While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.
So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.
"Wind and especially solar can never guarantee that."
Careful with that word never. Grid storage makes for a better design than produce on demand. It is not certain how/when grid storage will become economically viable, but it is inevitable. The way we run the grid today is insane, trying to match production to demand. It's only designed that way out of necessity.
I agree, this will be one of the more difficult hurdles to overcome. The most obvious solution is to have outlets (even 110) close to the parking spaces, but I don't know how one would provide the incentive to get it done. For early adopters (we're certainly in that stage), kindly try to work out a solution with your landlord. It could become a valuable amenity. Offer to pay some or all of the installation cost. On a recent trip, at the place I was staying I stayed topped up using 110V at 12 amps driving 30-50 miles each day. If you're home 10 hours per day, that's about 13kWh or 16kWh at 15 amps, enough for 40-50 miles.
I think it's obvious for stores to offer charging. Some already do. Charge up while you grocery shop, have dinner, wash clothes, or watch a movie. Interesting times.
While I agree with the sentiment of bikes slowing 45+ mph traffic lanes, $1,000,000 per mile for a 3 foot strip of asphalt and paint sounds like B.S. propaganda.
"An ICE engine can hit about 30% efficiency." Yes, but they don't operate near this most of the time. This only happens at a particular engine speed (RPM) and load. This might happen on the highway if the motor is at its optimum speed. You're giving ICE way too much credit on efficiency. There are no measured numbers available that I'm aware, but if you factor in most people's driving habits, which include start-up, warm-up inefficiencies, stop-and-go which runs RPMs out of optimum bands and brakes which throw energy away, I would guess 15% is much more likely and even 10% or less for many drivers. By contrast, power plants run at optimum points all of the time.
You also forgot EV regen, which gives them a significant boost in stop-and-go driving over ICE.
You also left out something very important. Gasoline/Diesel REFINING!!! Estimates by EPA put the energy cost at roughly 6 Kwh per gallon of gasoline. Also add in transport and pumping. Try factoring that into the ICE equation. I'm guessing it puts it way below 10%.
Your H2 calculation has a serious problems too. Electrolysis starts with electricity, so it gets the 50% hit plus 98% transmission hit before electrolysis even starts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you factor that into your 30% number. But you left out transport, and compression (10,000 psi) and pumping 85%. Then the fuel cell charges a battery because it can't produce sufficient power on demand. So you have to apply the 80% charging hit you applied to the EV.
"EVs and hydrogen in inextricably linked in this way"
Hell no, they're not! Hydrogen comes from natural gas now, which will always be cheaper than electrolysis. The hydrogen economy is a natural gas economy.
They don't want to waste 70% of their electricity doing (electrolysis, compress to 10,000 psi, fuel-cell -> charge battery, motor) when they could just do (charge battery, motor).
It wouldn't be a big deal to install receptacles at apartment parking spaces. Even a measly 110V/20A outlet would give you 50-60 miles per day, enough to keep you topped off. Any transition will require adjustments. Electric is the easiest transition of all. Power lines run everywhere and electrical outlets like NEMA 14-50 are easy for any electrician. No special training (other than being an electrician) required.
Imagine if no automobile infrastructure of any kind existed. Creating a gasoline infrastructure, which requires drilling, pumping, transport, refining, transport, station construction, more pumping... would seem impossible. Any electric infrastructure is simple and straightforward by comparison. Barring some major discovery, we will always use electricity as the backbone of our infrastructure. EV transport is a natural fit.
And nobody is forcing you to buy an EV today. You can happily drive an ICE while the EV early adopters push the tech into the mainstream. I'm not terribly old, but I've seen this pattern enough. Why would you pay $1,000 for a CD Player? That's just a rich man's toy. My cassettes sound just as good and (insert advantages). Look at so and so wasting their money on that portable bag phone. Why would anyone do that? It doesn't even work at my house. John payed $8,000 for a flat screen just so he can hang it on the wall. I can get a bigger TV (that weighs 200 lbs) for $1,500. How ridiculous!
I'm starting to believe that people are just wired differently. Many can't see things other than how they are today.
