and environmentally friendly unlike the battery powered monstrosities we currently see.
Click to expand...

*Another really dumb ass 'Conservative' disses the present and future EV's. LOL*






















« prevnext »
2 of 50
View larger

2016 Tesla Model S Sedan Pricing & Features | Edmunds

*Boy, would I ever love to have one of those 'monstrosities'. Tesla S, P100D*

Tesla Model S - Car and Driver

Boasting up to 315 miles of range, the Model S is the all-electric dream car envied by many. Icing on the cake is Ludicrous mode that blasts the top P100D to 60 mph in a claimed 2.5 seconds. The lower-spec models offer reduced driving ranges and features, but the base 60 model we tested hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds. Luxury items such as an air filter that Tesla says can protect occupants from bioweapons and pollutants—plus available high-tech features including Tesla’s Autopilot—seal the deal.

*0 to legal limit acceleration that makes a GT-40 look like a lead sled.*


----------



## Old Rocks

*And here it is folks, no need to plug in;

Meet Plugless | The Wireless EV Charging Station

Premium WIRELESS charging accessory for the Tesla Model S

Amazingly effortless — simply park to charge
Charges your Tesla over the air
Seamless install on your Tesla at no cost to you
*


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer a false premise? Reply to a lie? Hell, do you even know the life of a Solar Panel? Solar Panels do not save, or prevent pollution, if they did, you would prove it, so you demand others to do what you can't. I have many threads here, that state how ineffective, how worthless, Solar is. Go ahead and prove what you contend, prove the point you made first. Show us how you can maintain Solar or Wind plants without Oil. Show us how you will pump water to simply clean solar panels, without another source of fuel. You make outrageous claims with zero proof. I can at the least dig up a bunch of threads I have created with tons of information.
> 
> You got a thread making your points? I will look for it, as far as in this thread, which is about Tesla Poweralls, you have shown that you can not add anything. Go ahead, dig up one of your threads that proves what you have stated. I will happily rip that apart. Here, I will just ridicule your nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An electric motor can do anything that a ICE can do. And, most of the time, do it better. As the energy density of batteries continues to increase, there will come a time when the ICE is relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
Click to expand...






Sure it can.  Let's see here, Isle of Man TT.  The super bikes can do two laps at full speed then they have to stop for a refuel and more importantly a new rear tire (the real reason for the stop) while the electric class can make but a single lap.  And that not nearly as fast as the super bikes.  Hmmm.  How about that Formula E class?  Well lookey here, they do fewer laps than the Formula One cars, at a slower speed, and they have to stop and CHANGE CARS at the halfway point.  Yeppers, they are so good you have to have two to perform not as well as a Formula One. 

Or how about that solar powered airplane?  Technology demonstrator I think they called it?  Not really.  It was far more of an endurance demonstrator.  It took them months to traverse the world whereas a regular aircraft can do it in hours, and it was a highly dangerous flight for the pilots involved them not being able to sleep for over 5 days in a couple of instances. 

That is what we call an epic fail dude.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will always be able to grow food.  That's not the issue.  the issue is efficiency.  Oil won't be running out any time soon, and neither will coal.  Technology will keep us going for quite a while.  What annoys me is there are so many other, better uses for oil than using them to power our cars.  I would love to see a broadcast energy system as envisioned by Tesla.  That would be revolutionary, and environmentally friendly unlike the battery powered monstrosities we currently see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Another really dumb ass 'Conservative' disses the present and future EV's. LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> « prevnext »
> 2 of 50
> View larger
> 
> 2016 Tesla Model S Sedan Pricing & Features | Edmunds
> 
> *Boy, would I ever love to have one of those 'monstrosities'. Tesla S, P100D*
> 
> Tesla Model S - Car and Driver
> 
> Boasting up to 315 miles of range, the Model S is the all-electric dream car envied by many. Icing on the cake is Ludicrous mode that blasts the top P100D to 60 mph in a claimed 2.5 seconds. The lower-spec models offer reduced driving ranges and features, but the base 60 model we tested hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds. Luxury items such as an air filter that Tesla says can protect occupants from bioweapons and pollutants—plus available high-tech features including Tesla’s Autopilot—seal the deal.
> 
> *0 to legal limit acceleration that makes a GT-40 look like a lead sled.*
Click to expand...







Wow.  Really?  You want to go there, sport?  My GT will top out at 214 mph.  How about the Tesla?  I can drive it for over 500 miles on a single tank of gas, refuel in minutes and drive another 500 miles.  How about that Tesla?  My car is over 50 years old and worth well over 1.5 million bucks.  How about that Tesla?  What happens when the battery bricks?  Oh yeah, it ain't worth dog poo.  In fact it becomes a net liability.  0-60 times you say?  How about 4.2 seconds, but that is in a car geared to do 200 miles per hour.  If I wanted to change the gearing I can drop my 0-60 times to the same as the Tesla.  

See how that works.  My 50 year old car is worth more, has a better top speed, is more driveable for long distances, corners like a dream compared to that Tesla whale (yes I have driven one) and isn't a polluting monstrosity when the battery packs up.


----------



## Lewdog

Old Rocks said:


> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.



Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
Click to expand...






What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
Click to expand...


The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> No, dumb fuck, this thread is about a new technology that allows the homeowner to save a lot of money if he is In an area where the cost of electricity is high. Yes, the cost of the Powerwall is high in Australia, but so is the cost of electricity.
> 
> As for the accuracy of my posts, I post my sources, whereas all you do is post preposterous claims that you have pulled out of your ass.


Dickhead says what?


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.


Lapdog liked you post, you must be right, ha, ha, ha.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> LOL  So now you claiming that it takes a different kind of electricity to charge a car than to power a home? LOL Then, for God's sake, how do they charge the Tesla S from plugin's in the houses? Elektra, old gal, you are getting more ludicrous every day.


No, I am stating what Tesla states, that if you use a Tesla Powerwall to power your house, even for 8 hours, your warranty is void. Why do you think they do that dumbass, void the warranty? Is it because you have literally destroyed the longevity of the battery? Or maybe the Tesla Powerwall is not designed for the continued amperage and extremely high amperage spikes that will occur powering a house? It as easy as PIE! So Old Crock, do you really think you know more than TESLA!


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
Click to expand...






What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> No, dumb fuck, this thread is about a new technology


Batteries are a new technology? Yea, I never heard of a battery? What is this magical thing that contains so little power? I wonder, is it "ever" "ready" to use? Will it last, is it a "dura" "cell", I hope it does not, "die" "hard". Who ever thought of this "new technology", was it Obama or was it Hillary?


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...


Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,


Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
Click to expand...


You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.  

I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the lies told by all the dumb ass 'Conservatives' here is that people like myself are trying to eliminate the use of oil completely. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are trying to eliminate is the use of oil as a fuel. It will continue to be an industrial stock for the foreseeable future.
> 
> And, by the way, the guarantee on most PV panels is for them to retain 80% or more of their generation power for 20 to 25 years. Again, a minimal amount of research would have shown this to anyone that was honestly trying to assess the potential of home solar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
Click to expand...






You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
Click to expand...


And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
Click to expand...





As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
Click to expand...



Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are. 

"It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?

Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?

Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?


----------



## elektra

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh this is so true.  I don't know how many fucking times I've said over and over in thread after thread that I KNOW we aren't going to totally eliminate the use of coal and oil, but we can reduce the need to use it in some ways.  Yet, some Conservatives always build that scare crow argument again and again.  This isn't your planet, this isn't my planet, it's OUR planet, and it's the planet of future generations.  Some people need to quit being so fucking selfish, and give up some of the unnecessary things in life so that others can have a future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you consider to be "unnecessary".  Just wonderin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The need to drive a car 200 mph... when the speed limit is almost never over 70 mph.  As one example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
Click to expand...

