Texas is open for business. I'm not a resident there, but I'd love to see a mass exodus from California and watch their liberal paradise sink into third-world status overnight.
These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.
And arm myself with some pretty hefty firepower. Oh wait, in California, one isn't allowed to protect themselves legally. One may, however, die legally at the hands of an angry, irrational mob who thinks robots are taking over the world.
They're upset that employers who pay living wages are moving into their area? Oh wait, that's right, $15 is a "living wage" and these companies are paying more than that. So tech workers are being paid too much, fast food workers are being paid too little, and what we really need is everyone making the same money regardless of what they do?
Why don't these hippies go join a little commune where they can all be equal* together?
*with some Type A people being more equal than others
The difference is that "non-experts" have the opportunity to audit some or all of the Linux kernel source code. It doesn't matter if most people don't do it or aren't equipped to do it. The transparency comes from the opportunity to do so.
Science without transparency isn't science as we know it. It becomes subject to terribly bad things like confirmation bias and basic mistakes hiding in plain sight, except not in plain sight because nearly no one can view them. You make it seems as though modern science is beyond the ability of nearly anyone to understand, as if we're living in some sort of mystical period. The cutting edge of science has always been difficult for most people to understand. The contributing bits upon which the cutting edge is built aren't widely understood, thus making the jump between common knowledge and the cutting edge is a major challenge. Do you think all of Sir Isaac Newton's work was well understood by common people in his time? Of course not, yet a simple Swiss patent clerk - some time later - took Newton's work apart and advanced human understanding of the world around it. If Newton's work were only ever available to the "experts", no one would have heard of Einstein. If Einstein hadn't had access to Newton's work and been able to move past it, we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics. Without that, no Superstring Theory.
A singular case? Not even close. An outlier in its severity, but the cases of ordinary people taking apart many lifetimes of work of experts working together are numerous throughout all of science. But it only happens when the knowledge is open and available and when the data and methodology are open to criticism.
If the work is good, opening it to criticism cannot harm it. That's the fundamental basis for peer review. Hiding behind the "but it's too complicated for you to understand!" is a pussy move made only by those who lack confidence in their work. If it can't hold up to a wide, bright light shining upon it, then it isn't good science. Anyone who won't open their work for everyone to see isn't doing good science and either knows it or is so dangerously arrogant that they're incapable of doing good science. They're human. They're missing things. They're making mistakes. And they'll often end up with the wrong conclusions. The idea of basing public policy on this crap is sheer stupidity.
That's the big trend these days. We must respect everyone's opinions equally. It doesn't matter if they are expert in a specific field or know nothing but what they see on the "news". All are of equal value.
I don't respect anyone's opinions. I respect facts, data, repeatable experiments... you know, all that sciency shit we used to do back in the day.
My problem with AGW is two-fold:
1) I have serious issues with the data collection, statistical analysis applied, lack of transparency of both models AND data, and unsupported conclusions and 2) The zealotous AGW evangelists who hold IPCC reports as dogma handed down by gods from Heaven. I really want to get an IPCC report engraved in stone and put up in a shrine where I can charge these tools admission.
None of that is to say I think the IPCC is certainly wrong. It's always possible to reach the correct conclusions despite making many mistakes along the way. Fix the problems of methodology, data collection, data analysis, lack of transparency, broken models, data inconsistency, etc and I think we'll find ourselves a good bit of real truth there. What that truth will be? I honestly don't know; I don't have enough good information to form an informed opinion about what the reality is. What I do know is that I have serious problems with what I've seen thus far, and I've dug into it all pretty deeply (and continue doing so as more information becomes available).
Want to know how you can tell a rational person who disagrees with me (and those educated, informed skeptics like me) from an AGW evangelizing zealot? The former will agree with me that agreement on AGW is unnecessary to working toward common goals like ridding ourselves of objectively polluting, local environment destroying human activities like coal-fire power plants. If it's plainly destroying the local environment (as coal-fire power plants do, for instance), we can agree it needs to go. That accomplishes a mutual goal of making the local environment better for everyone and further accomplishes the AGW proponent's (as opposed toa zealot's - huge difference here) goal of reducing emissions they believe are responsible for changes in global climate related to human activity.
A zealot, on the other hand, will grow furious at the idea of accepting any difference in conclusions and will instead berate, marginalize, and in some cases rant incoherently at the "climate denier". Mutual goals or agreement mean nothing to the zealot; all-important is the need to convert everyone to the One True Faith(tm) and dehumanize any and all infidels. In other words, belief in their dogma is more important than accomplishing goals. Sound familiar? Yeah, basically a cult.
Multiple scientists ARE verifying the data. That you're not among them speaks to your qualifications to do so, not to lack of transparency. Simple solution, get yourself a PhD in a relevant field of study.
Exactly, rochrist, tell that dumbass Swiss patent clerk to get back to filing paperwork and stop questioning the work of Sir Isaac Newton! He isn't qualified. Only people with PhDs are qualified to advance understanding. Srinivasa Ramanujan? A dirt-poor Indian boy from the middle of nowhere with no serious education? Definitely lacks any qualification to speak to any mathematical fields. How dare the simple fool even try!
Yes, only people with PhDs are qualified to advance human understanding! Anyone else is just a common idiot, not worth the air they breathe.
"I would also like to see the models be more open and transparent."
The code for many models are openly available on the internet. Further the methods are readily available in the primary literature.
SOME of the models are open. Of those, how many also open their DATA to everyone? In fact, a scarce few. The model is useless without the data and the results cannot be scrutinized without both available.
The problem the general public faces is not that the code is being hidden or that somehow scientists have conspired to keep their methods secret, but rather that most people would find the abundant ordinary and partial differential equations too intimidating to fathom, much less the numerical methods employed to solve them.
So you're saying "most people" are just too stupid or uneducated to scrutinize the work of those studying climate sciences and therefore their work need not be available for scrutiny? I think you're treading dangerously close to circular logic there, and you've certainly stepped across the non-sequitur line in a world where the work of the great scientist Isaac Newton was turned on its head by a lowly Swiss patent clerk. Where would mathematics be without the rural-born, self-educated, dirt-poor Indian Srinivasa Ramanujan who came from conditions so bad that they cost him his life at just 32 years old? Am I pointing out some extremes? Yes, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of far less extreme examples of seemingly ordinary people without significant formal training making significant contributions to our understanding of the world around us. To dismiss them all out of hand as unqualified is to eschew progress in the name of appeal to authority.
However, all that aside there remains one important question that those denying anthropogenic global warming driven by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans never want to answer and in fact, are unable to answer:
If the planet is not getting warmer, why are all the world's glaciers and reservoirs of permanent ice on the planet shrinking at ever increasing rates simultaneously?