Glad to see there are still a few intelligent commenters on Slashdot. I've been visiting less and less as the quality of comments has fallen. I never came here for the articles, just the intelligent discussion.
If by propaganda you mean 30+ years of peer reviewed scientific work, then yes. It should be enough that we've changed the composition of the atmosphere of the one habitable planet we have. But "deniers" demand 100% proof of future devastation while offering ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in legitimate scientific evidence. This is Slashdot, a website for Nerds. Of all places, people here should understand how critical the scientific method and peer reviewed is to sound science.
BTW, what exactly does Bill Nye want? What's in it for him that he would risk his reputation defending "propaganda"?
Oh, and my ID is lower than yours. I don't buy your wisdom by age argument.
People buy cars all the time without maxing out the options, such as 3 series BMW without the "M" badge. The base Model 3 was said to be delivered with autopilot safety features enabled and 0-60 under 6 seconds, supercharging and at least a 215 EPA rated range. My prediction is people might opt for a range upgrade to 250+ miles that should cost $5k or less.
Do you care to break it down? I find it suspicious that you're badmouthing your own company.
Can you show that the ROI, without tax incentives, doesn't happen.
Just looking at hardware (I'll address construction shortly). Here is a 7.8k system http://www.wholesalesolar.com/... for $14,351 That's less than $2 per watt with grid tie equipment. With 5 sun-hours per day, that's 1,060 kWh in 30 days. 15 cents/kwh is $159 per month. That's a 7.5 year ROI on the equipment.
Now the construction. I see often see quoted construction at roughly double the equipment cost. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I think that's ridiculously high and a result of a lack of qualified installers. You need to 1. mount the panels and 2. connect the grid tie equipment. You can get a roof completely reshingled (materials and labor) for $6k. Mounting of the panels shouldn't cost more than $2k. Then there is the electrical hookup, which requires an electrician. An electrician will install a 200 amp panel for about $2,000. Why should it cost much more to install grid tie equipment? So I'll round up and say installation costs should be $5k for this system. That brings the ROI to 10 years.
10 years with NO incentives. And that doesn't count any net metering. As you can see, I take issue with the construction costs. I'll gladly admit my error if you convince me that I'm wrong.
They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?
No. They WERE right. I'll reference the constitution society, but first a brief thought experiment. Arms != Guns. Would you be OK with someone carrying a grenade launcher, fully automatic machine gun, or nuclear weapon into a public building? So we agree, the reading of the second amendment isn't as simple as you stated.
"It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property."
You need to read the entire article for context. The most important point is that the right to bear arms is "self-evident". The second amendment doesn't grant that right, it recognizes it. If you repealed the second amendment, it wouldn't remove the right to bear arms. I'm very much FOR the right to bear arms. Please don't mistake my critique of your position as something else.
Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
You have a source for those stats? It seems obvious that a single armed fool/hothead could start a shootout.
So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better.
Packed convention. Everyone has guns. Two guys get in an argument and one reaches for his firearm. I wouldn't want to be in that room.
It would be similar to Jews or Christians following the Pentateuch (Old Testament Law). I'm not Jewish, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Talmud, which they follow today, supercedes they Pentateuch.
Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do.
You haven't used adaptive cruise control, I'm guessing.
get dangerous drivers off the road ASAP
Agree, but not as a reason to hold back technical advances. You could make similar arguments against ABS and stability control (if they were to malfunction), yet I think you'll agree any potential liabilities of those systems has proven negligible.
Did you know that the Tesla you deride will come to a stop and turn on the flashers if you don't respond to prompts? The risks you're laying out are well understood by the engineers working on these systems. Not to say there aren't some idiots on the job (JEEP), but by and large it is insulting to the professionals working on this to pretend these are revelations of some kind. Every step of progress weighs risk and reward.
There is a simple solution and it's the same one we use on every other computer that gets updates. Configure the system to notify you updates are pending and describe what those updates do. That's what Tesla does now. The car's owner can still be in control of their car while reaping the benefits of OTA updates. Any new problems that arise can be addressed and are minor compared to the advantages brought by OTA updates. Cars have had computers and bugs for more than 20 years and most of them go unfixed. To prevent the nefarious situations you're imaging, we need to be vocal about our privacy and liberty and vote with our wallets.
