I was very surprised at the choice they made, to keep the single-motor S60 & S85 models.
Given that the forthcoming Model X is dual-motor only and the now sizable deployment of Superchargers, I can't help but think that canceling all the single-motor models, offering a discount on options or upgrades to anyone who'd already placed an order ( Call NOW! and get Supercharging at 1/2 price!!! ) or a cheerful refund would have led to an increase in orders and relatively few cancellations.
I doubt the few extra thousand would have made much difference to anyone waiting on a S85 and the range & performance boost across all models probably would have meant an increase in orders. And I can't think of any mass production car in any sane price range where you can lose an entire motor / engine / drive unit and keep on going.
That's an interesting insight about active cooling for quick charging. I myself support battery swapping but it seems it'll be slow to catch on although without it EVs will never match the "refueling" speed of ICE vehicles.
What sort of performance cars did you own prior to your Tesla and how does it compare? I imagine it's quickest off the line but what about highway passing & handling?
It's amusing that your offense at my question & assumption led you to an even more useless response.
In the 5+ hours since my OP and your reply, at least 1/2 a dozen informative or truly insightful comments have been made including a couple by ACs and one with a large photo of a harbor with several decomm'ed ships were made. Your response achieved nothing except to puff yourself up solely by putting me down, for which you've already been congratulated.
Here's a bonus "rhetorical question" with an implied response: "Is a response by kenh (9056) of any value compared to that by any other Slashdotter incl Anonymous Cowards?"
I was referring only to the "in pristine condition" remark
From the last paragraph of the link:
The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily-..., which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
They sold it to a Texan - let's not be too quick to say that it'll be disposed of an in environmentally friendly way. Perhaps it will but perhaps not. Still, I get your point about not having it sent to some overseas backwater.
But why isn't the Navy doing this themselves? Surely they have the manpower & capability and there must be huge sections that can easily be re-used. The US Military just has too much money; they've lost all sense of the value of anything.
A historic ship both in the actual theater of war and in the movie memories of the general public, in pristine condition and one penny is the best they can do, for a gross weight of 56000 TONS??
I can't see Tesla making the Gen3 only with a 100 mile range at $35k in 2017 or later - they'll be behind the curve. The Leaf, i3, Spark EV, etc are all in that ballpark right now and will have more range at lower cost by the time the Gen3 is ready.
There may be better options soon if something like Phinergy's aluminium-air fuel cell pans out - this would be more practical for only ~50 - 60kg additional weight.
"No, funny guy, that's not, how it works. You put forth an argument, you put forth supporting citations. If you don't, the argument is baseless"
I don't think Slashdot qualifies as "peer-reviewed" even if there's always someone willing to disagree. And long experience shows that providing citations off the bat doesn't mean that they'll be read. If the other person is unfamiliar to me and won't even try to look for what I'm referencing, that has been a very reliable indicator of what I can expect in 15+ yrs of browsing/. It's not like you have to run out in a hurricane to the local library.
There are more than just scientists, partisans & deniers. I certainly can't claim to be a scientist but neither are nearly all of the most vehement deniers. I've spent 20 years listening to the actual scientists on BOTH sides and have decided who to trust. At some point, every rational person has to decide which side of the fence to come down on or forever have the post stuck up his ass.
It doesn't require every last uncertainty to be resolved with perfect accuracy and every measure I've personally taken to lower my carbon footprint has saved me money.
We need more permanent temperature monitoring stations, in the oceans & the poles, as much or more than we need better models.
If we can't accurately measure the real world changes, we won't know for certain how good or bad the models are.
The much-ballyhooed "pause / hiatus / slowdown" gave deniers something to crow about - so much so that none stopped to think why the melt rate of Arctic sea ice, Greenland, Antarctic ice shelves and the vast majority of the planets glaciers sped up enormously. I would have thought that at least a few of them are aware of just how much heat is needed to melt ice - it's a LOT.
Better coverage of those regions would have exposed the illusion of the "slowdown".