I had a 66 fastback, nice, all meyer's racing stuff on it, from fremont. I dont think he is around anymore.


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
Click to expand...


Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.


I should be embarrassed when you state racing rules should be changed to completely accommodate electric cars. Fine, you are the expert, tell us which rules specifically, should be changed? Obviously, you will post today, because you know, you know all about racing, and I don't, so show everyone what you know and tell us which rules must be changed so that an electric car can compete.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> What, you don't like racing?  So in your perfect world there is no racing with the attendant technological improvements that then translate down to street cars.  Is that what you're saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
Click to expand...







No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.


----------



## elektra

In a thread about Tesla's Powerwall attempting to power a home, which it can not do, LapDog now wants to talk about how Electric Cars are competitive in Formula 1 racing, if only they completely change the rules and the condition of the race?


----------



## Lewdog

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> I should be embarrassed when you state racing rules should be changed to completely accommodate electric cars. Fine, you are the expert, tell us which rules specifically, should be changed? Obviously, you will post today, because you know, you know all about racing, and I don't, so show everyone what you know and tell us which rules must be changed so that an electric car can compete.
Click to expand...


First off, I'm not really worried as much about the amount of emissions given off by race cars as I am about those given off by the millions of consumer cars on the roads today.  So really this is a moot point, but it isn't about making the rules so that they accommodate electric cars, but that race cars are converted to electric cars.  And just the same as it is now, there is a long list of standards that each team must abide by... the weight of the car, the height, the spoilers...whatever.  We aren't talking street drag racing where there is basically no rules and you can bring whatever car you want to the race.  Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today, but that doesn't mean it would totally disappear.  Besides, that wasn't what I was talking about anyways.  I was making reference to your post about you have a 50 year old GT that can do 200 mph.  Why do we need combustion engines that can go 200 mph when there is almost nowhere that you can legally drive that fast?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
Click to expand...


Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that cycling through cars is incredibly wasteful.  Right?  As far as my car go's I can drive it once a year on the road up to Virginia City, and I used to race in the vintage race car series.   But who cares, at what point do you feel that government should be in control of what we do to amuse ourselves?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
Click to expand...





Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...







Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.  

The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> And at what point do you think a person should take personal responsibility to not be selfish and consider future generations of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
Click to expand...


How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




?

You can not possibly be serious...

Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...

Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the idea of racing is based on how well a driver and a crew can beat other teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules.  Therefore you could still have racing, even if it was using electric cars that are used in a rotation as they get recharged.  Racing wouldn't quite be the same as it is today,
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
Click to expand...


What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as the elitists telling us to lower our standard of living stop flying 20 miles in a private jet to go to a campaign fundraiser I might start paying attention to that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> You can not possibly be serious...
> 
> Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...
> 
> Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart
Click to expand...







You claim it's an "eco" resort but ignore the carbon expended in getting there.  You also seem to think it great that he took a pristine island and fucked it up.  Far better would have been to buy a pre-existing resort that was falling apart and fix that up.  But no, that would be intelligent.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on...you aren't really going to pull the Hillary card?  She is a piece of garbage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> You can not possibly be serious...
> 
> Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...
> 
> Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim it's an "eco" resort but ignore the carbon expended in getting there.  You also seem to think it great that he took a pristine island and fucked it up.  Far better would have been to buy a pre-existing resort that was falling apart and fix that up.  But no, that would be intelligent.
Click to expand...


Again...how do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?  It's not practical to be able to change EVERYTHING.  You have to fight battles, one at a time, and let the war settle it'self out.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, the idea of racing is based on competition, or, who comes first. You are proposing changing the rules, which means that your statement "teams...following the same guidelines and sets of rules." Is contradictory to the comments in you statement? They will follow the same rules once you change the rules so that a car that could not compete under the old rules, can compete under the new rules? Talk about a post that is full of shit. Lewdog is just like a yelping yacking lapdog.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
Click to expand...







Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> No?  How about Leo?  Or any of a whole host of elitists telling us we all need to cut back while they flit about from continent to continent in their private jets.  I am all for pollution control.  However, demanding that we deindustrialize based on nothing more than computer derived science fiction is moronic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> You can not possibly be serious...
> 
> Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...
> 
> Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim it's an "eco" resort but ignore the carbon expended in getting there.  You also seem to think it great that he took a pristine island and fucked it up.  Far better would have been to buy a pre-existing resort that was falling apart and fix that up.  But no, that would be intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?  It's not practical to be able to change EVERYTHING.  You have to fight battles, one at a time, and let the war settle it'self out.
Click to expand...







How on Earth are you "fighting a battle" when you take a perfect island and develop it?  Wake the hell up silly person.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
Click to expand...


No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
Click to expand...








Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leo?  Come on now.  Leo's foot print, and what he has done as far as building an eco-friendly island is unreal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> You can not possibly be serious...
> 
> Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...
> 
> Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim it's an "eco" resort but ignore the carbon expended in getting there.  You also seem to think it great that he took a pristine island and fucked it up.  Far better would have been to buy a pre-existing resort that was falling apart and fix that up.  But no, that would be intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?  It's not practical to be able to change EVERYTHING.  You have to fight battles, one at a time, and let the war settle it'self out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth are you "fighting a battle" when you take a perfect island and develop it?  Wake the hell up silly person.
Click to expand...


You are totally ignoring sooo many important points.  I'm not even going to waste my time going into them, because you have made up your mind as has Etcetera.  There is no discussion here.  It's pointless.


----------



## Lewdog

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.
Click to expand...


Uh... not even the most brilliant minds in the world get things right the first time all the time.  Sorry, but that was a very ignorant statement to make.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on drugs?  Leo's carbon footprint is over 1000 times higher than mine.  Eco friendly resort?  Once again, are you on drugs.  The only way to get to it is via boat or airplane and it was a nice un fucked with piece of property.  In other words it was virgin.  Now it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> You can not possibly be serious...
> 
> Hell, your ultra-Conservative Breitbart rag even wrote about his island...
> 
> Be Eco-Friendly at Leonardo DiCaprio's New Environmentalist Resort-for $2K a Night - Breitbart
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claim it's an "eco" resort but ignore the carbon expended in getting there.  You also seem to think it great that he took a pristine island and fucked it up.  Far better would have been to buy a pre-existing resort that was falling apart and fix that up.  But no, that would be intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again...how do you expect people to get around the world?  Sail boat?  It's not practical to be able to change EVERYTHING.  You have to fight battles, one at a time, and let the war settle it'self out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on Earth are you "fighting a battle" when you take a perfect island and develop it?  Wake the hell up silly person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are totally ignoring sooo many important points.  I'm not even going to waste my time going into them, because you have made up your mind as has Etcetera.  There is no discussion here.  It's pointless.
Click to expand...






What am I "ignoring"?  Please educate me instead of running away.


----------



## westwall

Lewdog said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... not even the most brilliant minds in the world get things right the first time all the time.  Sorry, but that was a very ignorant statement to make.
Click to expand...






Nope.  It's a realistic one.  Rules are being written by people who have no clue about modern racing.  Instead of "tweaking" the rules they should have convened the real experts and tried to figure out a way to achieve the goal with technology.  When rules are used to achieve some goal there are always, and I mean always, unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are beneficial, a rarity, but the usual result is something that makes a bad problem even worse, or as the restrictor plates have done, created a whole new problem that ultimately is worse than the problem they were trying to fix.