The typical straw man/red herring combo argument of AGW True Believers(tm). Lack of faith in the AGW dogma does not lead to a failure to acknowledge documented reality. Global temperatures have changed over the past 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc. There's no argument there. The only argument is the extent to which human activities have played a role, and that's where the science gets very, very iffy at best. For one thing, we have a terribly limited (in accuracy, precision, depth, completeness, consistency, etc) data set. For another, the globe has seen vastly more rapid changes in temperatures long before SUVs roamed the planet. Claims of "unprecedented" changes in climate are patently absurd. Claims of any smoking gun evidence or simple explanation belie ignorance of the evidence or the complexities of the numerous interacting global climate systems.
In other words, a simple "greenhouse gases make Earth hot, herp derp" doesn't cut it, and those who believe that it does are just as ignorant and zealotous as those claiming biblical proof that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
And USians still don't believe in climate change...
The rest of your comment aside, this is simply absurd. Aside from some blindly religious zealot goofballs who think the planet is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to school on a Velociraptor, I doubt very much that you'll find anyone in the US who believes the climate doesn't change; that it remains static for all time.
Of course, I'm sure that isn't what you were really saying. You very likely were meaning that some people from the US don't accept that human activities are, in any large way, directly responsible for atypical changes in the global climate. However, your language is quite interesting. First, the use of the word "believe" implies that they lack faith in a belief, rather than acceptance of truth. I would agree with that implication, based on how many "believers" in AGW come off as zealots. Secondly, your language attempted to marginalize the non-believers by equating their lack of faith with belief in a static climate; regardless of the fact that virtually none of them would actually agree with that concept.
Combined with the first part of your opening statement, I'd say this giant hunk of condescending and logical fallacy filled crap post is about par for the course for the True Believers(tm) of the AGW crowd. Based on the crowd noise, there seem to be a small number of rational people with a reasoned (if flawed, in my opinion) view of the available evidence among a sea of zealots basking in the glow of the holy texts handed down by the gods of the IPCC. I'm sure it's more about who's vocal rather than who's in which camp, but it sure doesn't seem that way sometimes.
Has there ever been an increase in atmospheric CO2 without human intervention? Yes? Then what information do you have which shows that human activity is the cause or even the primary cause of the measured, short-term rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
Yet again, lots of assumptions, stacked on other assumptions, building a house of cards which could obviously collapse at the slightest of breezes.
Complete strawman argument. The GP never stated that CO2 is not rising. The GP stated that there is insufficient reliable data to support or refute the claim that humans are outputting more CO2 than can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
The GP never claimed anything even remotely close to your strawman that CO2 levels are not currently rising.
Have there been any attempts at litigation over these clear and present impacts? If so, how have they fared? (Honest question). If this has not been successful then do you still think that litigation is a solution for the trickier problem of greenhouse gasses?
Results have been largely positive for those suing for local contamination. Lawsuits have hit energy companies for illegal discharges from coal slurry 'ponds', heavy metal contamination of waterways, etc. Various suits for coal ash and coal dust pollution have also resulted in either very large victories or in agreements under which energy companies operating dirty plants have made large scale, substantive changes to fix the problems. Yet I'd like to see more; a lot more. I'd like to see states jumping in to help organize and motivate citizens to go after those who do things destructive to the local environment and to the health of local citizens.
As for the "problem of greenhouse gasses", I think that's a bridge to cross when we come to it. I've never stated that it's impossible human activities are affecting the global climate (in fact, any activity will invariably affect a system, though not necessarily in any measurable way). What I've said is that the evidence we have thus far is very unconvincing and our understanding of the global climate extremely incomplete. We've only just scratched the surface of how our global climate operates and we have a heck of a lot of work to do before we can start reaching any serious conclusions about it. Certainly the climate is changing (and it always has; this idea of a "stable climate" is a myth completely countered by all available evidence even just from recorded human history) and we should be preparing ourselves for those changes. However, that does not mean we should jump to unsupported conclusions and it certainly doesn't mean we should start actively trying to affect the global climate (e.g. these suicidally stupid climate engineering proposals coming out lately).
Let's work on preparing ourselves for the climate changes we're observing today, stopping the obviously destructive activities we're doing today, and expanding our understanding of the global climate so we can one day understand our role. Those all seem like perfectly reasonable actions which would get broad-base support, generate little controversy among anyone, and would accomplish 95% of the stated goals of the AGW crowd. However, since those actions don't praise the Truth(TM) of the AGW faith, the true believers will act like typical religious zealots and reject the whole thing. It's not enough to do the right thing for other reasons, one must fully accept the righteous path of the AGW faith as leading to salvation or one is just as damned as the polluters themselves.
And that fact right there - easily observed in every single discussion on global climate change - should tell you quite a bit about what's really happening here. It's been quite an eye opener for me.
That all relies on the shaky belief that the global climate has a specific sensitivity to CO2. We don't have the level of understanding of global climate processes necessary to gauge our specific impact. We've proven that repeatedly by the fact that every single climate model ever created has failed utterly within a few years at most. Many fail within a year. Looking at the IPCC reports from the 1990s, all the major predictions have failed. The warming has been consistently, massively overestimated and we've seen a leveling of global temperatures for the past 17 years. That leveling is now predicted by some climate scientists to last until as late as 2035 due to previously unaccounted-for factors.
None of this means AGW doesn't exist. It simply means we have a poor understanding of the global climate and its drivers and I don't think it wise to make large-scale, heavily impactful decisions without knowing a firm basis. Yes, in a lab, CO2, methane, and others act as 'greenhouse gases'. Yes, they seem to play some sort of role doing so in our global climate. But this is a massively complex system we're just beginning to piece together. We need a lot more research before we can claim to have even a cursory understanding of the drivers of global climate. At this point, we can't even say for sure what we don't know.
Any yet, again, none of this alters the fact that we know certain things to be destructive to the environment; at least locally. Coal fire power plants and large scale burning of other fossil fuels produce tons of air particles that cause respiratory problems in animals including humans. That problem is so obvious you can actually see it in places like China and Los Angeles. Coal slurry is another huge problem and has destroyed entire towns in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Mountains - yes mountains - are destroyed during the mining process.
All of these are major issues which could and SHOULD be getting all the press of the AGW debate. If they did, we'd be well on our way to shutting down the worst offenders and moving to cleaner, safer technologies that already exist today and have proven themselves for decades. We don't have to agree on a belief in AGW to agree on moving away from the most destructive technologies in use today. As a conservative, I'm philosophically opposed to making big decisions based on feelings, intuition, or half-baked theories. I demand facts, and I have plenty of facts to make me want to move away from obviously destructive technologies that are unquestionably harming people near them.
"D" is the the claim that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. That is indeed known beyond even vaguely reasonable doubt - first, from simple accounting (we know fairly well how much CO2 we release) and secondly by isotope fingerprinting (the C we burn is from fossil fuels, which is depleted in 13C, and we can detect the resulting change in the atmosphere).