"you obvious are a true believer of global warming regardless of the evidence"
No. I'm an engineer (M.E.) with sufficient critical thinking and technical skills to investigate things for myself. I'm not a "true believer", because this is not religion. There aren't 2 sides, there are 7 billion people with 7 billion minds. Just most don't use them.
For instance, I favor a market based approach to the issue. And I think it would happen rather quickly if not for the misinformation campaign. I have mixed feelings about carbon credits, though surprising to many today, that is a type of market approach. One that would have been considered conservative 30 years ago. If people weren't misled, we'd have modern nuclear plants going up and accelerated research on fusion (which has made great strides despite low funding). Instead, people have a "do nothing" attitude which is a victory for those that stand to lose from CO2 emission reduction.
I'll make a prediction right here as an example of free market solutions. You can call me on it later if you like. The Tesla Model 3. It will be cheaper and better performing that competitors from BWM, Mercedes, Audi, Cadillac and so on. While the cost efficiency of legacy cars has reached its maximum, the EV has even more room to improve, widening the gap. In 1-2 years, a 328i and Model 3 will be a difficult choice. In 5 years, the Model 3 will be $10K cheaper (or less if you factor fuel) and the choice will be a no-brainer. On the power generation side (orthogonal issue), we continue to phase out coal and actually improve the grid. Grid storage in the form of batteries becomes more economical that nat gas peaker plants and provides load leveling to compensate for variable generation from solar and wind as well as demand spikes.
"The global warming proponents, will use this fear to take away our rights or make things more expensive or prohibitive to do, and increase their power." This is complete FUD and I recognize it because I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. The same argument has been used against everything from bans on CFCs to mandatory car safety features. You want to talk about fear and taking away rights? You've been losing them steadily for the last 15 years to protect you from the "terrorists". And the guys denying global warming are the ones spreading fear of terrorists and capitalizing on it (look out behind you!). Not to change the subject, but I just find it hilarious these guys are warning you what others (the Liberals!) "might" do while they're actually doing it.
I'm guessing you didn't investigate that either. I did. Similar to this B.S. The average layman hears "hide the decline" and believes it is a decline in temperature. The truth is nothing even close. But that doesn't matter, because the people who believe this junk want to believe it and because Limbaugh or some other "trustworthy" hero says climategate was a scandal, they believe it. "Climategate". This stupid name should be a give away. Like the Patriot Act.
If you care about details, "Hide the decline" was referring to a decline in the reliability of indirect measurements (tree rings if I remember). The scientists wanted to plot data before temperature data collection instruments with data taken from thermometers and other modern instruments later. Indirect measurements are pretty much your only option. The tree ring data diverged from other indirect data samples (another topic) so they knew something had changed and after some point, the tree ring data was not reliable. So they plot the tree ring data up to the point it is unreliable to "hide the decline". You'll never hear this from Limbaugh or Hanity because that wouldn't destroy their ability to yell "Climategate!". Though it's apparent if you actually read the emails.
"tonyheller" claims NOAA is omitting data from the graph on page 10 to hide it. "Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data." This is obviously NOT TRUE because satellite data doesn't go back before 1979 and the radiosonde is being compared with the satellite data in the graphs. "tonyheller" is either stupid or intentionally attempting to mislead his readers. Look for yourself: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
"tonyheller" CLEARLY has an agenda. Why would you listen to anything else he says after his failure demonstrates either a) incompetence in technical analysis or b) deceit to support an agenda What else could it be?
"I will never believe government climatologists, they obviously have an agenda, it's not true science." Who do you believe and why? Have you considered that it's not just the scientists in the United States government claiming AWG is happening? Practically every reputable scientific organization on the planet makes the same claim. Do you consider a world wide collusion of scientists even possible? And for what? Grants?
As for government climatologists, there's not much capitalist motive to study climate. Government is one of few entities that exist more than 50 years, the minimum time required to study climate change. I think the people spouting don't believe government scientists know this and realize this leaves people with "not enough untainted data" to make a decision. Uncertainty and delay is their goal.