----------



## elektra

Lewdog said:


> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.


True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  Calling me non-sense coming from someone that made the statement that when oil dries up we die?
> 
> Edit:  I've NEVER said we need to go without oil... NEVER.  Prove I said that.  In fact I've said we will NEVER be able to stop using oil and coal.  BUT we need to limit it's use so it last longer, and so that we can minimize the effects it has on the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An electric motor can do anything that a ICE can do. And, most of the time, do it better. As the energy density of batteries continues to increase, there will come a time when the ICE is relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.  Let's see here, Isle of Man TT.  The super bikes can do two laps at full speed then they have to stop for a refuel and more importantly a new rear tire (the real reason for the stop) while the electric class can make but a single lap.  And that not nearly as fast as the super bikes.  Hmmm.  How about that Formula E class?  Well lookey here, they do fewer laps than the Formula One cars, at a slower speed, and they have to stop and CHANGE CARS at the halfway point.  Yeppers, they are so good you have to have two to perform not as well as a Formula One.
> 
> Or how about that solar powered airplane?  Technology demonstrator I think they called it?  Not really.  It was far more of an endurance demonstrator.  It took them months to traverse the world whereas a regular aircraft can do it in hours, and it was a highly dangerous flight for the pilots involved them not being able to sleep for over 5 days in a couple of instances.
> 
> That is what we call an epic fail dude.
Click to expand...

No, ol' man, the epic fail is you once more lying.


Lightning electric motorbike wins the Pike Peak race hands down.


The lightning is the fastest production motorbike in the world.

Lightning Electric Motorcycle Fastest Electric MotorcycleLightning Motorcycles


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will always be able to grow food.  That's not the issue.  the issue is efficiency.  Oil won't be running out any time soon, and neither will coal.  Technology will keep us going for quite a while.  What annoys me is there are so many other, better uses for oil than using them to power our cars.  I would love to see a broadcast energy system as envisioned by Tesla.  That would be revolutionary, and environmentally friendly unlike the battery powered monstrosities we currently see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Another really dumb ass 'Conservative' disses the present and future EV's. LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> « prevnext »
> 2 of 50
> View larger
> 
> 2016 Tesla Model S Sedan Pricing & Features | Edmunds
> 
> *Boy, would I ever love to have one of those 'monstrosities'. Tesla S, P100D*
> 
> Tesla Model S - Car and Driver
> 
> Boasting up to 315 miles of range, the Model S is the all-electric dream car envied by many. Icing on the cake is Ludicrous mode that blasts the top P100D to 60 mph in a claimed 2.5 seconds. The lower-spec models offer reduced driving ranges and features, but the base 60 model we tested hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds. Luxury items such as an air filter that Tesla says can protect occupants from bioweapons and pollutants—plus available high-tech features including Tesla’s Autopilot—seal the deal.
> 
> *0 to legal limit acceleration that makes a GT-40 look like a lead sled.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Really?  You want to go there, sport?  My GT will top out at 214 mph.  How about the Tesla?  I can drive it for over 500 miles on a single tank of gas, refuel in minutes and drive another 500 miles.  How about that Tesla?  My car is over 50 years old and worth well over 1.5 million bucks.  How about that Tesla?  What happens when the battery bricks?  Oh yeah, it ain't worth dog poo.  In fact it becomes a net liability.  0-60 times you say?  How about 4.2 seconds, but that is in a car geared to do 200 miles per hour.  If I wanted to change the gearing I can drop my 0-60 times to the same as the Tesla.
> 
> See how that works.  My 50 year old car is worth more, has a better top speed, is more driveable for long distances, corners like a dream compared to that Tesla whale (yes I have driven one) and isn't a polluting monstrosity when the battery packs up.
Click to expand...

Still playing the dumb ass, Mr. Westwall? Why yes, your GT is worth a million and a half. And you cannot legally use that top end at all anywhere on the highway. And, were you to gear that GT to match a P100D, it would take a professional driver to keep it straight to the legal limit. Whereas a P100D can do that with granny driving, because of the torque control.

And the P100D is a three ton luxury car that can comfortably seat five. And you can drive it comfortably in the supermarket parking lot. No, it is not worth a million and a half. It can be had for less that $150,000. And it is over 90% made in America.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have never watched racing or you would understand what I am saying.  Cars have to all meet specific requirements, making as even a playing field as possible, putting more onus on the driver's skill, and the strategy of the crew members.
> 
> I can see you've been defeated, as you have instead fallen into the idea of nothing substantial in your posts other than insults.  Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, poor LapDog, if insults were the criteria for defeat, you lost a long time ago. Cars must meet specific requirements? Sure, yet now you propose changing the rules to make one car competitive that is at this time unable to compete. Truly I have never seen such a blatant display of rule by dictatorship. Now you demand that the rules of racing be changed so that cars that are not competitive can actually enter a race? Yes, my posts are not substantial, because I do not allow you to spew your ridiculous, ill thought, posts without pointing out how stupid they are.
> 
> "It is fair and competitive just as long as we change the rules so that it is as we dictate"?
> 
> Or, if a car can not compete because it fails to perform, we simply need to change the rules dictating that no car can perform?
> 
> Making it simply a test of who can change a tire, quickest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you waste your keystrokes to talk about something you have absolutely NO CLUE about?  Do you even know how racing works?  Significant changes have already been made in racing before.  On large tracks like Daytona they have restricter plate racing because the cars were going so fast that when they wrecked they would fly off the track... if you don't have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about, you should just stop... you are embarrassing yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the restrictor plates dropped the speeds by around 30 mph.  But the cars can still go off the track into the stands.  In other words the restrictor plates haven't done the job they were intended for.  And the drivers hate them for the most part feeling that they increase the likelihood of crashes.  Far better would have been to allow the racers to come up with an aerodynamic solution.
> 
> The same is true in F1.  The FIA has mandated some good, and not so good rules that have turned what was once the pinnacle of car racing into a rather boring parade.  Now I watch Isle of Man TT and Irish road racing as that is far more entertaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
Click to expand...

OK, Mr. Westwall, post us the government regulations for the restrictor plates. LOL


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you failed to mention... was WHY they believe the restrictor plates cause more crashes.  It's because it makes everything so even that cars have to travel in packs to use the aerodynamics to the advantage of gaining speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... not even the most brilliant minds in the world get things right the first time all the time.  Sorry, but that was a very ignorant statement to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's a realistic one.  Rules are being written by people who have no clue about modern racing.  Instead of "tweaking" the rules they should have convened the real experts and tried to figure out a way to achieve the goal with technology.  When rules are used to achieve some goal there are always, and I mean always, unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are beneficial, a rarity, but the usual result is something that makes a bad problem even worse, or as the restrictor plates have done, created a whole new problem that ultimately is worse than the problem they were trying to fix.
Click to expand...

OK, post for us who those people are that are making the rules, and who they work for. I bet you are afraid to do that, Mr. Westwall.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
Click to expand...