D is the claim that human beings are the driving force behind an unnatural change in climate. It builds on both B and C. That B and C are shaky invariably leads to D being as or more uncertain.
The Younger Dryas was primarily an event in the Northern Atlantic region, and much less well-defined on a global scale. And we have good candidates for what caused it - primarily a slow-down of the thermohaline circulation as the result of the abrupt emptying of the large glacial lakes in North America.
We have some ideas around what might have caused it. They're nearly all pure conjecture and the most popular theories require some fairly severe circumstances with little to no supporting evidence. The effects were widely felt from the Pacific Northwest to Scandinavia. The fact is that it's just one example among dozens of known events that blow what we're seeing today out of the water. What we've observed over the past few decades doesn't hold a candle to what this planet has done all by its lonesome without any SUVs doing a thing.
Unless and until we have an understanding of the climate, we should focus our efforts on better understanding our global climate and on reducing and eliminating local, verifiably destructive activities like widespread deforestation and the use of filthy technologies like coal-fire power plants. You can have plenty of allies standing with you on environmental issues without the AGW debate entering into the picture. Few actually believe that the emissions and byproducts of coal-fire power plants aren't destructive to the local environment. You don't need to convince anyone of the damage you believe they're doing to the global environment to get people behind the idea of replacing them with safer, cleaner energy sources.
Two thoughts on gaining more allies than enemies: 1) Stick to what you can verifiably prove - not half-baked ideas like AGW. You've got all the best arguments available against things like coal power using just the things people can see in front of them (smog, slurry, etc). 2) Don't push top-down, authoritarian solutions (particularly government force). Nobody likes a bully, even if the bully has a point. Make the simple populist arguments about the damage to both local people and the local environment (childhood asthma, radioactive slurry, etc) and you'll have people flocking to support your end goal.
You can accomplish your goals of a cleaner environment without convincing one person to believe in AGW. If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps you should re-examine what's really important to you. You may find that you're sacrificing the greater good to preach dogma, and when that happens, nobody wins.
That isn't "allowing the markets to decide" anything. That's introducing outside pressure (i.e. force) to attempt to steer the market in a particular direction.
I have a much better idea; allow those who can show harm from coal-fire power plants and other such messes to sue the heck out of operators of coal-fire power plants. They'll either clean up the technology while keeping it financially viable or they'll disappear.
A is pretty easily shown by the evidence available. B and c are conjecture for which the evidence is - thus far - shaky at best. D is quite far from certain.
First of all, we can't even state what the temperature of the Earth has been prior to about the 1970s when weather satellites began large-scale measurements. Prior to that, all we have are ground station measurements (which are terribly incomplete and imprecise and don't match up with the satellite data), tree ring data (which is even more imprecise, more incomplete, and doesn't match up with either the satellite or the ground station measurements), and ice core sampling (which is HORRENDOUSLY imprecise, extremely incomplete, and doesn't match up with any other measurements).
What we actually know today is that CO2 levels are rising and temperatures are somewhat rising. We know these to be true generally since around the 1920s (which is when ground station measurements began to be done by people with at least some training and reasonably calibrated instruments rather than - and I'm not kidding - the completely untrained janitor using an uncalibrated thermometer) and more specifically since the satellite measurement era began in the 70s. Prior to the 1920s, any data we have is terribly imprecise at best. Certainly, we don't have the kind of precision necessary to provide for sub-degree delta changes over the past 100+ years. The further back we go, the less precision we can have, meaning we have no idea just how "unprecedented" any of this is or whether any of this warming can be considered normal.
What we also know is that the planet has seen vastly more abrupt changes in temperature than what we're seeing today. Al Gore's BS about this being completely unlike anything ever recorded is completely ridiculous and demonstrably false. For instance, take the end of the end of the Younger Dryas period. Rather than our current warming of 1C in 100 years, the end of the Younger Dryas period was marked by a warming of ~7C in 5 - 50 years. The cause? Unknown at this time, but we do know that it's just one of many cases where vastly more abrupt changes have occurred than what we're observing today, and nobody was driving SUVs at the time.
So pardon me if I don't buy the whole "the science is settled" line, since I've actually looked at it for myself. The data is muddled and imprecise, the models don't work without fudging, and our current understanding of the Earth's climate is akin to that of your average two-year-old's understanding of a nuclear fission power plant. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to learn more about our climate and any potential ways we may be affecting it in undesirable ways. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to stop obviously damaging emissions (such as those from coal fire power plants that destroy the local environment and create dangerous conditions for humans and other animals).
What it does mean is that we have a lot more work to do before we can declare that we understand what's going on and our role in it. It also means we have far more work to do before we declare that we're in a position to make informed decisions on ways to purposely effect change in the global climate. Doing so without a much fuller understanding of the entire system is suicidally stupid.
So the basic idea is that if your power source is terrible (i.e. shoddy wiring in your home), then pulling too much through it could expose that problem via a fire. That isn't a problem with the car, but rather a problem with the substandard wiring. If Tesla merely responds with "it isn't us and isn't our problem", we'll invariably hear of more house fires and the Model S will be blamed.
So they develop a change that detects potentially substandard wiring from the symptom of poor quality power entering the vehicle. It then cuts the draw significantly in that case to reduce the risk of said substandard wiring causing a fire (notice the wiring would still be at fault). Suddenly, because Tesla has released a "fix", their car must have been at fault all along!
This is an absurd level of idiocy and quite frankly, if it continues and eventually sinks Tesla, then we deserve to choke to death on the smog of our own stupidity's making. It's really remarkable how terribly dumb the top of the bell curve is. All evidence points directly toward the future envisioned in the film Idiocracy.
And how much CO2 and other environmental damage would there be from covering vast swaths of land with solar panels? The manufacturing process is filthy, the disposal process even worse, and it results in more human lives lost than nuclear.
Nuclear can scale up very easily and rapidly. It merely requires the balls to bring down the miles of red tape standing in the way of building new reactors and reprocessing their waste. It handles base load and we know that it works because we've been using it for decades. If you want to bet the farm on something, bet it on something we already know works. As for the fuel, CANDU plants can already breed fuel from thorium and it can use MOX fuel including the weapons-grade plutonium from all those decommissioned nuclear weapons we have laying around.
There's plenty of fuel, waste is ridiculously tiny and low risk if you reprocess the fuel, it scales very well, and we know it works for all kinds of load. Why you'd want to bet human civilization on something new that's more damaging to the environment, causes more human fatalities, and has many unknown risks associated with it is beyond me, but I can say that it won't scale to what we'd need without obscene amounts of environmental damage and unknown risks to the overall climate.
