It's funny that emission credits are seen as a liberal construct, when they were originally developed as a market based solution by conservatives. In 1990, George H. W. Bush established a "cap and trade" system to combat acid rain. This was a market alternative to a "command and control" style solution. Yet today, you're a bleeding liberal to suggest such a thing.
The crux of the problem is that free markets don't address external costs. A simple example is over-fishing. In a free market, the oceans are fished until popular species are gone. If one actor decides to be conservative (literally conserve fish), another actor will continue overfishing and won't care when he's exhausted the species because his bank account is fat and it's someone else's problem. And no, privatizing the oceans is not a solution. A private owner can still do the same thing.
"No vehicles have required DEF since 2008" Am I misunderstanding you? My 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel requires DEF.
I'm generally pleased with it as it has 410 ft-lbs of torque, but gets a real 31 mpg on the highway and 26 mpg combined (above EPA estimates and better than the V6). I did have a DEF system error come and go though, so I am concerned about the reliability of the DEF system.
Solar power + grid storage will initially replace natural gas peaker plants and break into the base load production. Southern California Edison is probably the most visible and recent example. Grid storage enables more variable power sources like solar and wind to function on the grid, displacing natural gas peaker plants. Simultaneously, the same technology that enables grid storage, low cost batteries, is bringing the EV to the mass market within the next 2 years.
Solar is certainly a major part of this energy shift. The oil companies take a hit on two fronts. Within the next 20 years the major uses of oil will be reduced to heating and large/utility vehicles.
"The Tesla would take all day to charge." Why? Wouldn't you just need to recover the electricity you used getting to work? The only difference would be in efficiency. 2015 Ford C-Max Energi 88 mpge combined (source: fueleconomy.gov) 2015 Tesla Model S AWD 93 mpge combined (source: fuelecony.gov). As it turns out, the "lumbering overpowered" (no bias detected) Tesla might be even more efficient that the C-Max.
And "supporting" IE was one of the biggest mistakes ever. They're now living with their bug ridden apps that only work on IE6 with ActiveX. It takes a little more work, but programming to standards isn't THAT hard.
Not good enough nor plentiful enough nor convenient enough nor standard enough. They take 45 minutes to get an 80% charge and over an hour to get a full charge. Plus they're not much use if you don't have a Tesla. They're a good effort in the right direction but not good enough by a long shot yet.
Apples and Oranges.
Do you run your gas car to 0 before filling up? I usually fill up at about 1/4 tank.
Why fill to 100%? I think that's rarely needed. You only do this with gas because you can't fill up at home. Say you've got 100 miles until you're home (or next stop). Get to 150-170 miles (15-20 minute charge max) and be on your way. And MOST OF THE TIME you're leaving and returning from your house so you never need to fill up at a station.
What percentage of the time are you driving > 200 miles in a day? Those few times are the only ones a "filling station" matters at all, and DC quick charging is a pretty good solution and getting better.
At a most fundamental level, money is a substitute for trade because direct trade is inconvenient. The private sector doesn't create money. It produces goods and services that are traded using money. That said, please explain why the government should "create money for the General Welfare".
Just wanted to add that the problem is inherent. The hole drilled creates a path from the hydrocarbons to the drinking water. A fault in the casing or grout can cause drinking water contamination. All it takes is negligence, incompetence or just Murphy's Law.
"if local government is using public funds to run fiber, allow other telcos the use of that fiber at cost"
That's the best solution. The item that it naturally scarce is owned by the people, serviced by contractors every few years. Then we can have a real competitive market by leasing access to the network.
This might not be a problem if they just disclose what chemicals they're pumping into the ground. Then, we would either 1. Not need to worry or 2. setup monitoring stations to check for those specific chemicals.
Just a data point for those interested in SUVs. I've got a diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee with a great 4-wheel drive system and 7,000 lb. towing capacity. On my recent trip trip to Atlanta, I drove 620 miles mostly highway on one tank using just shy of 20 gallons of diesel. That's 31 mpg for a vehicle with true utility.