That number is a lot closer to 1 than to zero. Imperfect models aren't useless and I'd rather they hit a bit high than low when there are still forcings & feedbacks of uncertain magnitude. By definition, all models are imperfect.
Given what he had to work with in the '80s , it's a wonder he got anywhere near the results he did.
See below for one analysis of Hansen's predictions vs real-world observations. The main issue is that the value he used for climate sensitivity was on the high side; adjusting that value downwards and making no other changes gives a pretty good agreement with observations.
There are other comparisons but this is the most layman-friendly yet thorough I've yet found. Keep in mind that the polar regions, especially the Arctic, have been warming the quickest (one of Hansen's longstanding predictions) but are not well-represented in any dataset, especially the HadCRUT ones which is what your linked paper is using for their reconstructions, although HadCRUT4 is significantly better in this regard than HadCRUT3.
"depend heavily on one's belief in global warming" - when re-insurers are worried, the general public should sit up and pay attention. If you think, global warming is a belief system, ask yourself when & why Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil got religion. He's firmly on the side of those who think that we can adapt or geoengineer out of the worst of it but that's a long way from the "belief" that's it's all some commie hoax.
Go ahead and add those up, too. We are speaking of true costs, after all. But you'll have to give up your computer & smartphone or accept ones that are much larger, slower, with crappier screens and lower capacity if you choose to live without the lanthanides.
Reiss got it wrong in the interview but what was actually asked of & answered by Hansen is recorded in two of his books, one of which is The Coming Storm, 2001.
A flaw in that reasoning is that bad drilling practices cause a significant release of methane into the atmosphere which has a much higher warming effect in the near term than CO2.
Slashdot Mirror
That's never how it works, unless you're an equal.
Let's see you decrypt the following:
Do kindly fuck off at your earliest convenience. Not a terrorist but like Charlie Hedbo, refuse to live on my knees.
You can expect to hear a raft of fart jokes at a frat party.
I was very surprised at the choice they made, to keep the single-motor S60 & S85 models.
Given that the forthcoming Model X is dual-motor only and the now sizable deployment of Superchargers, I can't help but think that canceling all the single-motor models, offering a discount on options or upgrades to anyone who'd already placed an order ( Call NOW! and get Supercharging at 1/2 price!!! ) or a cheerful refund would have led to an increase in orders and relatively few cancellations.
I doubt the few extra thousand would have made much difference to anyone waiting on a S85 and the range & performance boost across all models probably would have meant an increase in orders. And I can't think of any mass production car in any sane price range where you can lose an entire motor / engine / drive unit and keep on going.
That's an interesting insight about active cooling for quick charging. I myself support battery swapping but it seems it'll be slow to catch on although without it EVs will never match the "refueling" speed of ICE vehicles.
What sort of performance cars did you own prior to your Tesla and how does it compare? I imagine it's quickest off the line but what about highway passing & handling?
It's amusing that your offense at my question & assumption led you to an even more useless response.
In the 5+ hours since my OP and your reply, at least 1/2 a dozen informative or truly insightful comments have been made including a couple by ACs and one with a large photo of a harbor with several decomm'ed ships were made.
Your response achieved nothing except to puff yourself up solely by putting me down, for which you've already been congratulated.
Here's a bonus "rhetorical question" with an implied response: "Is a response by kenh (9056) of any value compared to that by any other Slashdotter incl Anonymous Cowards?"
I was referring only to the "in pristine condition" remark
From the last paragraph of the link:
Says the person who wasn't insightful enough to notice I asked a QUESTION. I'll take my ignorance over yours but thanks for playing.
I'm not disagreeing with you but that's not what Military.com says: http://www.military.com/daily-...
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily-..., which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
They sold it to a Texan - let's not be too quick to say that it'll be disposed of an in environmentally friendly way. Perhaps it will but perhaps not.
Still, I get your point about not having it sent to some overseas backwater.
But why isn't the Navy doing this themselves? Surely they have the manpower & capability and there must be huge sections that can easily be re-used.
The US Military just has too much money; they've lost all sense of the value of anything.