The real solution involves using proven safe, clean technology on a larger scale.
Apparently he also would have no idea that firing as the motorcade was approaching the turn was about 1000x easier a shot. The ground was level, it wasn't too close to the building so as to make it an uncomfortable shot, and he'd have had enough time for 5 or 6 shots easily (though he'd only need 1). Seriously, check out the game "JFK Reloaded" which actually gives a good perspective on the view from the spot where Oswald supposedly took the shot. It's ridiculously easier to take the shot as the motorcade is approaching. Taking the shot when Oswald supposedly did is insane; the angle is terrible, elevation is changing, direction is changing, there are trees in the way; it's just awful. Shoot straight on and you get a clear, level, easy shot that just about anyone with minimal training could make.
The Model S costs $62k base price for a car with lots of stuff already in it. If you deck the thing out going for top-end across the board, you can get it to $100k. Just like you can take a base Yukon at $47k and get it to $74k when you deck the thing out.
And you have no idea how comfortable or roomy the inside of a Model X is because unless you work for Tesla or are one of a small number press people who've gotten to sit in one, you've never seen the thing. You might guess at how comfortable or roomy it is, but you don't actually know, do you?
And I didn't compare them; YOU did.
Quote you from the GGP:
Any idea on price? If they could build and sell that for under $50K, I'd be interested in one as a second SUV.
Quote me from the GP:
Price is going to be slightly higher than the Model S, which probably puts it around $65k after the Federal tax incentive.
Quote you from the P:
The Model X might seat 7, but it doesn't do it with as much room or as much comfort as a Yukon XL does. Comparing the two is simply not being honest about the situation.
Do you even read your own posts? You certainly don't read mine.
Yukon XL Denali MSRP is $60,985. You didn't fully equip it.
I did, however (on the website), and I came up with a $73,245 MSRP.
And yes, the Federal (and state) tax credits do count. And no, they don't "just have to collect it from you somewhere else"; it's there to act as an incentive to purchasing EVs. They also don't get it from you on the gas taxes. And why should they? When you're spending $3,643/yr average on gas alone for that Yukon XL Denali, they don't really need to get anything out of the EV owners.
By the way, with gas, maintenance, and repair costs, that Yukon XL Denali fully equipped (really fully equipped) actually runs about $98,151. $18k in gas, $4800 maintenance, $2k repairs. (source: Vincentric) Those same costs for the Model S? $3k in 'fuel', $3k in maintenance, $1k in repairs. End result? Fully equipped Yukon XL Denali after 5 years: $98,151. Model S: $107,000. Difference? $9k. Unless you buy it in any of the states that offer additional incentives (like GA, WV, IL, CO, CA, etc), in which case that difference is more like $4k. In other words, about 4% difference in price for fully-equipped TCO. However, Model S and Yukon XL Denali without options? TCO swings hard into the Model S's favor.
All that said, the Model S isn't up against the Yukon; it's up against the Audi A8, Mercedes S-Class, etc. And it's beating them in sales.
This is the problem when comparing specs to reality.
Calling the Model S a 7 passenger vehicle and putting it anywhere remotely in the same dept as the Yukon is just being dishonest.
The Yukon actually seats 7 people in reasonable comfort, either 6 adults or 4 adults and 3 children fit very nicely, plus room left over.
Speaking of dishonest, I didn't simply say that the Model S seats 7. I specifically stated that it seats 5 adults plus two children. The Model X seats 7 full sized, living, breathing, adults with plenty of room for their stuff. Do you need me to look up the video from the unveiling for you so you can see for yourself? It's not that difficult to find. As for the Model S, if you have the two children seated in the rear-facing seats, you won't have much space for extra stuff. That said, it's a sedan with more space for people and things than anything else it's up against.
How much does the Model S tow? How much storage space does it have when 7 people are in it? How long does it take to refill the battery? What is the off road ability?
You likely shouldn't be towing with an EV, much like you shouldn't be with most gas cars or SUVs. Trucks are built for that; most other consumer gasoline vehicles are not. I can probably tow quote a bit with my heavy sport car's extremely powerful engine, but it'll pretty much destroy the car doing it. The same thing goes for off-roading, except that you now have to exclude most trucks as well. Sure, if we're talking about level ground, and cut grass, but much else and you're looking at a small subset of jeeps, trucks, and an even smaller group of SUVs actually designed to do it. Throwing a lift kit in there doesn't do anything for the fact that the engine was never designed or tuned to handle the conditions of real off-roading. EVs don't have to be all things to all people.
As for storage space, the Model S will have little when you use the two rear-facing child seats. The Model X will have plenty even with 7 adults in it. As for the battery refill, at any Tesla Supercharge station (which are free and will always be free per Tesla), you get 50% battery charge in 20 minutes. For the smaller battery, that's about 110 miles. For the larger, that's about 150 miles. 40 minutes brings it to 80%. You can also opt for a battery quick-swap which takes 90 seconds and gets you a fully charged battery. That costs $60 - $80 and you can either pick up your own battery on the way back or pay the difference in value between your old one and the one you picked up (based on the battery conditions). I see that at current average gas prices, that Yukon XL costs about $110/tank and I'll bet it takes about 2.5 - 3 times longer to fill up than the 90-second battery swap.
The web site you linked to is dishonest, it says "zero emissions. zero compromises."
That is a lie. There are plenty of emissions both during production of the car and during production of the electricity it consumes. There are also compromises in both the cost of the car as well as in having to wait hours and hours for the battery to recharge.
Actually, it's quite honest. The vehicle produces no emissions. It doesn't state that the production is done without emissions. Nothing is constructed without emissions. It also doesn't state that the source of the electricity is zero emissions. There's no way to know that; it depends entirely on where you are and to what it's connected. In any event, the vehicle produces zero emissions while it's driving. Should you choose to charge it at Tesla stations (for free), those run off solar power, so you're even charging it for zero emissions (in terms of the OPERATIONS of the charging station).
There car costs money, and I'm not sure what your complaint is there. It's priced against Audi's A8, BMW's 7 series, etc. People interested in those kinds of vehicles aren't compromising anything buying a Model S. In fact, they're getting a vastly sa
It'll cost slightly more than the Model S, so figure about $65k after the Federal tax incentive. If you live in a state that also does tax incentives for EVs, you'll see that come down a bit more.
Slashdot Mirror
Texas is open for business. I'm not a resident there, but I'd love to see a mass exodus from California and watch their liberal paradise sink into third-world status overnight.
These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.
And arm myself with some pretty hefty firepower. Oh wait, in California, one isn't allowed to protect themselves legally. One may, however, die legally at the hands of an angry, irrational mob who thinks robots are taking over the world.
They're upset that employers who pay living wages are moving into their area? Oh wait, that's right, $15 is a "living wage" and these companies are paying more than that. So tech workers are being paid too much, fast food workers are being paid too little, and what we really need is everyone making the same money regardless of what they do?