There are a few non-government entities that have an interest in climate and have been around long enough to accumulate and study data. Exxon Mobil admits AGW is a real threat. http://corporate.exxonmobil.co...
I just read that article and found a serious problem with it. It claims NOAA is "hiding" the data because they don't include all of the radiosonde going back to 1950. But on page 10 of the NOAA presentation, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... the radiosonde data is being compared to SATELLITE data. I'm pretty sure the satellite data doesn't go back to 1950. In addition, the NOAA data "in question" is a short, executive summary type presentation (11 pages in all), not a rigorous peer targeted work. It's hilarious that he's taking on an 11 page power point slide as evidence the NOAA is "defrauding the public".
"The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public." What an idiot.
Shame on everyone here parroting this junk. Turn in your geek card.
Slashdot Mirror
While I mostly agree with you and would prefer a subsidy free solution, you left out an important economic factor. External costs. Hard to measure and define, but very real and econ 101 stuff. Burning stuff pumped out of the ground and into the air has a cost associated with it that the beneficiaries do not pay. One argument FOR tax breaks for stuff is to level the playing field in this respect. The other option to factor in externalities is to tax them as in a tax on pollution.
So just playing devil's advocate. An EV buyer gets a $7500 tax credit. That's $7500 of what they owe the IRS that they don't have to pay. 150,000 miles @ 20 mpg average for a Tesla sized sedan is 7500 gallons of gasoline. That's 7500 gallons not drilled, pumped, transported, refined, transported, pumped, and burned. With some portion of the oil possibly imported from national enemies. That's 22,500 lbs. of CO2 possibly not put into the atmosphere. That's $18,750 not paid for gasoline at $2.50 per gallon. Now where that energy DOES come from will determine how advantageous it is. Though in nearly any case, electricity generation wins out over oil and it is 100% domestic. From an energy perspective It is certainly beneficial environmentally, nationally, and financially. How beneficial? Someone put a number of $7500 on it.
Awesome! Thank you!
"Wind and especially solar can never guarantee that."
Careful with that word never. Grid storage makes for a better design than produce on demand. It is not certain how/when grid storage will become economically viable, but it is inevitable. The way we run the grid today is insane, trying to match production to demand. It's only designed that way out of necessity.
I agree, this will be one of the more difficult hurdles to overcome. The most obvious solution is to have outlets (even 110) close to the parking spaces, but I don't know how one would provide the incentive to get it done. For early adopters (we're certainly in that stage), kindly try to work out a solution with your landlord. It could become a valuable amenity. Offer to pay some or all of the installation cost. On a recent trip, at the place I was staying I stayed topped up using 110V at 12 amps driving 30-50 miles each day. If you're home 10 hours per day, that's about 13kWh or 16kWh at 15 amps, enough for 40-50 miles.
I think it's obvious for stores to offer charging. Some already do. Charge up while you grocery shop, have dinner, wash clothes, or watch a movie. Interesting times.
"million bucks a mile for bike lanes"
While I agree with the sentiment of bikes slowing 45+ mph traffic lanes, $1,000,000 per mile for a 3 foot strip of asphalt and paint sounds like B.S. propaganda.
"An ICE engine can hit about 30% efficiency." Yes, but they don't operate near this most of the time. This only happens at a particular engine speed (RPM) and load. This might happen on the highway if the motor is at its optimum speed. You're giving ICE way too much credit on efficiency. There are no measured numbers available that I'm aware, but if you factor in most people's driving habits, which include start-up, warm-up inefficiencies, stop-and-go which runs RPMs out of optimum bands and brakes which throw energy away, I would guess 15% is much more likely and even 10% or less for many drivers. By contrast, power plants run at optimum points all of the time.
You also forgot EV regen, which gives them a significant boost in stop-and-go driving over ICE.
ICE: 15% * 92.5% = 13.8%
EV: 36.3%
H2: 30% * 80% * 50% * 85% = 10% (see below)
You also left out something very important. Gasoline/Diesel REFINING!!! Estimates by EPA put the energy cost at roughly 6 Kwh per gallon of gasoline. Also add in transport and pumping. Try factoring that into the ICE equation. I'm guessing it puts it way below 10%.
