Also, along with your point. The robots replace humans. And had the humans been there, they would be taxed. So, as a worst case scenario, the prices when robots are there would only be jacked up as high as they were when humans filled the role - or not at all. And assuming that robots are taxed less than an equivalent human as is most likely the scenario, the prices would be jacked up less than when humans filled the role.
For someone who seems to only want to watch shows in French, your English is quite good. In fact it's flawless as far as I can tell.
If you can speak/understand the original language of the show, why would you want to watch it in another language and risk aspects of the content getting lost through translation?
This is on top of the Federal Tax Credit of $7,500. So you'd owe 38,000 and then also owe $7,500 less in taxes at the end of the year. (Depending on whether the car manufacturer has hit their cap yet)
It seems that if you just want a bit of casual fun, apps are pretty hard to beat in terms of value, convenience to buy and play anywhere, and fresh new types of gameplay. Consequently, mainstream casual board games are still reeling from the competition and will probably never recover. There is now almost no market for new casual board games, and even the classics sell only a fraction of their annual sales just a few years ago.
Though he does point out that before the advent of apps "about six years ago" (prior to the interview in 2015), board game sales rose in line with population growth. So I stand corrected there. Up until 2009, instead of a decline, there was more of a 'maintaining status-quo'.
Web designers are busy creating a resource that replaces a existing tool. The end result is a web-tool that requires fewer people hired to maintain it. There are a multitude of examples. Newspapers being replaced by online news sources. Personal Ads being replaced by craigslist. Encyclopaedias being replaced by Wikipedia or just the internet in general. You want information on a business? Before you'd look in the yellow pages or the phone book, now you don't need to because of web designers and coders.
How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games?
So now we don't go out and buy games on disc. Fewer discs are being made and most who worked in the disc manufacturing business are being laid off.
Or online gamers themselves?...
Now you're getting more abstract, I would say that the online gamers are making money in the same way that professional athletes make money. Or perhaps how gamblers make money. So, that's dipping into the sports and gambling industry.
Anyone employed in the MMO industry?
Now, we're talking about selling games to people. Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games.
This isn't hard to do, just imagine what the consumers of the internet service would be doing if that internet service didn't exist. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the consumer would have been doing *something*. And I can also pretty much guarantee you that the internet version requires less man-power than what it's replacing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be cost effective to build the replacement.
For all the people whose jobs depend on the internet - those jobs didn't exist 30 years ago. Not at all.
Just because these jobs in their exact form didn't exist 30 years ago, doesn't mean they aren't replacing jobs that DID exist 30 years ago. Email replacing snail mail is a great example of this.
They're planning to up the factory production to 500,000 but that's for all models, so don't count on more than 100,000 model 3s being built this year, tops. Allow for 200,000 next year, and you still haven't cleared the pre-order backlog.
I don't think that Tesla shares the same estimate as you. From their website:
Production begins mid 2017.
Delivery estimate for new reservations is mid 2018 or later.
Since there are 400,000+ reservations at the moment, that means that Tesla expects to be able to get through 400,000 cars from the start of production to mid 2018. Otherwise, they wouldn't be stating that a new reservation could possibly receive delivery by mid 2018.
If you're right and they can only produce 100,000 this year, that means that by their own estimates they'll be able to produce 300,000 by mid 2018. But since the factory is supposed to only be able to produce 500,000 a year, they wouldn't be able to output 300,000 in 6 months, that would put them more than 100,000 cars over capacity (if you factor in S and X production).
More likely, by their own estimates, they'll produce 200,000 this year and another 200,000 in the first 6 months of next year.
TL;DR... Thanks to the safety measures built in to the module, the failure is contained to the module and even parts within the burning module are still intact.
I've discovered that the real trick to losing weight that no one talks about is to "embrace hunger". And I don't mean to starve yourself. But to allow yourself to be a little hungry for a little while before your next meal. Then, here's the hard part, when you eat your next meal, don't let how hungry you are cause you to eat more than you normally would (or less if you're trying to lose weight fast).
I don't know why no one talks about how important being hungry is to losing weight. Maybe people equate a little bit of hunger with a dangerous and counterproductive path of starvation. But when you think about why you get hungry, it's absolutely imperative to obtaining a calorie deficit. So, now when I get hungry, I see it as a notice to me that my body is falling back on stored energy, whether it be glycogen or fat depending on how long I've been dieting for.