Why don't these hippies go join a little commune where they can all be equal* together?
*with some Type A people being more equal than others
So the justification for showing up at car engineer's house to protest is that Nixon closed the gold window 43 years ago?
Sounds like California's mental health problems are worse than we thought.
The difference is that "non-experts" have the opportunity to audit some or all of the Linux kernel source code. It doesn't matter if most people don't do it or aren't equipped to do it. The transparency comes from the opportunity to do so.
Science without transparency isn't science as we know it. It becomes subject to terribly bad things like confirmation bias and basic mistakes hiding in plain sight, except not in plain sight because nearly no one can view them. You make it seems as though modern science is beyond the ability of nearly anyone to understand, as if we're living in some sort of mystical period. The cutting edge of science has always been difficult for most people to understand. The contributing bits upon which the cutting edge is built aren't widely understood, thus making the jump between common knowledge and the cutting edge is a major challenge. Do you think all of Sir Isaac Newton's work was well understood by common people in his time? Of course not, yet a simple Swiss patent clerk - some time later - took Newton's work apart and advanced human understanding of the world around it. If Newton's work were only ever available to the "experts", no one would have heard of Einstein. If Einstein hadn't had access to Newton's work and been able to move past it, we wouldn't have Quantum Mechanics. Without that, no Superstring Theory.
A singular case? Not even close. An outlier in its severity, but the cases of ordinary people taking apart many lifetimes of work of experts working together are numerous throughout all of science. But it only happens when the knowledge is open and available and when the data and methodology are open to criticism.
If the work is good, opening it to criticism cannot harm it. That's the fundamental basis for peer review. Hiding behind the "but it's too complicated for you to understand!" is a pussy move made only by those who lack confidence in their work. If it can't hold up to a wide, bright light shining upon it, then it isn't good science. Anyone who won't open their work for everyone to see isn't doing good science and either knows it or is so dangerously arrogant that they're incapable of doing good science. They're human. They're missing things. They're making mistakes. And they'll often end up with the wrong conclusions. The idea of basing public policy on this crap is sheer stupidity.
That's the big trend these days. We must respect everyone's opinions equally. It doesn't matter if they are expert in a specific field or know nothing but what they see on the "news". All are of equal value.
I don't respect anyone's opinions. I respect facts, data, repeatable experiments... you know, all that sciency shit we used to do back in the day.
My problem with AGW is two-fold:
1) I have serious issues with the data collection, statistical analysis applied, lack of transparency of both models AND data, and unsupported conclusions
and 2) The zealotous AGW evangelists who hold IPCC reports as dogma handed down by gods from Heaven. I really want to get an IPCC report engraved in stone and put up in a shrine where I can charge these tools admission.
None of that is to say I think the IPCC is certainly wrong. It's always possible to reach the correct conclusions despite making many mistakes along the way. Fix the problems of methodology, data collection, data analysis, lack of transparency, broken models, data inconsistency, etc and I think we'll find ourselves a good bit of real truth there. What that truth will be? I honestly don't know; I don't have enough good information to form an informed opinion about what the reality is. What I do know is that I have serious problems with what I've seen thus far, and I've dug into it all pretty deeply (and continue doing so as more information becomes available).
Want to know how you can tell a rational person who disagrees with me (and those educated, informed skeptics like me) from an AGW evangelizing zealot? The former will agree with me that agreement on AGW is unnecessary to working toward common goals like ridding ourselves of objectively polluting, local environment destroying human activities like coal-fire power plants. If it's plainly destroying the local environment (as coal-fire power plants do, for instance), we can agree it needs to go. That accomplishes a mutual goal of making the local environment better for everyone and further accomplishes the AGW proponent's (as opposed toa zealot's - huge difference here) goal of reducing emissions they believe are responsible for changes in global climate related to human activity.
A zealot, on the other hand, will grow furious at the idea of accepting any difference in conclusions and will instead berate, marginalize, and in some cases rant incoherently at the "climate denier". Mutual goals or agreement mean nothing to the zealot; all-important is the need to convert everyone to the One True Faith(tm) and dehumanize any and all infidels. In other words, belief in their dogma is more important than accomplishing goals. Sound familiar? Yeah, basically a cult.
Multiple scientists ARE verifying the data. That you're not among them speaks to your qualifications to do so, not to lack of transparency. Simple solution, get yourself a PhD in a relevant field of study.
Exactly, rochrist, tell that dumbass Swiss patent clerk to get back to filing paperwork and stop questioning the work of Sir Isaac Newton! He isn't qualified. Only people with PhDs are qualified to advance understanding. Srinivasa Ramanujan? A dirt-poor Indian boy from the middle of nowhere with no serious education? Definitely lacks any qualification to speak to any mathematical fields. How dare the simple fool even try!
Yes, only people with PhDs are qualified to advance human understanding! Anyone else is just a common idiot, not worth the air they breathe.
"I would also like to see the models be more open and transparent."
The code for many models are openly available on the internet. Further the methods are readily available in the primary literature.
SOME of the models are open. Of those, how many also open their DATA to everyone? In fact, a scarce few. The model is useless without the data and the results cannot be scrutinized without both available.
The problem the general public faces is not that the code is being hidden or that somehow scientists have conspired to keep their methods secret, but rather that most people would find the abundant ordinary and partial differential equations too intimidating to fathom, much less the numerical methods employed to solve them.
So you're saying "most people" are just too stupid or uneducated to scrutinize the work of those studying climate sciences and therefore their work need not be available for scrutiny? I think you're treading dangerously close to circular logic there, and you've certainly stepped across the non-sequitur line in a world where the work of the great scientist Isaac Newton was turned on its head by a lowly Swiss patent clerk. Where would mathematics be without the rural-born, self-educated, dirt-poor Indian Srinivasa Ramanujan who came from conditions so bad that they cost him his life at just 32 years old? Am I pointing out some extremes? Yes, but there are hundreds, if not thousands of far less extreme examples of seemingly ordinary people without significant formal training making significant contributions to our understanding of the world around us. To dismiss them all out of hand as unqualified is to eschew progress in the name of appeal to authority.
However, all that aside there remains one important question that those denying anthropogenic global warming driven by the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and oceans never want to answer and in fact, are unable to answer:
If the planet is not getting warmer, why are all the world's glaciers and reservoirs of permanent ice on the planet shrinking at ever increasing rates simultaneously?