In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will you grow food with out Oil? Without Oil we do die. Using it faster to build Solar and Wind brings the end nearer. Solar and Wind consume far too much for what they provide us. How do you build a Wind Turbine without oil, is there a substitute for the Propene, which only comes from Oil, which you need to manufacture fiberglass?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An electric motor can do anything that a ICE can do. And, most of the time, do it better. As the energy density of batteries continues to increase, there will come a time when the ICE is relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.  Let's see here, Isle of Man TT.  The super bikes can do two laps at full speed then they have to stop for a refuel and more importantly a new rear tire (the real reason for the stop) while the electric class can make but a single lap.  And that not nearly as fast as the super bikes.  Hmmm.  How about that Formula E class?  Well lookey here, they do fewer laps than the Formula One cars, at a slower speed, and they have to stop and CHANGE CARS at the halfway point.  Yeppers, they are so good you have to have two to perform not as well as a Formula One.
> 
> Or how about that solar powered airplane?  Technology demonstrator I think they called it?  Not really.  It was far more of an endurance demonstrator.  It took them months to traverse the world whereas a regular aircraft can do it in hours, and it was a highly dangerous flight for the pilots involved them not being able to sleep for over 5 days in a couple of instances.
> 
> That is what we call an epic fail dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, ol' man, the epic fail is you once more lying.
> 
> 
> Lightning electric motorbike wins the Pike Peak race hands down.
> 
> 
> The lightning is the fastest production motorbike in the world.
> 
> Lightning Electric Motorcycle Fastest Electric MotorcycleLightning Motorcycles
Click to expand...






Oh big whoop.  Here's the reality olfraud....And, the electric bike is 4.3 MILLION dollars.  Compared to 125,000 for the ICE powered bikes.  So, you're slower, can manage only a single lap, and cost shitloads more.  Yeppers, only your typical brain dead progressive would think that was smart....


Vs


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well of course, the production is going to be higher using combines and tractors, but just because those wouldn't be viable anymore doesn't mean we can't any longer grow food.  It means that people will have to start growing their own food instead of depending on buying it from large farms.  I'm not really sure why this idea is so hard to grasp.  There are people RIGHT now living without any type of mechanical farming equipment, car, anything that uses oil... and they are living.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We will always be able to grow food.  That's not the issue.  the issue is efficiency.  Oil won't be running out any time soon, and neither will coal.  Technology will keep us going for quite a while.  What annoys me is there are so many other, better uses for oil than using them to power our cars.  I would love to see a broadcast energy system as envisioned by Tesla.  That would be revolutionary, and environmentally friendly unlike the battery powered monstrosities we currently see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Another really dumb ass 'Conservative' disses the present and future EV's. LOL*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> « prevnext »
> 2 of 50
> View larger
> 
> 2016 Tesla Model S Sedan Pricing & Features | Edmunds
> 
> *Boy, would I ever love to have one of those 'monstrosities'. Tesla S, P100D*
> 
> Tesla Model S - Car and Driver
> 
> Boasting up to 315 miles of range, the Model S is the all-electric dream car envied by many. Icing on the cake is Ludicrous mode that blasts the top P100D to 60 mph in a claimed 2.5 seconds. The lower-spec models offer reduced driving ranges and features, but the base 60 model we tested hit 60 mph in 5.5 seconds. Luxury items such as an air filter that Tesla says can protect occupants from bioweapons and pollutants—plus available high-tech features including Tesla’s Autopilot—seal the deal.
> 
> *0 to legal limit acceleration that makes a GT-40 look like a lead sled.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Really?  You want to go there, sport?  My GT will top out at 214 mph.  How about the Tesla?  I can drive it for over 500 miles on a single tank of gas, refuel in minutes and drive another 500 miles.  How about that Tesla?  My car is over 50 years old and worth well over 1.5 million bucks.  How about that Tesla?  What happens when the battery bricks?  Oh yeah, it ain't worth dog poo.  In fact it becomes a net liability.  0-60 times you say?  How about 4.2 seconds, but that is in a car geared to do 200 miles per hour.  If I wanted to change the gearing I can drop my 0-60 times to the same as the Tesla.
> 
> See how that works.  My 50 year old car is worth more, has a better top speed, is more driveable for long distances, corners like a dream compared to that Tesla whale (yes I have driven one) and isn't a polluting monstrosity when the battery packs up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still playing the dumb ass, Mr. Westwall? Why yes, your GT is worth a million and a half. And you cannot legally use that top end at all anywhere on the highway. And, were you to gear that GT to match a P100D, it would take a professional driver to keep it straight to the legal limit. Whereas a P100D can do that with granny driving, because of the torque control.
> 
> And the P100D is a three ton luxury car that can comfortably seat five. And you can drive it comfortably in the supermarket parking lot. No, it is not worth a million and a half. It can be had for less that $150,000. And it is over 90% made in America.
Click to expand...







Wow, you really don't anything do you.  No, it would not take a "professional driver to keep it straight" where the hell do you idiots come from,  you have clearly never, ever,  driven a high performance car.  Ever.  Here's the deal silly man, going straight is easy.  Any old dumbshit can do that.  Even you.  The skill comes in when you are taking the corners, that's where you need a competent driver.  

I can drive my car comfortably anywhere.  It is a very comfortable car to drive.  I can seat two.  That's what it was designed for.  I can even go to the supermarket (and have) to get a good load of groceries.  And, like I said before, I can drive 1000 miles in a single day (and have) good luck doing that with your Tesla.   And my car will continue to appreciate while the Tesla will drop to nothing.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it REQUIRES the drivers to pack in close together which leads to more accidents.  in other words it's a fucking retarded solution to a very real problem.  Sounds like the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... not even the most brilliant minds in the world get things right the first time all the time.  Sorry, but that was a very ignorant statement to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's a realistic one.  Rules are being written by people who have no clue about modern racing.  Instead of "tweaking" the rules they should have convened the real experts and tried to figure out a way to achieve the goal with technology.  When rules are used to achieve some goal there are always, and I mean always, unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are beneficial, a rarity, but the usual result is something that makes a bad problem even worse, or as the restrictor plates have done, created a whole new problem that ultimately is worse than the problem they were trying to fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, post for us who those people are that are making the rules, and who they work for. I bet you are afraid to do that, Mr. Westwall.
Click to expand...





Why on Earth would I be afraid to do that?  Here's the link to NASCAR, they set the rules.  Tell me that the restrictor plate rules have been beneficial to the sport.  Tell me how the rule has made things "safer".  C'mon silly man.

http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-me...-updates-daytona-500-qualifying-charters.html


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
Click to expand...







  Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.


ICE, you mean an engine? An Engine contains no energy, you mental giant, do you drink when you post? Are you feeble? Can you make a sentence with the words, Hare, Hunter, and Field? In 10 years the government will do what they have claimed they will do tomorrow, solving a problem EverReady and Duracell have spent a 100 years on. Old Crock continues his Crock of shit. The part that Old Crock is not able to comprehend, that in ten years, you will still need Oil, to make batteries, and if everyone is using batteries, then that is a huge, new, market for Oil. To save the Oil, Old Crock will use all the Oil on a dream that will always fail, at the least, it fails because it is a dream that is fueled or built with Oil. Dream on dumb fuck!


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you just seriously ask how you grow food without oil?  OMG how in the hell did people live before we discovered oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not very well.  Fossil fuels have allowed the farming industry to industrialize.  I suggest you look at the production rates pre, and post internal combustion engines.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An electric motor can do anything that a ICE can do. And, most of the time, do it better. As the energy density of batteries continues to increase, there will come a time when the ICE is relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it can.  Let's see here, Isle of Man TT.  The super bikes can do two laps at full speed then they have to stop for a refuel and more importantly a new rear tire (the real reason for the stop) while the electric class can make but a single lap.  And that not nearly as fast as the super bikes.  Hmmm.  How about that Formula E class?  Well lookey here, they do fewer laps than the Formula One cars, at a slower speed, and they have to stop and CHANGE CARS at the halfway point.  Yeppers, they are so good you have to have two to perform not as well as a Formula One.
> 
> Or how about that solar powered airplane?  Technology demonstrator I think they called it?  Not really.  It was far more of an endurance demonstrator.  It took them months to traverse the world whereas a regular aircraft can do it in hours, and it was a highly dangerous flight for the pilots involved them not being able to sleep for over 5 days in a couple of instances.
> 
> That is what we call an epic fail dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, ol' man, the epic fail is you once more lying.
> 
> 
> Lightning electric motorbike wins the Pike Peak race hands down.
> 
> 
> The lightning is the fastest production motorbike in the world.
> 
> Lightning Electric Motorcycle Fastest Electric MotorcycleLightning Motorcycles
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh big whoop.  Here's the reality olfraud....And, the electric bike is 4.3 MILLION dollars.  Compared to 125,000 for the ICE powered bikes.  So, you're slower, can manage only a single lap, and cost shitloads more.  Yeppers, only your typical brain dead progressive would think that was smart....
> 
> 
> Vs
Click to expand...

