"...mostly liberals who want to control everything via Government decree."
That's a completely inaccurate depiction of progressives (I don't use the "L" word any more). But it would go far to explain why you don't understand our position.
My position is "people first". We need a network that serves the people. Capitalists seem to say "business first" and let the free market sort everything out. But the whole notion of "free market" is bullshit--it basically means an unregulated market "free" to be controlled, manipulated and corrupted by the highest bidder.
We want the government to regulate only insofar as they are the last hope to protect the interests of the people (which, arguably, they are not doing such a terrific job of, but that's a topic of debate for another day).
"Net Neutrality is like saying I have to use a Prius to haul 2 tons of bricks, or I have to us USPS instead of Fed/Ex or UPS."
Where did you read that? It says no such thing.
All Net Neutrality does is say the Prius, the F250 and the Tesla all have equal access to the roads. Along with USPS, FedEx and UPS. You can use whichever you want.
Eliminate net neutrality and the owner of the roads can charge all sorts of bizarre tarrifs. They can say that Prius will cost $25 for 100 miles but the F250 costs $100 for the same distance. In that case we're likely to end up trying to haul the 2 tons of bricks in a Prius, simply for economic reasons.
Moreover, they can charge a fee to the owner of the vehicle along with the recipient of the package. Make sure they get their cut both ways.
No question they have their hands full, and an uphill battle for years to come. But I'm not going to count them out yet. Tesla has emerged from adversity over and over. They are focused and driven, and this attitude mirrors their leader, Musk.
With the projected volume that Musk has committed to, 10,000 cars a week by the end of 2018, they may catch up to demand in a couple years. Of course they also have a history of slipped schedules, so there is still much to prove. The car doesn't need to be profitable at first, but they do need revenue, which will come with deliveries.
That said, there are risks to becoming a public company, and if shareholders decided to pull out tomorrow Tesla would be in trouble. But I don't see that happening soon unless there are any crippling setbacks for the young company.
He wasn't comparing them to each other, he was comparing both to a Madoff scheme (going back to the OP). I understood his point, you apparently missed it entirely.
It was a flawed topic to begin with. Madoff's "enterprise" was entirely financial, Tesla is a technology and manufacturing company. Madoff's collapse was only a matter of time, Tesla's future remains to be seen.
The Leaf does fine in winter. Only the drivers who don't know how to precondition their cars are cold and have foggy windows. Once preconditioned, it doesn't have enough battery range to get cold again. 50 miles and you're done until recharged.
The Leaf has two real problems: Not enough range and lack of battery thermal management. The cars in northern, colder states have held up fine. In the south, their batteries become unusable after a few years. Those are pretty big flaws.
Dealers don't want to sell electric cars. EV's do not have the constant revenue stream that Traditionl vehicles have.
That's only partly true. EVs all need tires, suspension, brakes (rarely). Plus there is steady collision work, though much of that is done by independent shops.
Dealers will solve the revenue problem once they figure out they are marketing a lifestyle, not just a car. Bring on the accessories.
The real problem for the dealers, and the major automakers, is that they have no idea how to break into new markets. They survive through repeat business and stealing each other's customers. They have faced a saturated market for decades.
Still, if enough customers show up in dealers asking for EVs, they will sell them. They will have no choice. This isn't happening today in anything but tiny numbers. I'd love to hear a single story of a dealer who converted a traditional car buyer to electric--I simply don't believe it happens.
(When I bought my Volt I laid a trap for my Chevy dealer. I didn't tell them what car I wanted, instead I described all the features of the Volt without mentioning the electric drivetrain. They never suggested it. Only when I asked "what about the Volt" did the salesman start talking about it.)
Do you believe then that a majority of Model 3 deposits will not convert to sales? If just half of the deposits become sales, the Model 3 will be the top selling EV of all time. Leaf sales are sluggish and the Bolt EV is expensive and slow to roll out. Anyone else is a small player in the market or doesn't have a vehicle in production yet. The best competition so far seems to be the Volt, which is a plug-in hybrid rather than a true EV.
Tesla is going to sell as many as it can build, certainly this year and for probably most/all of 2018. The real struggle for Tesla will be scaling up its production, service and support, and still making a profit. But the initial Model 3 purchases starting this year are certainly going to improve its cash flow.