But one important thing to look out for is that if you're on a consistent calorie deficit, your body will compensate by reducing your BMR by both making you feel lethargic and also by atrophying your muscles. To prevent this from happening, you've got to exercise.
This is one of those things where both sides of the argument think they're right and both sides can't be convinced until real proof exists. If Autopilot actually makes most drivers complacent, then you'll see a general trend toward higher incidences of severe accidents. If it doesn't, but instead becomes more like a second pair of eyes on the road, then you'll see a general trend toward fewer severe accidents.
Well, the numbers are just starting to come in and according to an independent group, Autopilot reduces severe accidents by 40%.
That's not to say that there aren't those out there who are the type of person who would become complacent and for whom Autopilot would increase their chances of a severe accident. But it seems like that type of person is in the minority.
I'm sorry, you just don't get to tell the battery dealer that you're only paying $3000 for a new battery because you saved $2500 in other places.
No, of course not, no one is suggesting that. But what you can and should do, is put that extra money you save into the bank, then when your new battery bill comes in you can slap down the extra money you saved and reduce the bill.
Now if you're not actually "saving" the money you're saving by driving an EV, I completely understand your point. But being careless with your money is not a valid argument against purchasing something that'll save you money in the long-run.
I'll admit, of course, that the since the savings are mostly seen in fuel costs, you'll see less savings if you drive less. But you'll also have less costs in your maintenance and repair since you won't need to change your tires as often. Your battery will last longer too, so you won't need to replace it as quickly. So working the numbers for battery replacement on a replacement schedule that matches what you'd need for higher mileage (probably 15,000miles/year) but only counting the savings that you'd gain on lower mileage doesn't make sense.
As you can see, I'm not spending $1200 in electricity costs, I'm actually spending $372.82.
Sigh. I used the number you provided before. I give up.
Here's the number I provided before, in its original context (emphasis added):
Though, I suppose I could have been harder on you and factored in how much you save per year on buying electricity instead of gasoline (about $1200/year, in my region)
How do you mix up an amount that you save with an amount that you spend? You don't. Excellent trolling, you had me going hard there.:)
No, I understand exactly what you did. You assigned less than the cost of the battery replacement as the cost of maintenance and repair of the EV so it would look like it was cheaper to own and operate
If you're saving money by owning an EV through less maintenance and repair costs, why shouldn't those cost savings be applied to the cost of battery replacement? It's entirely within scope, we're talking about the true cost of ownership here.
I mean you assume there are drive train maintenance costs associated with a normal car but 0 costs in the same category for an EV. The drive trains are different, but that doesn't mean that one of them as zero cost associated with it. The mechanical parts of an EV don't live forever, you know.
Because I took the maintenance and repair costs of the Civic and subtracted the maintenance and repair costs of the Leaf, I've factored that in. The whole point is to compare the cost of the Leaf against what you would have already spent by owning the Civic. No where did I state that there was zero cost associated with owning an EV. Just that there are less costs.
I already included the cost of gasoline in the evaluation. That's the part about "assuming $2.50 per gallon", and how I came up with a 14 year break even point. Did you not bother to read what I wrote at all?
Actually, I take issue with your metrics here as 5000 miles in a year is not a typical amount of driving in a year. I know the OP purchased a Leaf that was only driven this amount, but you can't assume that everyone would drive this little. If anything you need to assume something closer to the figure used across the web of 15,000. So, with your $2.50 per gallon, you'd break even in a third of the time you quote. But I'd much rather work with metric, and the round number used here is 20,000km (12427 miles).
So let's look at your $1200 in electricity costs.
You seem to have issues understanding when I'm stating a value that you are saving vs. a value that you are charged. To help you out, here are the actual numbers I'm working off of for this figure: Km/year driven: 20,000
Average fuel consumption (l/100km): 7.8 (which is 30.1 mpg)
Fuel consumed in a year (litres): 1560
$/litre of gas right now: $1.14
Cost of gas for the year: $1776.84
Cost of electricity ($/kWh): 0.087
EV fuel economy: 4.6671 km/kWh
Cost of electricity for the year: $372.8225
Savings of buying electricity over buying gas for the year: $1404.02
(I rounded down to $1200 because it scales nicely per month and is easier to remember)
As you can see, I'm not spending $1200 in electricity costs, I'm actually spending $372.82. So to do the math your way, at 2.50 a gallon, you could buy only 150 gallons (149.128), at 30pmg, that gets you only 4,473.84 miles, whereas I would have driven 12427 miles (20,000km).
then subtract the maintenance and repair costs of a Nissan Leaf, and you'll have $1694 in the bank.