*Again, what a liar you are, Mr. Westwall. The Lightning motorcycle retails beginning at $39,000.*

Lightning Electric Motorcycle Fastest Electric MotorcycleLightning Motorcycles

Lightning Motorcycle has designed and produced a Sportbike sure to change the minds of anyone doubting electric motorcycle performance. The *LS-218* is the fastest production motorcycle in the world - gas or electric. Retail price starts at $38,888 USD.

*Again, the Lightning tops out at 218 mph.

Specifications - Lightning MotorcyclesLightning Motorcycles

And the lightning in the top class for motorcycles at the Pikes Peak race beat the closest ICE motorcycle in the race by 20 seconds. That is in a race usually decided in tenths of a second.


Lightning Makes History At Pikes Peak*


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, what it did was start a chain of events that needs to be tweaked.  Adapt and overcome.    They wanted to slow down the cars that were getting faster and faster... they did that.  Now they need to figure out a way to make it so that race cars can pass without so much bumper to bumper action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time you need to tweak you're doing something wrong.  Just sayin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh... not even the most brilliant minds in the world get things right the first time all the time.  Sorry, but that was a very ignorant statement to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  It's a realistic one.  Rules are being written by people who have no clue about modern racing.  Instead of "tweaking" the rules they should have convened the real experts and tried to figure out a way to achieve the goal with technology.  When rules are used to achieve some goal there are always, and I mean always, unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are beneficial, a rarity, but the usual result is something that makes a bad problem even worse, or as the restrictor plates have done, created a whole new problem that ultimately is worse than the problem they were trying to fix.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK, post for us who those people are that are making the rules, and who they work for. I bet you are afraid to do that, Mr. Westwall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why on Earth would I be afraid to do that?  Here's the link to NASCAR, they set the rules.  Tell me that the restrictor plate rules have been beneficial to the sport.  Tell me how the rule has made things "safer".  C'mon silly man.
> 
> http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-me...-updates-daytona-500-qualifying-charters.html
Click to expand...

So, it is NASCAR, not the government that makes the rules for the stockers. So any beef concerning those rules should be directed in the direction of a private concern, NASCAR.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

What a fucking liar you continue to be, Mr. Westwall. Battery technology is going leaps and bounds. Oncor, the largest utility in Texas, has stated that the economic line for grid scale batteries is $350 per kw/hr. Tesla is now offering grid scale batteries at $250 per kw/hr.

Why Tesla Batteries Are Cheap Enough To Prevent New Power Plants

Tesla Wins Massive Contract to Power the California Grid

Tesla just won a bid to supply grid-scale power in Southern California to help prevent electricity shortages following the biggest natural gas leak in U.S. history. The Powerpacks, worth tens of millions of dollars, will be operational in record time—by the end of this year.

Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries. Tesla's contribution is enough to power about 2,500 homes for a full day, the company said in a blog post on Thursday. But the real significance of the deal is the speed with which lithium-ion battery packs are being deployed.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries. Tesla's contribution is enough to power about 2,500 homes for a full day, the company said in a blog post on Thursday. But the real significance of the deal is the speed with which lithium-ion battery packs are being deployed.


20 mwh is enough power to prevent blackouts? If that was true, the billions of dollars spend on Renewables would of prevented blackouts. 20 mwh? That is all they are short. Old Crock is really stupid.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

*Such an old fool you are, Mr. Westwall.

New lithium-ion battery design that's 2,000 times more powerful, recharges 1,000 times faster - ExtremeTech

Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed a new lithium-ion battery technology that is 2,000 times more powerful than comparable batteries. According to the researchers, this is not simply an evolutionary step in battery tech, “It’s a new enabling technology… it breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources. It’s allowing us to do different, new things.”

Currently, energy storage is all about trade-offs. You can have lots of power (watts), or lots of energy (watt-hours), but you can’t generally have both. Supercapacitors can release a massive amount of power, but only for a few seconds; fuel cells can store a vast amount of energy, but are limited in their peak power output. This a problem because most modern applications of bleeding-edge tech — smartphones, wearable computers, electric vehicles — require large amounts of power and energy. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the best solution for high-power-and-energy applications, but even the best li-ion battery designs demand that industrial designers and electronic engineers make serious trade-offs when creating a new device.


Which brings us neatly onto the University of Illinois’ battery, which has a higher power density than a supercapacitor, and yet comparable energy density to current nickel-zinc and lithium-ion batteries. According to the university’s press release, this new battery could allow for wireless devices to transmit their signals 30 times farther — or, perhaps more usefully, be equipped with a battery that’s 30 times smaller. If that wasn’t enough, this new battery is rechargeable — and can be charged 1,000 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries. In short, this is a dream battery. (See: DoE calls for a chemical battery with 5x capacity, within 5 years – can it be done?)*


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Motors Inc. will supply 20 megawatts (80 megawatt-hours) of energy storage to Southern California Edison as part of a wider effort to prevent blackouts by replacing fossil-fuel electricity generation with lithium-ion batteries. Tesla's contribution is enough to power about 2,500 homes for a full day, the company said in a blog post on Thursday. But the real significance of the deal is the speed with which lithium-ion battery packs are being deployed.
> 
> 
> 
> 20 mwh is enough power to prevent blackouts? If that was true, the billions of dollars spend on Renewables would of prevented blackouts. 20 mwh? That is all they are short. Old Crock is really stupid.
Click to expand...

Ah, Ms. Elektra, this is just the start. These batteries will be used at both ends of the grid. And they will actually eliminate many remaining coal fires plants because of the advantage they give to the renewables. And fools like you and Mr. Westwall will just be left beside the road, shouting 'Get a horse'.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Ah, Ms. Elektra, this is just the start. These batteries will be used at both ends of the grid. And they will actually eliminate many remaining coal fires plants because of the advantage they give to the renewables. And fools like you and Mr. Westwall will just be left beside the road, shouting 'Get a horse'.


No, idiot, the start was over 30 years ago, and maybe a trillion dollars ago. Now you propose to spend $44 trillion dollars and you call this just the beginning. You gotta be the dumbest man alive Old Dumbass. Renewables can not meet peak demand, Renewables can not supply enough energy at night to supply california with energy, now you think somehow there is excess to store? Where, from Ivanpah, ha, ha, ha. That is a multi billion dollar Solar Plant running on 24 hours of Natural Gas. That is great, Old Crock is going to use Natural Gas to charge batteries and call it a renewable technological advance. Idiots.


----------



## elektra

The time between my last post and the next post of Old Crock's is the amount of time that Old Crock is sitting around scratching his ass.