Your H2 calculation has a serious problems too. Electrolysis starts with electricity, so it gets the 50% hit plus 98% transmission hit before electrolysis even starts. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you factor that into your 30% number. But you left out transport, and compression (10,000 psi) and pumping 85%. Then the fuel cell charges a battery because it can't produce sufficient power on demand. So you have to apply the 80% charging hit you applied to the EV.
"EVs and hydrogen in inextricably linked in this way"
Hell no, they're not! Hydrogen comes from natural gas now, which will always be cheaper than electrolysis. The hydrogen economy is a natural gas economy.
They don't want to waste 70% of their electricity doing (electrolysis, compress to 10,000 psi, fuel-cell -> charge battery, motor) when they could just do (charge battery, motor).
It wouldn't be a big deal to install receptacles at apartment parking spaces. Even a measly 110V/20A outlet would give you 50-60 miles per day, enough to keep you topped off. Any transition will require adjustments. Electric is the easiest transition of all. Power lines run everywhere and electrical outlets like NEMA 14-50 are easy for any electrician. No special training (other than being an electrician) required.
Imagine if no automobile infrastructure of any kind existed. Creating a gasoline infrastructure, which requires drilling, pumping, transport, refining, transport, station construction, more pumping ... would seem impossible. Any electric infrastructure is simple and straightforward by comparison. Barring some major discovery, we will always use electricity as the backbone of our infrastructure. EV transport is a natural fit.
And nobody is forcing you to buy an EV today. You can happily drive an ICE while the EV early adopters push the tech into the mainstream. I'm not terribly old, but I've seen this pattern enough. Why would you pay $1,000 for a CD Player? That's just a rich man's toy. My cassettes sound just as good and (insert advantages). Look at so and so wasting their money on that portable bag phone. Why would anyone do that? It doesn't even work at my house. John payed $8,000 for a flat screen just so he can hang it on the wall. I can get a bigger TV (that weighs 200 lbs) for $1,500. How ridiculous!
I'm starting to believe that people are just wired differently. Many can't see things other than how they are today.
Glad to see there are still a few intelligent commenters on Slashdot. I've been visiting less and less as the quality of comments has fallen. I never came here for the articles, just the intelligent discussion.
Do you have a source for that AC? I follow Tesla news closely and that's the first I've heard.
If by propaganda you mean 30+ years of peer reviewed scientific work, then yes. It should be enough that we've changed the composition of the atmosphere of the one habitable planet we have. But "deniers" demand 100% proof of future devastation while offering ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in legitimate scientific evidence. This is Slashdot, a website for Nerds. Of all places, people here should understand how critical the scientific method and peer reviewed is to sound science.
BTW, what exactly does Bill Nye want? What's in it for him that he would risk his reputation defending "propaganda"?
Oh, and my ID is lower than yours. I don't buy your wisdom by age argument.
People buy cars all the time without maxing out the options, such as 3 series BMW without the "M" badge. The base Model 3 was said to be delivered with autopilot safety features enabled and 0-60 under 6 seconds, supercharging and at least a 215 EPA rated range. My prediction is people might opt for a range upgrade to 250+ miles that should cost $5k or less.
You pretty much made an argument against solar with several implications and 0 sources, then said it's not an argument against solar. Right.
Do you care to break it down? I find it suspicious that you're badmouthing your own company.
Can you show that the ROI, without tax incentives, doesn't happen.
Just looking at hardware (I'll address construction shortly). Here is a 7.8k system http://www.wholesalesolar.com/... for $14,351 That's less than $2 per watt with grid tie equipment. With 5 sun-hours per day, that's 1,060 kWh in 30 days. 15 cents/kwh is $159 per month. That's a 7.5 year ROI on the equipment.
Now the construction. I see often see quoted construction at roughly double the equipment cost. Unless you can convince me otherwise, I think that's ridiculously high and a result of a lack of qualified installers. You need to 1. mount the panels and 2. connect the grid tie equipment. You can get a roof completely reshingled (materials and labor) for $6k. Mounting of the panels shouldn't cost more than $2k. Then there is the electrical hookup, which requires an electrician. An electrician will install a 200 amp panel for about $2,000. Why should it cost much more to install grid tie equipment? So I'll round up and say installation costs should be $5k for this system. That brings the ROI to 10 years.