The typical straw man/red herring combo argument of AGW True Believers(tm). Lack of faith in the AGW dogma does not lead to a failure to acknowledge documented reality. Global temperatures have changed over the past 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, 1000 years, etc. There's no argument there. The only argument is the extent to which human activities have played a role, and that's where the science gets very, very iffy at best. For one thing, we have a terribly limited (in accuracy, precision, depth, completeness, consistency, etc) data set. For another, the globe has seen vastly more rapid changes in temperatures long before SUVs roamed the planet. Claims of "unprecedented" changes in climate are patently absurd. Claims of any smoking gun evidence or simple explanation belie ignorance of the evidence or the complexities of the numerous interacting global climate systems.
In other words, a simple "greenhouse gases make Earth hot, herp derp" doesn't cut it, and those who believe that it does are just as ignorant and zealotous as those claiming biblical proof that the Earth is 6,000 years old.
And USians still don't believe in climate change...
The rest of your comment aside, this is simply absurd. Aside from some blindly religious zealot goofballs who think the planet is 6,000 years old and that Jesus rode to school on a Velociraptor, I doubt very much that you'll find anyone in the US who believes the climate doesn't change; that it remains static for all time.
Of course, I'm sure that isn't what you were really saying. You very likely were meaning that some people from the US don't accept that human activities are, in any large way, directly responsible for atypical changes in the global climate. However, your language is quite interesting. First, the use of the word "believe" implies that they lack faith in a belief, rather than acceptance of truth. I would agree with that implication, based on how many "believers" in AGW come off as zealots. Secondly, your language attempted to marginalize the non-believers by equating their lack of faith with belief in a static climate; regardless of the fact that virtually none of them would actually agree with that concept.
Combined with the first part of your opening statement, I'd say this giant hunk of condescending and logical fallacy filled crap post is about par for the course for the True Believers(tm) of the AGW crowd. Based on the crowd noise, there seem to be a small number of rational people with a reasoned (if flawed, in my opinion) view of the available evidence among a sea of zealots basking in the glow of the holy texts handed down by the gods of the IPCC. I'm sure it's more about who's vocal rather than who's in which camp, but it sure doesn't seem that way sometimes.
Has there ever been an increase in atmospheric CO2 without human intervention? Yes? Then what information do you have which shows that human activity is the cause or even the primary cause of the measured, short-term rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
Yet again, lots of assumptions, stacked on other assumptions, building a house of cards which could obviously collapse at the slightest of breezes.
Complete strawman argument. The GP never stated that CO2 is not rising. The GP stated that there is insufficient reliable data to support or refute the claim that humans are outputting more CO2 than can be absorbed by the pre-industrial climate cycles.
The GP never claimed anything even remotely close to your strawman that CO2 levels are not currently rising.
The IPCC report from 1990 predicted a temperature rise of 0.15 to 0.3C/decade. Since then we have seen a temperature rise of 0.23C per decade: http://woodfortrees.org/data/gistemp-dts/from:1990/to:2010/trend
That doesn't sound like a failed prediction...
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/plotcomp1.png
Have there been any attempts at litigation over these clear and present impacts? If so, how have they fared? (Honest question). If this has not been successful then do you still think that litigation is a solution for the trickier problem of greenhouse gasses?
Results have been largely positive for those suing for local contamination. Lawsuits have hit energy companies for illegal discharges from coal slurry 'ponds', heavy metal contamination of waterways, etc. Various suits for coal ash and coal dust pollution have also resulted in either very large victories or in agreements under which energy companies operating dirty plants have made large scale, substantive changes to fix the problems. Yet I'd like to see more; a lot more. I'd like to see states jumping in to help organize and motivate citizens to go after those who do things destructive to the local environment and to the health of local citizens.
As for the "problem of greenhouse gasses", I think that's a bridge to cross when we come to it. I've never stated that it's impossible human activities are affecting the global climate (in fact, any activity will invariably affect a system, though not necessarily in any measurable way). What I've said is that the evidence we have thus far is very unconvincing and our understanding of the global climate extremely incomplete. We've only just scratched the surface of how our global climate operates and we have a heck of a lot of work to do before we can start reaching any serious conclusions about it. Certainly the climate is changing (and it always has; this idea of a "stable climate" is a myth completely countered by all available evidence even just from recorded human history) and we should be preparing ourselves for those changes. However, that does not mean we should jump to unsupported conclusions and it certainly doesn't mean we should start actively trying to affect the global climate (e.g. these suicidally stupid climate engineering proposals coming out lately).
Let's work on preparing ourselves for the climate changes we're observing today, stopping the obviously destructive activities we're doing today, and expanding our understanding of the global climate so we can one day understand our role. Those all seem like perfectly reasonable actions which would get broad-base support, generate little controversy among anyone, and would accomplish 95% of the stated goals of the AGW crowd. However, since those actions don't praise the Truth(TM) of the AGW faith, the true believers will act like typical religious zealots and reject the whole thing. It's not enough to do the right thing for other reasons, one must fully accept the righteous path of the AGW faith as leading to salvation or one is just as damned as the polluters themselves.
And that fact right there - easily observed in every single discussion on global climate change - should tell you quite a bit about what's really happening here. It's been quite an eye opener for me.
That all relies on the shaky belief that the global climate has a specific sensitivity to CO2. We don't have the level of understanding of global climate processes necessary to gauge our specific impact. We've proven that repeatedly by the fact that every single climate model ever created has failed utterly within a few years at most. Many fail within a year. Looking at the IPCC reports from the 1990s, all the major predictions have failed. The warming has been consistently, massively overestimated and we've seen a leveling of global temperatures for the past 17 years. That leveling is now predicted by some climate scientists to last until as late as 2035 due to previously unaccounted-for factors.
None of this means AGW doesn't exist. It simply means we have a poor understanding of the global climate and its drivers and I don't think it wise to make large-scale, heavily impactful decisions without knowing a firm basis. Yes, in a lab, CO2, methane, and others act as 'greenhouse gases'. Yes, they seem to play some sort of role doing so in our global climate. But this is a massively complex system we're just beginning to piece together. We need a lot more research before we can claim to have even a cursory understanding of the drivers of global climate. At this point, we can't even say for sure what we don't know.
Any yet, again, none of this alters the fact that we know certain things to be destructive to the environment; at least locally. Coal fire power plants and large scale burning of other fossil fuels produce tons of air particles that cause respiratory problems in animals including humans. That problem is so obvious you can actually see it in places like China and Los Angeles. Coal slurry is another huge problem and has destroyed entire towns in places like West Virginia and Kentucky. Mountains - yes mountains - are destroyed during the mining process.
All of these are major issues which could and SHOULD be getting all the press of the AGW debate. If they did, we'd be well on our way to shutting down the worst offenders and moving to cleaner, safer technologies that already exist today and have proven themselves for decades. We don't have to agree on a belief in AGW to agree on moving away from the most destructive technologies in use today. As a conservative, I'm philosophically opposed to making big decisions based on feelings, intuition, or half-baked theories. I demand facts, and I have plenty of facts to make me want to move away from obviously destructive technologies that are unquestionably harming people near them.