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Such an old fool you are, Mr. Westwall.
> 
> New lithium-ion battery design that's 2,000 times more powerful, recharges 1,000 times faster - ExtremeTech
> 
> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed a new lithium-ion battery technology that is 2,000 times more powerful than comparable batteries. According to the researchers, this is not simply an evolutionary step in battery tech, “It’s a new enabling technology… it breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources. It’s allowing us to do different, new things.”
> 
> Currently, energy storage is all about trade-offs. You can have lots of power (watts), or lots of energy (watt-hours), but you can’t generally have both. Supercapacitors can release a massive amount of power, but only for a few seconds; fuel cells can store a vast amount of energy, but are limited in their peak power output. This a problem because most modern applications of bleeding-edge tech — smartphones, wearable computers, electric vehicles — require large amounts of power and energy. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the best solution for high-power-and-energy applications, but even the best li-ion battery designs demand that industrial designers and electronic engineers make serious trade-offs when creating a new device.
> 
> 
> Which brings us neatly onto the University of Illinois’ battery, which has a higher power density than a supercapacitor, and yet comparable energy density to current nickel-zinc and lithium-ion batteries. According to the university’s press release, this new battery could allow for wireless devices to transmit their signals 30 times farther — or, perhaps more usefully, be equipped with a battery that’s 30 times smaller. If that wasn’t enough, this new battery is rechargeable — and can be charged 1,000 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries. In short, this is a dream battery. (See: DoE calls for a chemical battery with 5x capacity, within 5 years – can it be done?)*
Click to expand...






Oh cool!  The article is 3 years old.  How are they coming with that?  Got any recent updates?  I did read the actual paper and lo and behold, the claim in the article is not what is claimed in the paper.   The technology refers to micro batteries only.  Quelle surprise surprise.

"High-performance miniature power sources could enable new microelectronic systems. Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4 mW cm−2 μm−1, which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, *and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries.* Our key insight is that the battery microarchitecture can concurrently optimize ion and electron transport for high-power delivery, realized here as a three-dimensional bicontinuous interdigitated microelectrodes. The battery microarchitecture affords trade-offs between power and energy density that result in a high-performance power source, and which is scalable to larger areas."


High-power lithium ion microbatteries from interdigitated three-dimensional bicontinuous nanoporous electrodes : Nature Communications


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Professional racing is structured so that there is competition.
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Such an old fool you are, Mr. Westwall.
> 
> New lithium-ion battery design that's 2,000 times more powerful, recharges 1,000 times faster - ExtremeTech
> 
> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed a new lithium-ion battery technology that is 2,000 times more powerful than comparable batteries. According to the researchers, this is not simply an evolutionary step in battery tech, “It’s a new enabling technology… it breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources. It’s allowing us to do different, new things.”
> 
> Currently, energy storage is all about trade-offs. You can have lots of power (watts), or lots of energy (watt-hours), but you can’t generally have both. Supercapacitors can release a massive amount of power, but only for a few seconds; fuel cells can store a vast amount of energy, but are limited in their peak power output. This a problem because most modern applications of bleeding-edge tech — smartphones, wearable computers, electric vehicles — require large amounts of power and energy. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the best solution for high-power-and-energy applications, but even the best li-ion battery designs demand that industrial designers and electronic engineers make serious trade-offs when creating a new device.
> 
> 
> Which brings us neatly onto the University of Illinois’ battery, which has a higher power density than a supercapacitor, and yet comparable energy density to current nickel-zinc and lithium-ion batteries. According to the university’s press release, this new battery could allow for wireless devices to transmit their signals 30 times farther — or, perhaps more usefully, be equipped with a battery that’s 30 times smaller. If that wasn’t enough, this new battery is rechargeable — and can be charged 1,000 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries. In short, this is a dream battery. (See: DoE calls for a chemical battery with 5x capacity, within 5 years – can it be done?)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool!  The article is 3 years old.  How are they coming with that?  Got any recent updates?  I did read the actual paper and lo and behold, the claim in the article is not what is claimed in the paper.   The technology refers to micro batteries only.  Quelle surprise surprise.
> 
> "High-performance miniature power sources could enable new microelectronic systems. Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4 mW cm−2 μm−1, which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, *and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries.* Our key insight is that the battery microarchitecture can concurrently optimize ion and electron transport for high-power delivery, realized here as a three-dimensional bicontinuous interdigitated microelectrodes. The battery microarchitecture affords trade-offs between power and energy density that result in a high-performance power source, and which is scalable to larger areas."
> 
> 
> High-power lithium ion microbatteries from interdigitated three-dimensional bicontinuous nanoporous electrodes : Nature Communications
Click to expand...

High-performance miniature power sources could enable new microelectronic systems. Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4 mW cm−2 μm−1, which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries. Our key insight is that the battery microarchitecture can concurrently optimize ion and electron transport for high-power delivery, realized here as a three-dimensional bicontinuous interdigitated microelectrodes. The battery microarchitecture affords trade-offs between power and energy density that result in a high-performance power source, and which is scalable to larger areas.

High-power lithium ion microbatteries from interdigitated three-dimensional bicontinuous nanoporous electrodes : Nature Communications

*Crap, old man, don't you even read what you post? Scalable to larger areas. LOL*


----------



## Old Rocks

*The ultra-high volumetric energy density lithium-sulfur battery*
* January 23, 2014 *


Lithium ion battery technology (LIBs) is one of the most important mobile power sources for laptops, cameras, and smart phones. However, the current energy density of LIBs is approaching the theoretical limit, which underscoring the urgent need for new high energy density battery systems. Among the high-energy density storage systems, lithium-sulfur batteries, with energy density of 2600 Wh kg-1 (nearly 3~5 times than that of the traditional LIBs), holds the potential to serve as next generation of high energy battery. Sulfur possesses a very low electric conductivity of 5x10-30 S cm-1 at room temperature. Therefore, 30-70 wt. percent conductive materials, e.g. carbon nanotubes, graphene, porous carbon, and conductive polymers, have to be added into the electrode for high utilization of sulfur at current processing technology. The addition of nanocarbon materials with low stacking density neutralizes the high energy density, especially the volumetric energy density of lithium-sulfur batteries.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-01-ultra-high-volumetric-energy-density-lithium-sulfur.html#jCp