10 years with NO incentives. And that doesn't count any net metering. As you can see, I take issue with the construction costs. I'll gladly admit my error if you convince me that I'm wrong.
They absolutely were. "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the limit on government. They're ignoring the limit. It couldn't be any more obvious. You right to carry was infringed by coercive action of the federal government. How hard is that to figure out, really?
No. They WERE right. I'll reference the constitution society, but first a brief thought experiment. Arms != Guns. Would you be OK with someone carrying a grenade launcher, fully automatic machine gun, or nuclear weapon into a public building? So we agree, the reading of the second amendment isn't as simple as you stated.
From the constitution society: http://www.constitution.org/le...
"It is a fundamental principal in law that the owners or managers of real property have the power to regulate who may enter their premises, and to set conditions upon their entry. That includes public property."
You need to read the entire article for context. The most important point is that the right to bear arms is "self-evident". The second amendment doesn't grant that right, it recognizes it. If you repealed the second amendment, it wouldn't remove the right to bear arms. I'm very much FOR the right to bear arms. Please don't mistake my critique of your position as something else.
Because statistically the more people that are armed the more likely those armed people are to not be crazy. Its when only a few people are armed that mass graves start getting bodies pushed into them.
You have a source for those stats? It seems obvious that a single armed fool/hothead could start a shootout.
So if things are going to get crazy the more armed people we have the better.
Packed convention. Everyone has guns. Two guys get in an argument and one reaches for his firearm. I wouldn't want to be in that room.
Sorry, I don't buy that more guns is better.
It would be similar to Jews or Christians following the Pentateuch (Old Testament Law). I'm not Jewish, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Talmud, which they follow today, supercedes they Pentateuch.
Even cruise control can be a dangerous item. Honestly, you want the car to continue to accelerate without driver input? No sensor in the world is going to make that a safe thing to do.
You haven't used adaptive cruise control, I'm guessing.
get dangerous drivers off the road ASAP
Agree, but not as a reason to hold back technical advances. You could make similar arguments against ABS and stability control (if they were to malfunction), yet I think you'll agree any potential liabilities of those systems has proven negligible.
Did you know that the Tesla you deride will come to a stop and turn on the flashers if you don't respond to prompts? The risks you're laying out are well understood by the engineers working on these systems. Not to say there aren't some idiots on the job (JEEP), but by and large it is insulting to the professionals working on this to pretend these are revelations of some kind. Every step of progress weighs risk and reward.
Let's not be Luddites.
There is a simple solution and it's the same one we use on every other computer that gets updates. Configure the system to notify you updates are pending and describe what those updates do. That's what Tesla does now. The car's owner can still be in control of their car while reaping the benefits of OTA updates. Any new problems that arise can be addressed and are minor compared to the advantages brought by OTA updates. Cars have had computers and bugs for more than 20 years and most of them go unfixed. To prevent the nefarious situations you're imaging, we need to be vocal about our privacy and liberty and vote with our wallets.
That doesn't mean we can count on that to continue.
No it doesn't. But there is no reason to mess it up.
"you obvious are a true believer of global warming regardless of the evidence"
No. I'm an engineer (M.E.) with sufficient critical thinking and technical skills to investigate things for myself. I'm not a "true believer", because this is not religion. There aren't 2 sides, there are 7 billion people with 7 billion minds. Just most don't use them.
For instance, I favor a market based approach to the issue. And I think it would happen rather quickly if not for the misinformation campaign. I have mixed feelings about carbon credits, though surprising to many today, that is a type of market approach. One that would have been considered conservative 30 years ago. If people weren't misled, we'd have modern nuclear plants going up and accelerated research on fusion (which has made great strides despite low funding). Instead, people have a "do nothing" attitude which is a victory for those that stand to lose from CO2 emission reduction.