"D" is the the claim that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. That is indeed known beyond even vaguely reasonable doubt - first, from simple accounting (we know fairly well how much CO2 we release) and secondly by isotope fingerprinting (the C we burn is from fossil fuels, which is depleted in 13C, and we can detect the resulting change in the atmosphere).
D is the claim that human beings are the driving force behind an unnatural change in climate. It builds on both B and C. That B and C are shaky invariably leads to D being as or more uncertain.
The Younger Dryas was primarily an event in the Northern Atlantic region, and much less well-defined on a global scale. And we have good candidates for what caused it - primarily a slow-down of the thermohaline circulation as the result of the abrupt emptying of the large glacial lakes in North America.
We have some ideas around what might have caused it. They're nearly all pure conjecture and the most popular theories require some fairly severe circumstances with little to no supporting evidence. The effects were widely felt from the Pacific Northwest to Scandinavia. The fact is that it's just one example among dozens of known events that blow what we're seeing today out of the water. What we've observed over the past few decades doesn't hold a candle to what this planet has done all by its lonesome without any SUVs doing a thing.
Unless and until we have an understanding of the climate, we should focus our efforts on better understanding our global climate and on reducing and eliminating local, verifiably destructive activities like widespread deforestation and the use of filthy technologies like coal-fire power plants. You can have plenty of allies standing with you on environmental issues without the AGW debate entering into the picture. Few actually believe that the emissions and byproducts of coal-fire power plants aren't destructive to the local environment. You don't need to convince anyone of the damage you believe they're doing to the global environment to get people behind the idea of replacing them with safer, cleaner energy sources.
Two thoughts on gaining more allies than enemies:
1) Stick to what you can verifiably prove - not half-baked ideas like AGW. You've got all the best arguments available against things like coal power using just the things people can see in front of them (smog, slurry, etc).
2) Don't push top-down, authoritarian solutions (particularly government force). Nobody likes a bully, even if the bully has a point. Make the simple populist arguments about the damage to both local people and the local environment (childhood asthma, radioactive slurry, etc) and you'll have people flocking to support your end goal.
You can accomplish your goals of a cleaner environment without convincing one person to believe in AGW. If you can't bring yourself to do that, perhaps you should re-examine what's really important to you. You may find that you're sacrificing the greater good to preach dogma, and when that happens, nobody wins.
That isn't "allowing the markets to decide" anything. That's introducing outside pressure (i.e. force) to attempt to steer the market in a particular direction.
I have a much better idea; allow those who can show harm from coal-fire power plants and other such messes to sue the heck out of operators of coal-fire power plants. They'll either clean up the technology while keeping it financially viable or they'll disappear.
A is pretty easily shown by the evidence available. B and c are conjecture for which the evidence is - thus far - shaky at best. D is quite far from certain.
First of all, we can't even state what the temperature of the Earth has been prior to about the 1970s when weather satellites began large-scale measurements. Prior to that, all we have are ground station measurements (which are terribly incomplete and imprecise and don't match up with the satellite data), tree ring data (which is even more imprecise, more incomplete, and doesn't match up with either the satellite or the ground station measurements), and ice core sampling (which is HORRENDOUSLY imprecise, extremely incomplete, and doesn't match up with any other measurements).
What we actually know today is that CO2 levels are rising and temperatures are somewhat rising. We know these to be true generally since around the 1920s (which is when ground station measurements began to be done by people with at least some training and reasonably calibrated instruments rather than - and I'm not kidding - the completely untrained janitor using an uncalibrated thermometer) and more specifically since the satellite measurement era began in the 70s. Prior to the 1920s, any data we have is terribly imprecise at best. Certainly, we don't have the kind of precision necessary to provide for sub-degree delta changes over the past 100+ years. The further back we go, the less precision we can have, meaning we have no idea just how "unprecedented" any of this is or whether any of this warming can be considered normal.
What we also know is that the planet has seen vastly more abrupt changes in temperature than what we're seeing today. Al Gore's BS about this being completely unlike anything ever recorded is completely ridiculous and demonstrably false. For instance, take the end of the end of the Younger Dryas period. Rather than our current warming of 1C in 100 years, the end of the Younger Dryas period was marked by a warming of ~7C in 5 - 50 years. The cause? Unknown at this time, but we do know that it's just one of many cases where vastly more abrupt changes have occurred than what we're observing today, and nobody was driving SUVs at the time.
So pardon me if I don't buy the whole "the science is settled" line, since I've actually looked at it for myself. The data is muddled and imprecise, the models don't work without fudging, and our current understanding of the Earth's climate is akin to that of your average two-year-old's understanding of a nuclear fission power plant. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to learn more about our climate and any potential ways we may be affecting it in undesirable ways. It also doesn't mean we shouldn't be working to stop obviously damaging emissions (such as those from coal fire power plants that destroy the local environment and create dangerous conditions for humans and other animals).
What it does mean is that we have a lot more work to do before we can declare that we understand what's going on and our role in it. It also means we have far more work to do before we declare that we're in a position to make informed decisions on ways to purposely effect change in the global climate. Doing so without a much fuller understanding of the entire system is suicidally stupid.
... perhaps because for years deniers have been looking for observations that buck the trend.
Strange, when I was a kid, we called looking for observations that counter a scientific theory "science".
So the basic idea is that if your power source is terrible (i.e. shoddy wiring in your home), then pulling too much through it could expose that problem via a fire. That isn't a problem with the car, but rather a problem with the substandard wiring. If Tesla merely responds with "it isn't us and isn't our problem", we'll invariably hear of more house fires and the Model S will be blamed.
So they develop a change that detects potentially substandard wiring from the symptom of poor quality power entering the vehicle. It then cuts the draw significantly in that case to reduce the risk of said substandard wiring causing a fire (notice the wiring would still be at fault). Suddenly, because Tesla has released a "fix", their car must have been at fault all along!
This is an absurd level of idiocy and quite frankly, if it continues and eventually sinks Tesla, then we deserve to choke to death on the smog of our own stupidity's making. It's really remarkable how terribly dumb the top of the bell curve is. All evidence points directly toward the future envisioned in the film Idiocracy.
And how much CO2 and other environmental damage would there be from covering vast swaths of land with solar panels? The manufacturing process is filthy, the disposal process even worse, and it results in more human lives lost than nuclear.
Nuclear can scale up very easily and rapidly. It merely requires the balls to bring down the miles of red tape standing in the way of building new reactors and reprocessing their waste. It handles base load and we know that it works because we've been using it for decades. If you want to bet the farm on something, bet it on something we already know works. As for the fuel, CANDU plants can already breed fuel from thorium and it can use MOX fuel including the weapons-grade plutonium from all those decommissioned nuclear weapons we have laying around.