It's interesting that you subtract an amount that is LESS than the cost of the battery replacement. You've forgotten to add in all the incidental costs of operating the EV in your analysis.
You've misunderstood what I've done. I took the maintenance and repair costs of a Honda Civic ($7516), and subtracted the maintenance and repair costs of the Nissan Leaf ($5822) over 10 years. This gives us how much money one would save in maintenance and repair costs by owning a Leaf vs. a Civic ($1694). Since it's money you save, you can apply it to the cost of the new battery, which is why it's subtracted off of that cost.
It's interesting that you subtract an amount that is LESS than the cost of the battery replacement. You've forgotten to add in all the incidental costs of operating the EV in your analysis.
Unless you're referring to something other than maintenance and repair, I'm not sure what you mean by "incidental costs". Though, I suppose I could have been harder on you and factored in how much you save per year on buying electricity instead of gasoline (about $1200/year, in my region). But that would be an additional $12000 in savings over the ten year period. Actually, in just gas savings, you'll have made back your $6000 to replace the battery in 5 years. Factor in the savings on maintenance and repairs and you're getting your $6000 in less than 4 years, compared to an owner of a Honda Civic.
And actually, choosing the Honda Civic as a comparison point gives your side a bit of a break as they tend to have lower maintenance and repair costs, and they have higher mpg than your original 30mpg stated. Take the Ford Focus, you'd be spending almost $1200 more in the 10 year span ($8740).
As for the charge of "fear mongering" that the OP made -- don't be silly. I am not trying to make you afraid of anything. I'm simply questioning, with supporting numbers, the surface level cost analysis you did that leaves you claiming that it saves you money.
As I'm not the OP, I don't support the "fear mongering" assessment made by him/her. I actually agree with your approach to question the costs with supporting numbers. Which is why I'm doing the same thing to your numbers.
If you're going to compare battery replacement costs to gasoline costs, you're in the realm of the lifetime costs of the vehicle. So, to really compare apples to apples, you've got to also factor in maintenance costs of your ICE vs maintenance costs of the EV.
EVs don't require oil changes and thanks to regenerative braking usually don't require new brake pads for the life of the vehicle. There will be no transmission repairs to do or transmission fluids to top up, just to name a few things.
If you take the maintenance and repairs costs of a Honda civic over 10 years, according to this site, you'll have spent $7516, then subtract the maintenance and repair costs of a Nissan Leaf, and you'll have $1694 in the bank.
Then instead of inflating your numbers by rounding up to $6000, let's keep it at $5500, then subtract the $1694 you'd save over 10 years. Then do the same math that you did above and you get 9.13 years of driving before you need to replace the battery.
It looks to me like more of a break even, and that's with the crappy Nissan Leaf which is notorious for having a poor battery life thanks to its lack of active cooling.
No one thinks that this is the first time that the earth's climate has changed. What's new this time is the rate at which the change is happening. If you're expecting evolution to solve this problem you're wrong. Evolution doesn't come in leaps, but in small changes with each successive generation.
So there is an actual limit to how fast a species can evolve directly related to how quickly they can produce the next generation from their birth. If you have a fast enough change in climate, species will go extinct. The faster the climate changes the more species will go extinct, depending on how long it takes for them to reproduce from birth, bacteria will most certainly be fine. The only thing that will save any particular species is if they are already able to survive the new stressors via migration or inherent adaptability.
So our species could be fine because of our adaptability, but how many other species will make it? And how many of those do we need for our species to survive? We can't live off of bacteria.
You miss the point. It's not the planet we need to save. The planet will be fine. It's like how forest fires are great for forests in the long run. But don't tell that to the animals who die from habitat loss while they're waiting for the forest to regrow.
EPA ratings, which is the standard in North America to measure against is not the absolute IDEAL situation, you can actually get much higher range in ideal conditions. But the EPA range more accurately reflects the typical range that you would see in regular driving conditions. But you are correct that the actual mileage can be less in the worst conditions (winter, which requires cabin heating & traffic jam, which requires a lot of accelerating/decelerating). If you are unlucky to drive in these conditions, you'll get about 50% of the EPA range with a Leaf and about 66% of the EPA range with a Tesla. You can mitigate this to a certain degree by heating your cabin while it's still plugged in at home and rely more on heated seats than heating the air of the cabin.