I'll make a prediction right here as an example of free market solutions. You can call me on it later if you like. The Tesla Model 3. It will be cheaper and better performing that competitors from BWM, Mercedes, Audi, Cadillac and so on. While the cost efficiency of legacy cars has reached its maximum, the EV has even more room to improve, widening the gap. In 1-2 years, a 328i and Model 3 will be a difficult choice. In 5 years, the Model 3 will be $10K cheaper (or less if you factor fuel) and the choice will be a no-brainer. On the power generation side (orthogonal issue), we continue to phase out coal and actually improve the grid. Grid storage in the form of batteries becomes more economical that nat gas peaker plants and provides load leveling to compensate for variable generation from solar and wind as well as demand spikes.
"The global warming proponents, will use this fear to take away our rights or make things more expensive or prohibitive to do, and increase their power." This is complete FUD and I recognize it because I listen to Hannity, Limbaugh and Beck. The same argument has been used against everything from bans on CFCs to mandatory car safety features. You want to talk about fear and taking away rights? You've been losing them steadily for the last 15 years to protect you from the "terrorists". And the guys denying global warming are the ones spreading fear of terrorists and capitalizing on it (look out behind you!). Not to change the subject, but I just find it hilarious these guys are warning you what others (the Liberals!) "might" do while they're actually doing it.
I'm guessing you didn't investigate that either. I did. Similar to this B.S. The average layman hears "hide the decline" and believes it is a decline in temperature. The truth is nothing even close. But that doesn't matter, because the people who believe this junk want to believe it and because Limbaugh or some other "trustworthy" hero says climategate was a scandal, they believe it. "Climategate". This stupid name should be a give away. Like the Patriot Act.
If you care about details, "Hide the decline" was referring to a decline in the reliability of indirect measurements (tree rings if I remember). The scientists wanted to plot data before temperature data collection instruments with data taken from thermometers and other modern instruments later. Indirect measurements are pretty much your only option. The tree ring data diverged from other indirect data samples (another topic) so they knew something had changed and after some point, the tree ring data was not reliable. So they plot the tree ring data up to the point it is unreliable to "hide the decline". You'll never hear this from Limbaugh or Hanity because that wouldn't destroy their ability to yell "Climategate!". Though it's apparent if you actually read the emails.
"tonyheller" claims NOAA is omitting data from the graph on page 10 to hide it. "Here is why they are hiding the rest of the data." This is obviously NOT TRUE because satellite data doesn't go back before 1979 and the radiosonde is being compared with the satellite data in the graphs. "tonyheller" is either stupid or intentionally attempting to mislead his readers. Look for yourself: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/...
"tonyheller" CLEARLY has an agenda. Why would you listen to anything else he says after his failure demonstrates either a) incompetence in technical analysis or b) deceit to support an agenda What else could it be?
"I will never believe government climatologists, they obviously have an agenda, it's not true science." Who do you believe and why? Have you considered that it's not just the scientists in the United States government claiming AWG is happening? Practically every reputable scientific organization on the planet makes the same claim. Do you consider a world wide collusion of scientists even possible? And for what? Grants?
As for government climatologists, there's not much capitalist motive to study climate. Government is one of few entities that exist more than 50 years, the minimum time required to study climate change. I think the people spouting don't believe government scientists know this and realize this leaves people with "not enough untainted data" to make a decision. Uncertainty and delay is their goal.
There are a few non-government entities that have an interest in climate and have been around long enough to accumulate and study data. Exxon Mobil admits AGW is a real threat. http://corporate.exxonmobil.co...
I just read that article and found a serious problem with it. It claims NOAA is "hiding" the data because they don't include all of the radiosonde going back to 1950. But on page 10 of the NOAA presentation, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/... the radiosonde data is being compared to SATELLITE data. I'm pretty sure the satellite data doesn't go back to 1950. In addition, the NOAA data "in question" is a short, executive summary type presentation (11 pages in all), not a rigorous peer targeted work. It's hilarious that he's taking on an 11 page power point slide as evidence the NOAA is "defrauding the public".
"The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public." What an idiot.
Shame on everyone here parroting this junk. Turn in your geek card.
Why not vote for Gary Johnson either way?