There's plenty of fuel, waste is ridiculously tiny and low risk if you reprocess the fuel, it scales very well, and we know it works for all kinds of load. Why you'd want to bet human civilization on something new that's more damaging to the environment, causes more human fatalities, and has many unknown risks associated with it is beyond me, but I can say that it won't scale to what we'd need without obscene amounts of environmental damage and unknown risks to the overall climate.
The real solution involves using proven safe, clean technology on a larger scale.
Private Online Reserve Notes!
I have no idea how to implement it, but good things should have good names!
Apparently he also would have no idea that firing as the motorcade was approaching the turn was about 1000x easier a shot. The ground was level, it wasn't too close to the building so as to make it an uncomfortable shot, and he'd have had enough time for 5 or 6 shots easily (though he'd only need 1). Seriously, check out the game "JFK Reloaded" which actually gives a good perspective on the view from the spot where Oswald supposedly took the shot. It's ridiculously easier to take the shot as the motorcade is approaching. Taking the shot when Oswald supposedly did is insane; the angle is terrible, elevation is changing, direction is changing, there are trees in the way; it's just awful. Shoot straight on and you get a clear, level, easy shot that just about anyone with minimal training could make.
The Model S costs $62k base price for a car with lots of stuff already in it. If you deck the thing out going for top-end across the board, you can get it to $100k. Just like you can take a base Yukon at $47k and get it to $74k when you deck the thing out.
And you have no idea how comfortable or roomy the inside of a Model X is because unless you work for Tesla or are one of a small number press people who've gotten to sit in one, you've never seen the thing. You might guess at how comfortable or roomy it is, but you don't actually know, do you?
And I didn't compare them; YOU did.
Quote you from the GGP:
Any idea on price? If they could build and sell that for under $50K, I'd be interested in one as a second SUV.
Quote me from the GP:
Price is going to be slightly higher than the Model S, which probably puts it around $65k after the Federal tax incentive.
Quote you from the P:
The Model X might seat 7, but it doesn't do it with as much room or as much comfort as a Yukon XL does. Comparing the two is simply not being honest about the situation.
Do you even read your own posts? You certainly don't read mine.
Yukon XL Denali MSRP is $60,985. You didn't fully equip it.
I did, however (on the website), and I came up with a $73,245 MSRP.
And yes, the Federal (and state) tax credits do count. And no, they don't "just have to collect it from you somewhere else"; it's there to act as an incentive to purchasing EVs. They also don't get it from you on the gas taxes. And why should they? When you're spending $3,643/yr average on gas alone for that Yukon XL Denali, they don't really need to get anything out of the EV owners.
By the way, with gas, maintenance, and repair costs, that Yukon XL Denali fully equipped (really fully equipped) actually runs about $98,151. $18k in gas, $4800 maintenance, $2k repairs. (source: Vincentric) Those same costs for the Model S? $3k in 'fuel', $3k in maintenance, $1k in repairs. End result? Fully equipped Yukon XL Denali after 5 years: $98,151. Model S: $107,000. Difference? $9k. Unless you buy it in any of the states that offer additional incentives (like GA, WV, IL, CO, CA, etc), in which case that difference is more like $4k. In other words, about 4% difference in price for fully-equipped TCO. However, Model S and Yukon XL Denali without options? TCO swings hard into the Model S's favor.
All that said, the Model S isn't up against the Yukon; it's up against the Audi A8, Mercedes S-Class, etc. And it's beating them in sales.
This is the problem when comparing specs to reality.
Calling the Model S a 7 passenger vehicle and putting it anywhere remotely in the same dept as the Yukon is just being dishonest.
The Yukon actually seats 7 people in reasonable comfort, either 6 adults or 4 adults and 3 children fit very nicely, plus room left over.
Speaking of dishonest, I didn't simply say that the Model S seats 7. I specifically stated that it seats 5 adults plus two children. The Model X seats 7 full sized, living, breathing, adults with plenty of room for their stuff. Do you need me to look up the video from the unveiling for you so you can see for yourself? It's not that difficult to find. As for the Model S, if you have the two children seated in the rear-facing seats, you won't have much space for extra stuff. That said, it's a sedan with more space for people and things than anything else it's up against.
How much does the Model S tow? How much storage space does it have when 7 people are in it? How long does it take to refill the battery? What is the off road ability?
You likely shouldn't be towing with an EV, much like you shouldn't be with most gas cars or SUVs. Trucks are built for that; most other consumer gasoline vehicles are not. I can probably tow quote a bit with my heavy sport car's extremely powerful engine, but it'll pretty much destroy the car doing it. The same thing goes for off-roading, except that you now have to exclude most trucks as well. Sure, if we're talking about level ground, and cut grass, but much else and you're looking at a small subset of jeeps, trucks, and an even smaller group of SUVs actually designed to do it. Throwing a lift kit in there doesn't do anything for the fact that the engine was never designed or tuned to handle the conditions of real off-roading. EVs don't have to be all things to all people.
As for storage space, the Model S will have little when you use the two rear-facing child seats. The Model X will have plenty even with 7 adults in it. As for the battery refill, at any Tesla Supercharge station (which are free and will always be free per Tesla), you get 50% battery charge in 20 minutes. For the smaller battery, that's about 110 miles. For the larger, that's about 150 miles. 40 minutes brings it to 80%. You can also opt for a battery quick-swap which takes 90 seconds and gets you a fully charged battery. That costs $60 - $80 and you can either pick up your own battery on the way back or pay the difference in value between your old one and the one you picked up (based on the battery conditions). I see that at current average gas prices, that Yukon XL costs about $110/tank and I'll bet it takes about 2.5 - 3 times longer to fill up than the 90-second battery swap.
The web site you linked to is dishonest, it says "zero emissions. zero compromises."
That is a lie. There are plenty of emissions both during production of the car and during production of the electricity it consumes. There are also compromises in both the cost of the car as well as in having to wait hours and hours for the battery to recharge.
Actually, it's quite honest. The vehicle produces no emissions. It doesn't state that the production is done without emissions. Nothing is constructed without emissions. It also doesn't state that the source of the electricity is zero emissions. There's no way to know that; it depends entirely on where you are and to what it's connected. In any event, the vehicle produces zero emissions while it's driving. Should you choose to charge it at Tesla stations (for free), those run off solar power, so you're even charging it for zero emissions (in terms of the OPERATIONS of the charging station).
There car costs money, and I'm not sure what your complaint is there. It's priced against Audi's A8, BMW's 7 series, etc. People interested in those kinds of vehicles aren't compromising anything buying a Model S. In fact, they're getting a vastly sa
It'll cost slightly more than the Model S, so figure about $65k after the Federal tax incentive. If you live in a state that also does tax incentives for EVs, you'll see that come down a bit more.