*Other avenues.*


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> westwall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, and Electric cars are not structured so that they can compete thus, like all things Electric, you want the rules changed to give the appearance, that Electric can compete.
> 
> 
> 
> In about ten years, the battery technology will have advanced to the point where the batteries will have as much or more energy density as liquid fuels. And they will beat the socks off of the ICE's. The ICE will be relegated to the same role as the horse is today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep dreamin dude.  Battery technology is stagnant for the most part.  So long as that is the primary method of storing energy you ain't going nowhere.  It is a old technology that is bound by the laws of physics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Such an old fool you are, Mr. Westwall.
> 
> New lithium-ion battery design that's 2,000 times more powerful, recharges 1,000 times faster - ExtremeTech
> 
> Researchers at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have developed a new lithium-ion battery technology that is 2,000 times more powerful than comparable batteries. According to the researchers, this is not simply an evolutionary step in battery tech, “It’s a new enabling technology… it breaks the normal paradigms of energy sources. It’s allowing us to do different, new things.”
> 
> Currently, energy storage is all about trade-offs. You can have lots of power (watts), or lots of energy (watt-hours), but you can’t generally have both. Supercapacitors can release a massive amount of power, but only for a few seconds; fuel cells can store a vast amount of energy, but are limited in their peak power output. This a problem because most modern applications of bleeding-edge tech — smartphones, wearable computers, electric vehicles — require large amounts of power and energy. Lithium-ion batteries are currently the best solution for high-power-and-energy applications, but even the best li-ion battery designs demand that industrial designers and electronic engineers make serious trade-offs when creating a new device.
> 
> 
> Which brings us neatly onto the University of Illinois’ battery, which has a higher power density than a supercapacitor, and yet comparable energy density to current nickel-zinc and lithium-ion batteries. According to the university’s press release, this new battery could allow for wireless devices to transmit their signals 30 times farther — or, perhaps more usefully, be equipped with a battery that’s 30 times smaller. If that wasn’t enough, this new battery is rechargeable — and can be charged 1,000 times faster than conventional li-ion batteries. In short, this is a dream battery. (See: DoE calls for a chemical battery with 5x capacity, within 5 years – can it be done?)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh cool!  The article is 3 years old.  How are they coming with that?  Got any recent updates?  I did read the actual paper and lo and behold, the claim in the article is not what is claimed in the paper.   The technology refers to micro batteries only.  Quelle surprise surprise.
> 
> "High-performance miniature power sources could enable new microelectronic systems. Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4 mW cm−2 μm−1, which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, *and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries.* Our key insight is that the battery microarchitecture can concurrently optimize ion and electron transport for high-power delivery, realized here as a three-dimensional bicontinuous interdigitated microelectrodes. The battery microarchitecture affords trade-offs between power and energy density that result in a high-performance power source, and which is scalable to larger areas."
> 
> 
> High-power lithium ion microbatteries from interdigitated three-dimensional bicontinuous nanoporous electrodes : Nature Communications
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> High-performance miniature power sources could enable new microelectronic systems. Here we report lithium ion microbatteries having power densities up to 7.4 mW cm−2 μm−1, which equals or exceeds that of the best supercapacitors, and which is 2,000 times higher than that of other microbatteries. Our key insight is that the battery microarchitecture can concurrently optimize ion and electron transport for high-power delivery, realized here as a three-dimensional bicontinuous interdigitated microelectrodes. The battery microarchitecture affords trade-offs between power and energy density that result in a high-performance power source, and which is scalable to larger areas.
> 
> High-power lithium ion microbatteries from interdigitated three-dimensional bicontinuous nanoporous electrodes : Nature Communications
> 
> *Crap, old man, don't you even read what you post? Scalable to larger areas. LOL*
Click to expand...





Hopefully scalable.  Have they produced anything yet?


----------



## Old Rocks

*You’ll Still Have To Wait Though*
These batteries are amazing. They’re smaller, safer, and simply _better_. But Bosch expects they won’t be hitting the market until 2020.

Until then, there are some other exciting developments in battery tech to get excited about. Samsung is working on a battery that uses silicon anodes, and offers twice the capacity.

Meanwhile, Nanyang Technical University of Singapore is using titanium dioxide nanotube anodes in order to speed recharge times to two minutes, and increase the longevity of a battery to _twenty years_.

There’s also graphene technology, which is one of the most promising battery technologies around, as well as radically increase the computational power of the processors we use.

New Solid State Battery Will Double Electric Car Range

*Many, many things happening in battery technology. *


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> *You’ll Still Have To Wait Though*
> These batteries are amazing. They’re smaller, safer, and simply _better_. But Bosch expects they won’t be hitting the market until 2020.
> 
> Until then, there are some other exciting developments in battery tech to get excited about. Samsung is working on a battery that uses silicon anodes, and offers twice the capacity.
> 
> Meanwhile, Nanyang Technical University of Singapore is using titanium dioxide nanotube anodes in order to speed recharge times to two minutes, and increase the longevity of a battery to _twenty years_.
> 
> There’s also graphene technology, which is one of the most promising battery technologies around, as well as radically increase the computational power of the processors we use.
> 
> New Solid State Battery Will Double Electric Car Range
> 
> *Many, many things happening in battery technology. *








Well, we've seen how the Samsung batteries are working.  The graphene tech I agree has some potential.  I believe they were able to ship their first commercial load so we'll have to see where that go's.  I think it has many more applications in aerospace than battery tech, but time will tell.  Tesla is working on the TiO2 battery tech and they haven't gotten very far with it.


----------



## Old Rocks

DARPA also has some grants out on Lithium-Air batteries. Should they get that technology down, the Tesla would have a range of about 1000 miles per charge.


----------



## Esmeralda

elektra said:


> 15k for the Tesla Powerwall, plus another 25k for the solar panels! 40k investment for a 60.00 a month electric bill? No mention of the subsidies either. Traditional power companies love these things. You have to build them with heavy industry, where power companies make their profit.


If your normal electricity bill is $660 a month, and with the solar panel you save $610 a month, in 10 years you save $73,200: more than makes up for th $40,000 initial cost


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> DARPA also has some grants out on Lithium-Air batteries. Should they get that technology down, the Tesla would have a range of about 1000 miles per charge.


Government making batteries? Government deciding which technology deserves money? Government picking which people are in business? And with a battery we do not need? Solar and Wind do not supply a fraction of the power we need, let alone enough to charge billions of batteries. Only a moron would suggest that we need to manufacture billions of batteries to save the World from Global Warming.


----------



## elektra

Esmeralda said:


> If your normal electricity bill is $660 a month, and with the solar panel you save $610 a month, in 10 years you save $73,200: more than makes up for th $40,000 initial cost


It is impossible for the average rooftop solar panel to produce $610 worth of electricity a month, they are too weak.


----------



## westwall

Esmeralda said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15k for the Tesla Powerwall, plus another 25k for the solar panels! 40k investment for a 60.00 a month electric bill? No mention of the subsidies either. Traditional power companies love these things. You have to build them with heavy industry, where power companies make their profit.
> 
> 
> 
> If your normal electricity bill is $660 a month, and with the solar panel you save $610 a month, in 10 years you save $73,200: more than makes up for th $40,000 initial cost
Click to expand...







The reality is solar panels that the average family can afford don't produce anywhere close to that amount.  Even industrial grade solar doesn't approach half of that sort of production.   Average payback for a standard commercial solar system is around 25 years.


----------



## Old Rocks

westwall said:


> Esmeralda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 15k for the Tesla Powerwall, plus another 25k for the solar panels! 40k investment for a 60.00 a month electric bill? No mention of the subsidies either. Traditional power companies love these things. You have to build them with heavy industry, where power companies make their profit.
> 
> 
> 
> If your normal electricity bill is $660 a month, and with the solar panel you save $610 a month, in 10 years you save $73,200: more than makes up for th $40,000 initial cost
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reality is solar panels that the average family can afford don't produce anywhere close to that amount.  Even industrial grade solar doesn't approach half of that sort of production.   Average payback for a standard commercial solar system is around 25 years.
Click to expand...

Energy Payback Of Solar Rocks It! (Graph)

The energy payback time in which the energy input during the module life‐cycle is compensated by electricity generated by the PV module depends on several factors, including cell technology, PV system application, irradiation, the sources of energy used in its manufacturing processes and the energy the PV will displace.

For a typical 2 kWp rooftop system, the energy payback time is 2 to 3 years using multi‐crystalline modules and more than 7.5 times the energy used in its manufacture is generated over a 20 year life. For thin film modules, the payback time is half that of crystalline modules, but the lifetime may be shorter.




Click to Embiggen.

*LOL  Ol' Westwall just cannot cease to lie.*


----------



## Old Rocks

Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems

One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems
> 
> One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.



Okay, lets forget that the price of just a Tesla PowerWall is much more than $10k, according to the thread in which Old Crock agrees with, it is not necessary to continue to try and show the moron he is grossly wrong. That said.....

Most houses need 22 kwh, the system Old Crock uses is 4 times to small!