100 miles is still pretty good, since according to this site, only 8% of the American population commute 75 miles or more in a day. Which means that, 92% of Americans still have at least 25 miles of wiggle room for detours or errands.
I would imagine (or hope) that Ford would be smart enough to make their battery system more like Tesla's and less like Nissan's, leaving your friend with 132 miles of range even in the worst conditions.
Why, in the early universe, did antimatter lose out to regular old matter?
Who's to say that antimatter lost out? Perhaps, when matter/antimatter particles split, if there's an outside force upon them, matter parts ways in the one direction and antimatter parts ways in the opposite direction with respect to the external force. That would leave two universes, one of matter and the other of antimatter.
I don't believe he put that kind of timeframe in his claim. He just said it "will" be, as in eventually.
One of the ways he's aiming to save money is by making the manufacturing process more efficient, which I imagine won't be in effect as soon as the panels hit the market. Upgrading their manufacturing process for the solar panels will require a lot of capital expenditure, which they already have a ton of considering their Gigafactory construction and the upgrades to their Fremont factory. Not to mention, the statements made about building another Gigafactory in Europe or Asia.
Mere duplication is exactly what the paper requires, to decrease the odds that outside factors play a role in the end results. And since Autopilot is only supposed to be used on divided highways, it's entirely on point that you would prove that the system is safe in only those conditions.
Does it prove that it's safe in all driving conditions? Absolutely not. But it's not meant to be used in all driving conditions, so that's besides the point.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, along with your point. The robots replace humans. And had the humans been there, they would be taxed. So, as a worst case scenario, the prices when robots are there would only be jacked up as high as they were when humans filled the role - or not at all. And assuming that robots are taxed less than an equivalent human as is most likely the scenario, the prices would be jacked up less than when humans filled the role.
For someone who seems to only want to watch shows in French, your English is quite good. In fact it's flawless as far as I can tell.
If you can speak/understand the original language of the show, why would you want to watch it in another language and risk aspects of the content getting lost through translation?
This is on top of the Federal Tax Credit of $7,500. So you'd owe 38,000 and then also owe $7,500 less in taxes at the end of the year. (Depending on whether the car manufacturer has hit their cap yet)
http://www.develop-online.net/interview/how-video-games-both-killed-and-improved-the-board-game/0209085
In it he states:
It seems that if you just want a bit of casual fun, apps are pretty hard to beat in terms of value, convenience to buy and play anywhere, and fresh new types of gameplay. Consequently, mainstream casual board games are still reeling from the competition and will probably never recover. There is now almost no market for new casual board games, and even the classics sell only a fraction of their annual sales just a few years ago.
Though he does point out that before the advent of apps "about six years ago" (prior to the interview in 2015), board game sales rose in line with population growth. So I stand corrected there. Up until 2009, instead of a decline, there was more of a 'maintaining status-quo'.
Web designers/coders, for one.
Web designers are busy creating a resource that replaces a existing tool. The end result is a web-tool that requires fewer people hired to maintain it. There are a multitude of examples. Newspapers being replaced by online news sources. Personal Ads being replaced by craigslist. Encyclopaedias being replaced by Wikipedia or just the internet in general. You want information on a business? Before you'd look in the yellow pages or the phone book, now you don't need to because of web designers and coders.
How about the legions of people making money from online streaming of games?
So now we don't go out and buy games on disc. Fewer discs are being made and most who worked in the disc manufacturing business are being laid off.
Or online gamers themselves?...
Now you're getting more abstract, I would say that the online gamers are making money in the same way that professional athletes make money. Or perhaps how gamblers make money. So, that's dipping into the sports and gambling industry.
Anyone employed in the MMO industry?
Now, we're talking about selling games to people. Take a look at the board game industry or card game industry and see how well it's been doing since the advent of video games.
This isn't hard to do, just imagine what the consumers of the internet service would be doing if that internet service didn't exist. And I can pretty much guarantee you that the consumer would have been doing *something*. And I can also pretty much guarantee you that the internet version requires less man-power than what it's replacing. Otherwise, it wouldn't be cost effective to build the replacement.
For all the people whose jobs depend on the internet - those jobs didn't exist 30 years ago. Not at all.
Just because these jobs in their exact form didn't exist 30 years ago, doesn't mean they aren't replacing jobs that DID exist 30 years ago. Email replacing snail mail is a great example of this.
for once, I can't tell if the spelling mistake should be corrected by adding an "n" or removing an "o" to "loose".