Electric vehicles are fighting for market share at a time near historically low gasoline prices. There are several reasons for that--a price war between OPEC and domestic producers, fossil fuel industry protecting itself from growth of EVs, and decreased fuel demand due to more EVs and fuel efficient cars.
But the net effect is that few consumers can see the real value of an electric vehicle, and that's not about to change. With Tesla, consumers are seeing something else besides driving on pure electricity.
GM and Nissan both struggle to market their electric vehicles. They are building them, sales are sluggish (the Volt is doing okay) and most people know little about them. Dealers aren't prepared to educate consumers.
I think this is a case where they simply don't know what else to do. Musk has won over the mind share by building beautiful cars everyone wants. Nissan built a car that looks like a frog.
Very little, compared to extracting fossil fuels (fracking, strip mining etc.).
All manufacturing requires energy, resources and may pollute. It doesn't matter what you are making. Recycling helps. Just look at the pollution caused by discarding electronics, which is far higher in volume than discarded batteries.
The question is moot unless you are willing to stop buying manufactured goods. Lithium batteries are no different.
They are. The Volt's base price has dropped from the mid 40's to about $33k. With more EV range. The current Leaf's price has also dropped, in spite of a capacity increase from 24 kWh to 30 kWh in the base model.
And the Bolt EV, with a net MSRP under $30k and 200+ miles of range, would not have been possible a few years ago. Soon the Model 3 will join it.
Where I live, my EV compares to a 38 MPG gasoline car in total CO2 output. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/11/vehicles-m-emissions-map-with-notes.jpg
And importantly, your diesel won't bring 38 MPG if you are driving in stop-and-go traffic in the city, idling at stoplights, etc. You'll exceed that on the highway, but in the real world cars spend much of their time off the highway.
A Prius may have less CO2 output than a typical EV where I live, but those are a hybrid with gasoline generator, with similar drivetrains to electric cars (including a battery).
In California, where half our EVs are sold, an EV has total wheels-to-wells emissions comparable to 87 MPG. Better than any diesel or gasoline powered automobile.
These numbers are increasing as coal is phased out, and some drivers opt for 100% renewable energy as I have done.
There's no mystery, really, to the climate change deniers. Many who voted for Trump are older in age. They won't be around long enough to experience the worst effects of climate change, so they basically don't care.
They care about abstract debt, though. At least they say they do.
Not to change the subject but many climate deniers I talk to name our federal debt as the #1 issue for the wellbeing of our country, not the environment, not climate change, nor greenhouse gases. Perhaps because it's been drilled into their heads by TV, radio and other news sources for years.
There are no wealthy interests doing the same for climate change, at least not nearly to the same extent.
I read a story about a dog who chewed through an EVSE cable. The dog was fine. The cable was toast, though.
The J1772 standard is rather safe, because no power is applied until a signal is detected. Moreover GFCI outlets are mandatory for applications where an EVSE would be installed.
I worry far more about a fire starting in my gas water heater than any kind of electrocution from my EVSE.
I'm going to bet you've never driven a Volt. Bought mine for about $25k after incentives, which is a pretty common price for a new car, especially one as loaded with features as mine.
They really are quite nice to drive. Very quiet and smooth. Very low maintenance. Chevy probably has made a few cars in their 100+ years that could be considered a "pile of crap" but this is not one of them.
Also, I have a degree in math, and have made detailed calculations of my total cost of ownership. There are some assumptions baked in like future maintenance costs and electricity costs that can be difficult to predict, but at least electricity prices do not fluctuate nearly as wildly as gasoline does.
Teslas have required frequent maintenance because TMC is in the process of figuring out how to manufacture cars. If you buy a battery electric vehicle from an established maker you won't have these problems. My Volt and LEAF are both virtually maintenance free.
Should have also mentioned--most electric vehicles will never need a battery replacment. H2 vehicles on the other hand must have their tanks replaced due to regulations.
Hydrogen power is a dead end. Nearly all of it is derived from fossil fuels, there are too few stations, it is difficult to store and expensive to compress. It will be a market failure.
Try that with their servers. Their Linux driver support is extremely lagging.