----------



## westwall

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems
> 
> One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets forget that the price of just a Tesla PowerWall is much more than $10k, according to the thread in which Old Crock agrees with, it is not necessary to continue to try and show the moron he is grossly wrong. That said.....
> 
> Most houses need 22 kwh, the system Old Crock uses is 4 times to small!
Click to expand...






Yup.  They're not very good with numbers are they.


----------



## Old Rocks

elektra said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems
> 
> One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets forget that the price of just a Tesla PowerWall is much more than $10k, according to the thread in which Old Crock agrees with, it is not necessary to continue to try and show the moron he is grossly wrong. That said.....
> 
> Most houses need 22 kwh, the system Old Crock uses is 4 times to small!
Click to expand...

10K would get you three Powerwalls for total of 30 kw/hrs. Then one would have to buy the inverter.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> 10K would get you three Powerwalls for total of 30 kw/hrs. Then one would have to buy the inverter.


Not at the price established as fact in this thread, that Old Crock agreed with, from the link that established this thread;



> When installation of the $13,950 Tesla Powerwall was announced, many questioned if the savings would be worth the initial investment.



3 Powerwalls? The system Old Crock proposed can not keep one Powerwall charged let alone 3?


----------



## westwall

Old Rocks said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems
> 
> One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets forget that the price of just a Tesla PowerWall is much more than $10k, according to the thread in which Old Crock agrees with, it is not necessary to continue to try and show the moron he is grossly wrong. That said.....
> 
> Most houses need 22 kwh, the system Old Crock uses is 4 times to small!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10K would get you three Powerwalls for total of 30 kw/hrs. Then one would have to buy the inverter.
Click to expand...







The power wall STORES the energy.  It doesn't generate it.  I was just playing around on the Tesla website and the new Powerwall 2 is now for sale.  It turns out to run my home I would need FIVE of them.  And that would provide power for the house for ONE DAY.




Tesla Powerwall


----------



## Old Rocks

So, Mr. Westwall, you use 50 kw/hrs a day? That must be some home. That being the case, there are units measured in 100 kw/hrs for sale. And there are also large solar arrays available. With a home that big, you should be able to afford that.


----------



## WheelieAddict

westwall said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grid tie Solar Power Systems for your home - Grid-tie Home Solar Panel Systems
> 
> One can find a whole system here, 6 kw+, for under 10K. That is less than the price of a used car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, lets forget that the price of just a Tesla PowerWall is much more than $10k, according to the thread in which Old Crock agrees with, it is not necessary to continue to try and show the moron he is grossly wrong. That said.....
> 
> Most houses need 22 kwh, the system Old Crock uses is 4 times to small!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10K would get you three Powerwalls for total of 30 kw/hrs. Then one would have to buy the inverter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The power wall STORES the energy.  It doesn't generate it.  I was just playing around on the Tesla website and the new Powerwall 2 is now for sale.  It turns out to run my home I would need FIVE of them.  And that would provide power for the house for ONE DAY.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tesla Powerwall
Click to expand...


Solar will continue growing expanding it's importance as part of our energy infrastructure.


----------



## elektra

WheelieAddict said:


> Solar will continue growing expanding it's importance as part of our energy infrastructure.


It has not yet, there is no indication that it will in the future.


----------



## Old Rocks

U.S. solar power grew by 6.2 gigawatts in 2014, a 30 percent increase over the previous year and representing nearly $18 billion in new investment, according to data released this morning by the Solar Energy Industries Association and GTM Research.

The new power systems, comprising tens of thousands of photovoltaic (PV) arrays for homes, schools, businesses and utilities, as well as a handful of large concentrated solar power facilities in places like the Mojave Desert, raised the United States' profile as one of the world's leading adopters of solar power, officials said.

Solar Power Sees Unprecedented Boom in U.S.

*And a 1.2 gw installation in Austin, Texas will be coming online soon.*


----------



## Old Rocks

*US Solar Market Set to Grow 119% in 2016, Installations to Reach 16 GW*

*You are here*
NEWS

Wednesday, March 9, 2016
BOSTON, MASS. and WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. solar market is set to grow a staggering 119 percent this year says GTM Research in its latest U.S. Solar Market Insight Report 2015 Year in Review, published in conjunction with the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).

Led by the utility-scale segment, GTM Research forecasts 16 gigawatts (GW) of solar will be installed in the U.S. in 2016, more than doubling the record-breaking 7.3 GW installed in 2015.

While utility-scale installations will represent 74 percent of the installations for the year, the residential and commercial markets will also experience strong growth in 2016. In fact, the U.S. is  on the verge of the 1 millionth solar installation milestone.

US Solar Market Set to Grow 119% in 2016, Installations to Reach 16 GW

*As solar use increases, both home and utility scale installations, and the grid scale batteries, as well as the home batteries, the price of all these devices will decrease. And their installlation rates will increase.*


----------



## Old Rocks

As can be seen from the chart at the left (updated in June, 2016) the solar industry has seen remarkable growth. The red bars represent the "annual" amount of PV solar systems installed by manufacturers in giga-watts (1 GW = 1 billion watts). For reference purposes, one nuclear reactor produces about 1.3 GW of electricity per year.

The data for 2012 and 2013 is from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). The data for 2014 and 2015 is from Mercom Capital. The forecast for 2016 is from the author.

The 5 year average growth rate from 2012 (30.1 GW) to 2016 (68.0 GW) is about 22% per year - a nice growth rate.The growth in 2013 was 28% and 2014 was 17%, which averages out to be 22.5% for the two years (very close to the 5 year average). The growth in 2015 was also 28% and  and 2016 is projected to be 18% (slowing down somewhat as the numbers begin to get quite large). The 2013 and 2015 growth spurts of 28% were mainly due to increases in China, Japan and the US which have continued through out this period.






Solar Markets Around The World

*Solar doing very well around the world*


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> As can be seen from the chart at the left (updated in June, 2016) the solar industry has seen remarkable growth. The red bars represent the "annual" amount of PV solar systems installed by manufacturers in giga-watts (1 GW = 1 billion watts). For reference purposes, one nuclear reactor produces about 1.3 GW of electricity per year.
> 
> The data for 2012 and 2013 is from the European Photovoltaic Industry Association (EPIA). The data for 2014 and 2015 is from Mercom Capital. The forecast for 2016 is from the author.
> 
> The 5 year average growth rate from 2012 (30.1 GW) to 2016 (68.0 GW) is about 22% per year - a nice growth rate.The growth in 2013 was 28% and 2014 was 17%, which averages out to be 22.5% for the two years (very close to the 5 year average). The growth in 2015 was also 28% and  and 2016 is projected to be 18% (slowing down somewhat as the numbers begin to get quite large). The 2013 and 2015 growth spurts of 28% were mainly due to increases in China, Japan and the US which have continued through out this period.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Solar Markets Around The World
> 
> *Solar doing very well around the world*


Yep, they are going to spend $44 trillion and have nothing to show for it. Included in those figures is Ivanpah, yep, the World's Largest Solar Failure still counts. That ought to tell everyone they need to know. A failed Solar Plant still counts! It is all lies, Solar does not work, it provides a trickle of energy for trillions of dollars.


----------



## Old Rocks

Dear little Ms. Elektra, Ivanpah is not PV solar. And PV solar has the advantage of being nearly maintenance free.


----------



## elektra

Old Rocks said:


> Dear little Ms. Elektra, Ivanpah is not PV solar. And PV solar has the advantage of being nearly maintenance free.


It is still included in the figure, how come


----------