They're planning to up the factory production to 500,000 but that's for all models, so don't count on more than 100,000 model 3s being built this year, tops. Allow for 200,000 next year, and you still haven't cleared the pre-order backlog.
I don't think that Tesla shares the same estimate as you. From their website:
Production begins mid 2017. Delivery estimate for new reservations is mid 2018 or later.
Since there are 400,000+ reservations at the moment, that means that Tesla expects to be able to get through 400,000 cars from the start of production to mid 2018. Otherwise, they wouldn't be stating that a new reservation could possibly receive delivery by mid 2018.
If you're right and they can only produce 100,000 this year, that means that by their own estimates they'll be able to produce 300,000 by mid 2018. But since the factory is supposed to only be able to produce 500,000 a year, they wouldn't be able to output 300,000 in 6 months, that would put them more than 100,000 cars over capacity (if you factor in S and X production).
More likely, by their own estimates, they'll produce 200,000 this year and another 200,000 in the first 6 months of next year.
Here's an article with the video embedded
https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/
Here's a video of what actually happens when you TRY to catch one of the modules on fire
https://electrek.co/2016/12/19/tesla-fire-powerpack-test-safety/
TL;DR... Thanks to the safety measures built in to the module, the failure is contained to the module and even parts within the burning module are still intact.
I've discovered that the real trick to losing weight that no one talks about is to "embrace hunger". And I don't mean to starve yourself. But to allow yourself to be a little hungry for a little while before your next meal. Then, here's the hard part, when you eat your next meal, don't let how hungry you are cause you to eat more than you normally would (or less if you're trying to lose weight fast).
I don't know why no one talks about how important being hungry is to losing weight. Maybe people equate a little bit of hunger with a dangerous and counterproductive path of starvation. But when you think about why you get hungry, it's absolutely imperative to obtaining a calorie deficit. So, now when I get hungry, I see it as a notice to me that my body is falling back on stored energy, whether it be glycogen or fat depending on how long I've been dieting for.
But one important thing to look out for is that if you're on a consistent calorie deficit, your body will compensate by reducing your BMR by both making you feel lethargic and also by atrophying your muscles. To prevent this from happening, you've got to exercise.
This is one of those things where both sides of the argument think they're right and both sides can't be convinced until real proof exists. If Autopilot actually makes most drivers complacent, then you'll see a general trend toward higher incidences of severe accidents. If it doesn't, but instead becomes more like a second pair of eyes on the road, then you'll see a general trend toward fewer severe accidents.
Well, the numbers are just starting to come in and according to an independent group, Autopilot reduces severe accidents by 40%.
That's not to say that there aren't those out there who are the type of person who would become complacent and for whom Autopilot would increase their chances of a severe accident. But it seems like that type of person is in the minority.
I'm sorry, you just don't get to tell the battery dealer that you're only paying $3000 for a new battery because you saved $2500 in other places.
No, of course not, no one is suggesting that. But what you can and should do, is put that extra money you save into the bank, then when your new battery bill comes in you can slap down the extra money you saved and reduce the bill.
Now if you're not actually "saving" the money you're saving by driving an EV, I completely understand your point. But being careless with your money is not a valid argument against purchasing something that'll save you money in the long-run.
I'll admit, of course, that the since the savings are mostly seen in fuel costs, you'll see less savings if you drive less. But you'll also have less costs in your maintenance and repair since you won't need to change your tires as often. Your battery will last longer too, so you won't need to replace it as quickly. So working the numbers for battery replacement on a replacement schedule that matches what you'd need for higher mileage (probably 15,000miles/year) but only counting the savings that you'd gain on lower mileage doesn't make sense.
As you can see, I'm not spending $1200 in electricity costs, I'm actually spending $372.82.
Sigh. I used the number you provided before. I give up.
Here's the number I provided before, in its original context (emphasis added):
Though, I suppose I could have been harder on you and factored in how much you save per year on buying electricity instead of gasoline (about $1200/year, in my region)
How do you mix up an amount that you save with an amount that you spend? You don't. Excellent trolling, you had me going hard there. :)
No, I understand exactly what you did. You assigned less than the cost of the battery replacement as the cost of maintenance and repair of the EV so it would look like it was cheaper to own and operate
If you're saving money by owning an EV through less maintenance and repair costs, why shouldn't those cost savings be applied to the cost of battery replacement? It's entirely within scope, we're talking about the true cost of ownership here.