A historic ship both in the actual theater of war and in the movie memories of the general public, in pristine condition and one penny is the best they can do, for a gross weight of 56000 TONS??
I can't see Tesla making the Gen3 only with a 100 mile range at $35k in 2017 or later - they'll be behind the curve. The Leaf, i3, Spark EV, etc are all in that ballpark right now and will have more range at lower cost by the time the Gen3 is ready.
There may be better options soon if something like Phinergy's aluminium-air fuel cell pans out - this would be more practical for only ~50 - 60kg additional weight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"No, funny guy, that's not, how it works. You put forth an argument, you put forth supporting citations. If you don't, the argument is baseless"
I don't think Slashdot qualifies as "peer-reviewed" even if there's always someone willing to disagree. And long experience shows that providing citations off the bat doesn't mean that they'll be read. If the other person is unfamiliar to me and won't even try to look for what I'm referencing, that has been a very reliable indicator of what I can expect in 15+ yrs of browsing /. It's not like you have to run out in a hurricane to the local library.
So bye, bye and happy holidays.
Have a look at the link below. Here's a teaser - Methane levels downwind peaked at the stunningly high level of 2080 parts per billion!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
Try not to be so lazy but in the spirit of the holiday season, here's one for free: http://www.insurancebusinesson...
"Shield his corporation........" - you should do stand up, funny guy.
There are more than just scientists, partisans & deniers. I certainly can't claim to be a scientist but neither are nearly all of the most vehement deniers.
I've spent 20 years listening to the actual scientists on BOTH sides and have decided who to trust.
At some point, every rational person has to decide which side of the fence to come down on or forever have the post stuck up his ass.
It doesn't require every last uncertainty to be resolved with perfect accuracy and every measure I've personally taken to lower my carbon footprint has saved me money.
We need more permanent temperature monitoring stations, in the oceans & the poles, as much or more than we need better models.
If we can't accurately measure the real world changes, we won't know for certain how good or bad the models are.
The much-ballyhooed "pause / hiatus / slowdown" gave deniers something to crow about - so much so that none stopped to think why the melt rate of Arctic sea ice, Greenland, Antarctic ice shelves and the vast majority of the planets glaciers sped up enormously.
I would have thought that at least a few of them are aware of just how much heat is needed to melt ice - it's a LOT.
Better coverage of those regions would have exposed the illusion of the "slowdown".
That number is a lot closer to 1 than to zero.
Imperfect models aren't useless and I'd rather they hit a bit high than low when there are still forcings & feedbacks of uncertain magnitude.
By definition, all models are imperfect.
Given what he had to work with in the '80s , it's a wonder he got anywhere near the results he did.
See below for one analysis of Hansen's predictions vs real-world observations. The main issue is that the value he used for climate sensitivity was on the high side; adjusting that value downwards and making no other changes gives a pretty good agreement with observations.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...
There are other comparisons but this is the most layman-friendly yet thorough I've yet found.
Keep in mind that the polar regions, especially the Arctic, have been warming the quickest (one of Hansen's longstanding predictions) but are not well-represented in any dataset, especially the HadCRUT ones which is what your linked paper is using for their reconstructions, although HadCRUT4 is significantly better in this regard than HadCRUT3.
"depend heavily on one's belief in global warming" - when re-insurers are worried, the general public should sit up and pay attention.
If you think, global warming is a belief system, ask yourself when & why Rex Tillerson, CEO of oil giant ExxonMobil got religion.
He's firmly on the side of those who think that we can adapt or geoengineer out of the worst of it but that's a long way from the "belief" that's it's all some commie hoax.
Go ahead and add those up, too. We are speaking of true costs, after all.
But you'll have to give up your computer & smartphone or accept ones that are much larger, slower, with crappier screens and lower capacity if you choose to live without the lanthanides.
Reiss got it wrong in the interview but what was actually asked of & answered by Hansen is recorded in two of his books, one of which is The Coming Storm, 2001.
A flaw in that reasoning is that bad drilling practices cause a significant release of methane into the atmosphere which has a much higher warming effect in the near term than CO2.