Even today if you download new drivers for an MD array, they bundle Java 6. Which was end of life over 3 years ago and is incapable of interoperating with modern TLS implementations. If you care about securing your systems and use Dell drivers, disable as much as you can and live by the CLI.
"Spending on social programs is highly correlated with keeping people in poverty."
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Studies? Data? Facts?
The information I have shows a strong correlation to the opposite: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vector_Graph.svg
"...because we can print money..."
The government doesn't "print" money to spend, it issues currency. Printing presses and paper money exist these days to accommodate small transactions. When is the last time you bought a car with cash in hand? Or your employer paid you in cash?
I'm making a nit, but it's important to be precise with the terminology. Or you lose credibility.
"You don't understand economics."
Umm... you don't know me, nor what I read, or studied, or what my credentials are. You're making a broad assumption based on a Slashdot comment.
In general, if I don't feel qualified to post in Slashdot I stay quiet. I don't need to spread any more misinformation than there already is.
My statement about public spending is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical bounds to spending given a fiat currency in the post Bretton Woods era. The gold standard is long gone.
"Is it any wonder the more we pay for welfare, the less likely people are to get off of welfare?"
You raise the example of welfare, which I did not. It is one possible type of social support among many. (Personally I favor the Job Guarantee--provide work to all those who cannot find work.)
To examine this issue in depth you need to look at the causes of poverty. If an individual is unemployed with no prospect for work, welfare can provide sustenance but without unemployment they may never escape from poverty. But if you provide work, public or private, you have a path to independence. For a single parent raising children without support (too common in this day and age), child care and education may be the key. However these have to be accessible, if not by private means, then through social support.
Slashdot Mirror
"...mostly liberals who want to control everything via Government decree."
That's a completely inaccurate depiction of progressives (I don't use the "L" word any more). But it would go far to explain why you don't understand our position.
My position is "people first". We need a network that serves the people. Capitalists seem to say "business first" and let the free market sort everything out. But the whole notion of "free market" is bullshit--it basically means an unregulated market "free" to be controlled, manipulated and corrupted by the highest bidder.
We want the government to regulate only insofar as they are the last hope to protect the interests of the people (which, arguably, they are not doing such a terrific job of, but that's a topic of debate for another day).
"Net Neutrality is like saying I have to use a Prius to haul 2 tons of bricks, or I have to us USPS instead of Fed/Ex or UPS."
Where did you read that? It says no such thing.
All Net Neutrality does is say the Prius, the F250 and the Tesla all have equal access to the roads. Along with USPS, FedEx and UPS. You can use whichever you want.
Eliminate net neutrality and the owner of the roads can charge all sorts of bizarre tarrifs. They can say that Prius will cost $25 for 100 miles but the F250 costs $100 for the same distance. In that case we're likely to end up trying to haul the 2 tons of bricks in a Prius, simply for economic reasons.
Moreover, they can charge a fee to the owner of the vehicle along with the recipient of the package. Make sure they get their cut both ways.
Nissan/Renault combined, globally, I think you're correct. The Zoe is the best selling EV in Europe, yet not available outside that market.
No question they have their hands full, and an uphill battle for years to come. But I'm not going to count them out yet. Tesla has emerged from adversity over and over. They are focused and driven, and this attitude mirrors their leader, Musk.
With the projected volume that Musk has committed to, 10,000 cars a week by the end of 2018, they may catch up to demand in a couple years. Of course they also have a history of slipped schedules, so there is still much to prove. The car doesn't need to be profitable at first, but they do need revenue, which will come with deliveries.
That said, there are risks to becoming a public company, and if shareholders decided to pull out tomorrow Tesla would be in trouble. But I don't see that happening soon unless there are any crippling setbacks for the young company.
He wasn't comparing them to each other, he was comparing both to a Madoff scheme (going back to the OP). I understood his point, you apparently missed it entirely.
It was a flawed topic to begin with. Madoff's "enterprise" was entirely financial, Tesla is a technology and manufacturing company. Madoff's collapse was only a matter of time, Tesla's future remains to be seen.
I'm sure you realize this, but Cadillac's main market is North America where they sell ~150k a year.