I mean you assume there are drive train maintenance costs associated with a normal car but 0 costs in the same category for an EV. The drive trains are different, but that doesn't mean that one of them as zero cost associated with it. The mechanical parts of an EV don't live forever, you know.
Because I took the maintenance and repair costs of the Civic and subtracted the maintenance and repair costs of the Leaf, I've factored that in. The whole point is to compare the cost of the Leaf against what you would have already spent by owning the Civic. No where did I state that there was zero cost associated with owning an EV. Just that there are less costs.
I already included the cost of gasoline in the evaluation. That's the part about "assuming $2.50 per gallon", and how I came up with a 14 year break even point. Did you not bother to read what I wrote at all?
Actually, I take issue with your metrics here as 5000 miles in a year is not a typical amount of driving in a year. I know the OP purchased a Leaf that was only driven this amount, but you can't assume that everyone would drive this little. If anything you need to assume something closer to the figure used across the web of 15,000. So, with your $2.50 per gallon, you'd break even in a third of the time you quote. But I'd much rather work with metric, and the round number used here is 20,000km (12427 miles).
So let's look at your $1200 in electricity costs.
You seem to have issues understanding when I'm stating a value that you are saving vs. a value that you are charged. To help you out, here are the actual numbers I'm working off of for this figure:
Km/year driven: 20,000
Average fuel consumption (l/100km): 7.8 (which is 30.1 mpg)
Fuel consumed in a year (litres): 1560
$/litre of gas right now: $1.14
Cost of gas for the year: $1776.84
Cost of electricity ($/kWh): 0.087
EV fuel economy: 4.6671 km/kWh
Cost of electricity for the year: $372.8225
Savings of buying electricity over buying gas for the year: $1404.02
(I rounded down to $1200 because it scales nicely per month and is easier to remember)
As you can see, I'm not spending $1200 in electricity costs, I'm actually spending $372.82. So to do the math your way, at 2.50 a gallon, you could buy only 150 gallons (149.128), at 30pmg, that gets you only 4,473.84 miles, whereas I would have driven 12427 miles (20,000km).
then subtract the maintenance and repair costs of a Nissan Leaf, and you'll have $1694 in the bank.
It's interesting that you subtract an amount that is LESS than the cost of the battery replacement. You've forgotten to add in all the incidental costs of operating the EV in your analysis.
You've misunderstood what I've done. I took the maintenance and repair costs of a Honda Civic ($7516), and subtracted the maintenance and repair costs of the Nissan Leaf ($5822) over 10 years. This gives us how much money one would save in maintenance and repair costs by owning a Leaf vs. a Civic ($1694). Since it's money you save, you can apply it to the cost of the new battery, which is why it's subtracted off of that cost.
It's interesting that you subtract an amount that is LESS than the cost of the battery replacement. You've forgotten to add in all the incidental costs of operating the EV in your analysis.
Unless you're referring to something other than maintenance and repair, I'm not sure what you mean by "incidental costs". Though, I suppose I could have been harder on you and factored in how much you save per year on buying electricity instead of gasoline (about $1200/year, in my region). But that would be an additional $12000 in savings over the ten year period. Actually, in just gas savings, you'll have made back your $6000 to replace the battery in 5 years. Factor in the savings on maintenance and repairs and you're getting your $6000 in less than 4 years, compared to an owner of a Honda Civic.
And actually, choosing the Honda Civic as a comparison point gives your side a bit of a break as they tend to have lower maintenance and repair costs, and they have higher mpg than your original 30mpg stated. Take the Ford Focus, you'd be spending almost $1200 more in the 10 year span ($8740).
As for the charge of "fear mongering" that the OP made -- don't be silly. I am not trying to make you afraid of anything. I'm simply questioning, with supporting numbers, the surface level cost analysis you did that leaves you claiming that it saves you money.
As I'm not the OP, I don't support the "fear mongering" assessment made by him/her. I actually agree with your approach to question the costs with supporting numbers. Which is why I'm doing the same thing to your numbers.
If you're going to compare battery replacement costs to gasoline costs, you're in the realm of the lifetime costs of the vehicle. So, to really compare apples to apples, you've got to also factor in maintenance costs of your ICE vs maintenance costs of the EV.
EVs don't require oil changes and thanks to regenerative braking usually don't require new brake pads for the life of the vehicle. There will be no transmission repairs to do or transmission fluids to top up, just to name a few things.
If you take the maintenance and repairs costs of a Honda civic over 10 years, according to this site, you'll have spent $7516, then subtract the maintenance and repair costs of a Nissan Leaf, and you'll have $1694 in the bank.
Then instead of inflating your numbers by rounding up to $6000, let's keep it at $5500, then subtract the $1694 you'd save over 10 years. Then do the same math that you did above and you get 9.13 years of driving before you need to replace the battery.
It looks to me like more of a break even, and that's with the crappy Nissan Leaf which is notorious for having a poor battery life thanks to its lack of active cooling.
No one thinks that this is the first time that the earth's climate has changed. What's new this time is the rate at which the change is happening. If you're expecting evolution to solve this problem you're wrong. Evolution doesn't come in leaps, but in small changes with each successive generation.
So there is an actual limit to how fast a species can evolve directly related to how quickly they can produce the next generation from their birth. If you have a fast enough change in climate, species will go extinct. The faster the climate changes the more species will go extinct, depending on how long it takes for them to reproduce from birth, bacteria will most certainly be fine. The only thing that will save any particular species is if they are already able to survive the new stressors via migration or inherent adaptability.
So our species could be fine because of our adaptability, but how many other species will make it? And how many of those do we need for our species to survive? We can't live off of bacteria.
You miss the point. It's not the planet we need to save. The planet will be fine. It's like how forest fires are great for forests in the long run. But don't tell that to the animals who die from habitat loss while they're waiting for the forest to regrow.
EPA ratings, which is the standard in North America to measure against is not the absolute IDEAL situation, you can actually get much higher range in ideal conditions. But the EPA range more accurately reflects the typical range that you would see in regular driving conditions. But you are correct that the actual mileage can be less in the worst conditions (winter, which requires cabin heating & traffic jam, which requires a lot of accelerating/decelerating). If you are unlucky to drive in these conditions, you'll get about 50% of the EPA range with a Leaf and about 66% of the EPA range with a Tesla. You can mitigate this to a certain degree by heating your cabin while it's still plugged in at home and rely more on heated seats than heating the air of the cabin.
100 miles is still pretty good, since according to this site, only 8% of the American population commute 75 miles or more in a day. Which means that, 92% of Americans still have at least 25 miles of wiggle room for detours or errands.
There is battery degradation to factor in, but this varies based on battery chemistry and cooling systems (or if there's no cooling system, your climate). So you can have pretty bad degradation as in the case of a Nissan Leaf, which has no battery cooling system (degrades to 70% in 8.3 years in Syracuse NY, in 3.4 years in Houston TX), or in the case of a Tesla, which has an active cooling system, has been shown to lose only 5% after 50,000 miles and about 8% after 100,000 miles.
I would imagine (or hope) that Ford would be smart enough to make their battery system more like Tesla's and less like Nissan's, leaving your friend with 132 miles of range even in the worst conditions.
will just make stuff up and keep repeating it until people believe it.
Also a great campaign strategy.
Great point, there definitely should be a hoarfrost region that you speak of.
Though, I would point out that since we know we cannot see our entire universe, one cannot state that a hoarfrost must be observable.
Why, in the early universe, did antimatter lose out to regular old matter?
Who's to say that antimatter lost out? Perhaps, when matter/antimatter particles split, if there's an outside force upon them, matter parts ways in the one direction and antimatter parts ways in the opposite direction with respect to the external force. That would leave two universes, one of matter and the other of antimatter.
Not sure why you're comparing haircuts to childbirth, but I'd have to agree on all your points regardless.
when it really hits the market
I don't believe he put that kind of timeframe in his claim. He just said it "will" be, as in eventually.
One of the ways he's aiming to save money is by making the manufacturing process more efficient, which I imagine won't be in effect as soon as the panels hit the market. Upgrading their manufacturing process for the solar panels will require a lot of capital expenditure, which they already have a ton of considering their Gigafactory construction and the upgrades to their Fremont factory. Not to mention, the statements made about building another Gigafactory in Europe or Asia.
Mere duplication is exactly what the paper requires, to decrease the odds that outside factors play a role in the end results. And since Autopilot is only supposed to be used on divided highways, it's entirely on point that you would prove that the system is safe in only those conditions.
Does it prove that it's safe in all driving conditions? Absolutely not. But it's not meant to be used in all driving conditions, so that's besides the point.