The Leaf does fine in winter. Only the drivers who don't know how to precondition their cars are cold and have foggy windows. Once preconditioned, it doesn't have enough battery range to get cold again. 50 miles and you're done until recharged.
The Leaf has two real problems: Not enough range and lack of battery thermal management. The cars in northern, colder states have held up fine. In the south, their batteries become unusable after a few years. Those are pretty big flaws.
Dealers don't want to sell electric cars. EV's do not have the constant revenue stream that Traditionl vehicles have.
That's only partly true. EVs all need tires, suspension, brakes (rarely). Plus there is steady collision work, though much of that is done by independent shops.
Dealers will solve the revenue problem once they figure out they are marketing a lifestyle, not just a car. Bring on the accessories.
The real problem for the dealers, and the major automakers, is that they have no idea how to break into new markets. They survive through repeat business and stealing each other's customers. They have faced a saturated market for decades.
Still, if enough customers show up in dealers asking for EVs, they will sell them. They will have no choice. This isn't happening today in anything but tiny numbers. I'd love to hear a single story of a dealer who converted a traditional car buyer to electric--I simply don't believe it happens.
(When I bought my Volt I laid a trap for my Chevy dealer. I didn't tell them what car I wanted, instead I described all the features of the Volt without mentioning the electric drivetrain. They never suggested it. Only when I asked "what about the Volt" did the salesman start talking about it.)
In the luxury market, Model S and X are selling okay. Tesla has managed to deliver enough to rival brands like Cadillac.
Whether their success can translate to the mass market is the $50b question.
Do you believe then that a majority of Model 3 deposits will not convert to sales? If just half of the deposits become sales, the Model 3 will be the top selling EV of all time. Leaf sales are sluggish and the Bolt EV is expensive and slow to roll out. Anyone else is a small player in the market or doesn't have a vehicle in production yet. The best competition so far seems to be the Volt, which is a plug-in hybrid rather than a true EV.
Tesla is going to sell as many as it can build, certainly this year and for probably most/all of 2018. The real struggle for Tesla will be scaling up its production, service and support, and still making a profit. But the initial Model 3 purchases starting this year are certainly going to improve its cash flow.
Electric vehicles are fighting for market share at a time near historically low gasoline prices. There are several reasons for that--a price war between OPEC and domestic producers, fossil fuel industry protecting itself from growth of EVs, and decreased fuel demand due to more EVs and fuel efficient cars.
But the net effect is that few consumers can see the real value of an electric vehicle, and that's not about to change. With Tesla, consumers are seeing something else besides driving on pure electricity.
GM and Nissan both struggle to market their electric vehicles. They are building them, sales are sluggish (the Volt is doing okay) and most people know little about them. Dealers aren't prepared to educate consumers.
I think this is a case where they simply don't know what else to do. Musk has won over the mind share by building beautiful cars everyone wants. Nissan built a car that looks like a frog.
Very little, compared to extracting fossil fuels (fracking, strip mining etc.).
All manufacturing requires energy, resources and may pollute. It doesn't matter what you are making. Recycling helps. Just look at the pollution caused by discarding electronics, which is far higher in volume than discarded batteries.
The question is moot unless you are willing to stop buying manufactured goods. Lithium batteries are no different.
They are. The Volt's base price has dropped from the mid 40's to about $33k. With more EV range. The current Leaf's price has also dropped, in spite of a capacity increase from 24 kWh to 30 kWh in the base model.
And the Bolt EV, with a net MSRP under $30k and 200+ miles of range, would not have been possible a few years ago. Soon the Model 3 will join it.
Where I live, my EV compares to a 38 MPG gasoline car in total CO2 output. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2015/11/vehicles-m-emissions-map-with-notes.jpg
And importantly, your diesel won't bring 38 MPG if you are driving in stop-and-go traffic in the city, idling at stoplights, etc. You'll exceed that on the highway, but in the real world cars spend much of their time off the highway.
A Prius may have less CO2 output than a typical EV where I live, but those are a hybrid with gasoline generator, with similar drivetrains to electric cars (including a battery).
In California, where half our EVs are sold, an EV has total wheels-to-wells emissions comparable to 87 MPG. Better than any diesel or gasoline powered automobile.
These numbers are increasing as coal is phased out, and some drivers opt for 100% renewable energy as I have done.
There's no mystery, really, to the climate change deniers. Many who voted for Trump are older in age. They won't be around long enough to experience the worst effects of climate change, so they basically don't care.
They care about abstract debt, though. At least they say they do.
Not to change the subject but many climate deniers I talk to name our federal debt as the #1 issue for the wellbeing of our country, not the environment, not climate change, nor greenhouse gases. Perhaps because it's been drilled into their heads by TV, radio and other news sources for years.
There are no wealthy interests doing the same for climate change, at least not nearly to the same extent.
I read a story about a dog who chewed through an EVSE cable. The dog was fine. The cable was toast, though.
The J1772 standard is rather safe, because no power is applied until a signal is detected. Moreover GFCI outlets are mandatory for applications where an EVSE would be installed.
I worry far more about a fire starting in my gas water heater than any kind of electrocution from my EVSE.
When (if) that day comes, the market will look completely different than it does today.
EVs now are expensive because they are new. You can't find them on the used market older than 5 years old.
You can't find _any_ cars on the used market less than 5 years old that don't cost thousands.
Even still, we bought a used 2012 Leaf for $8k. Not a lot of money. We aren't low income but we aren't rich, either.
I'm going to bet you've never driven a Volt. Bought mine for about $25k after incentives, which is a pretty common price for a new car, especially one as loaded with features as mine.
They really are quite nice to drive. Very quiet and smooth. Very low maintenance. Chevy probably has made a few cars in their 100+ years that could be considered a "pile of crap" but this is not one of them.
Also, I have a degree in math, and have made detailed calculations of my total cost of ownership. There are some assumptions baked in like future maintenance costs and electricity costs that can be difficult to predict, but at least electricity prices do not fluctuate nearly as wildly as gasoline does.
Let me guess--your boss drives a Tesla?
Teslas have required frequent maintenance because TMC is in the process of figuring out how to manufacture cars. If you buy a battery electric vehicle from an established maker you won't have these problems. My Volt and LEAF are both virtually maintenance free.
Should have also mentioned--most electric vehicles will never need a battery replacment. H2 vehicles on the other hand must have their tanks replaced due to regulations.
Hydrogen power is a dead end. Nearly all of it is derived from fossil fuels, there are too few stations, it is difficult to store and expensive to compress. It will be a market failure.
Get used to the electric future, it is coming.
Try that with their servers. Their Linux driver support is extremely lagging.
Even today if you download new drivers for an MD array, they bundle Java 6. Which was end of life over 3 years ago and is incapable of interoperating with modern TLS implementations. If you care about securing your systems and use Dell drivers, disable as much as you can and live by the CLI.
Let's set some ground rules for debate, m'kay?
"Spending on social programs is highly correlated with keeping people in poverty."
Do you have any evidence for this claim? Studies? Data? Facts?
The information I have shows a strong correlation to the opposite: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/The_Antipoverty_Effect_of_Government_Spending_Vector_Graph.svg
"...because we can print money..."
The government doesn't "print" money to spend, it issues currency. Printing presses and paper money exist these days to accommodate small transactions. When is the last time you bought a car with cash in hand? Or your employer paid you in cash?
I'm making a nit, but it's important to be precise with the terminology. Or you lose credibility.
"You don't understand economics."
Umm... you don't know me, nor what I read, or studied, or what my credentials are. You're making a broad assumption based on a Slashdot comment.
In general, if I don't feel qualified to post in Slashdot I stay quiet. I don't need to spread any more misinformation than there already is.
My statement about public spending is a verifiable fact. There is no theoretical bounds to spending given a fiat currency in the post Bretton Woods era. The gold standard is long gone.
"Is it any wonder the more we pay for welfare, the less likely people are to get off of welfare?"
You raise the example of welfare, which I did not. It is one possible type of social support among many. (Personally I favor the Job Guarantee--provide work to all those who cannot find work.)
To examine this issue in depth you need to look at the causes of poverty. If an individual is unemployed with no prospect for work, welfare can provide sustenance but without unemployment they may never escape from poverty. But if you provide work, public or private, you have a path to independence. For a single parent raising children without support (too common in this day and age), child care and education may be the key. However these have to be accessible, if not by private means, then through social support.