I wasn't referring to loan repayment. In response to your "potential for future" statement, I was referring to the ROI in terms of progress and advancement. There's no guarantee the grad student will do anything significant in return for the loan. Tesla on the other hand, already has.
My issue is that context is often ignored. You already know it's a rocket launcher, that you want it to launch now is obvious and make is superfluous. It should be:
rocketlauncher.go()
Yea, foo is stupid, but your example is to the other extreme.
I tuned into "Rush" today for some entertainment. According to El Rushmo, the NWS is full of liberals who love crisis and government control - and so the "overreaching" forecasts were just for their pleasure.
As for the crisis part, I could only think of Fox News with its constant "ALERT" banners. Compared to the "liberal" NPR, which helps me go to sleep.
GM actually did a cool ground-up design that was called Autonomy (looks like they changed the name to Hy-Wire) since I followed it. It used a skate-board chassis very similar to what Tesla uses now.
How do you think the model 3 development is funded? This IS the business model. Make expensive cars to raise money for the development of (lower margin) affordable cars. Also, this doesn't inhibit the model 3's development. It's not like they have to do one thing at a time.
Also they will likely take less than the 25% margin they take on the model S. So if they shoot for a 10% margin @ $35K they need to build it for $31.5K vs. $26K for a 25% margin.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny that emission credits are seen as a liberal construct, when they were originally developed as a market based solution by conservatives. In 1990, George H. W. Bush established a "cap and trade" system to combat acid rain. This was a market alternative to a "command and control" style solution. Yet today, you're a bleeding liberal to suggest such a thing.
The crux of the problem is that free markets don't address external costs. A simple example is over-fishing. In a free market, the oceans are fished until popular species are gone. If one actor decides to be conservative (literally conserve fish), another actor will continue overfishing and won't care when he's exhausted the species because his bank account is fat and it's someone else's problem. And no, privatizing the oceans is not a solution. A private owner can still do the same thing.
"No vehicles have required DEF since 2008" Am I misunderstanding you? My 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee Diesel requires DEF.
I'm generally pleased with it as it has 410 ft-lbs of torque, but gets a real 31 mpg on the highway and 26 mpg combined (above EPA estimates and better than the V6). I did have a DEF system error come and go though, so I am concerned about the reliability of the DEF system.
Solar power + grid storage will initially replace natural gas peaker plants and break into the base load production. Southern California Edison is probably the most visible and recent example. Grid storage enables more variable power sources like solar and wind to function on the grid, displacing natural gas peaker plants. Simultaneously, the same technology that enables grid storage, low cost batteries, is bringing the EV to the mass market within the next 2 years.
Solar is certainly a major part of this energy shift. The oil companies take a hit on two fronts. Within the next 20 years the major uses of oil will be reduced to heating and large/utility vehicles.
"The Tesla would take all day to charge." Why? Wouldn't you just need to recover the electricity you used getting to work? The only difference would be in efficiency. 2015 Ford C-Max Energi 88 mpge combined (source: fueleconomy.gov) 2015 Tesla Model S AWD 93 mpge combined (source: fuelecony.gov). As it turns out, the "lumbering overpowered" (no bias detected) Tesla might be even more efficient that the C-Max.
And "supporting" IE was one of the biggest mistakes ever. They're now living with their bug ridden apps that only work on IE6 with ActiveX. It takes a little more work, but programming to standards isn't THAT hard.
Tesla Supercharging stations.
Not good enough nor plentiful enough nor convenient enough nor standard enough. They take 45 minutes to get an 80% charge and over an hour to get a full charge. Plus they're not much use if you don't have a Tesla. They're a good effort in the right direction but not good enough by a long shot yet.
Apples and Oranges.
Do you run your gas car to 0 before filling up? I usually fill up at about 1/4 tank.
Why fill to 100%? I think that's rarely needed. You only do this with gas because you can't fill up at home. Say you've got 100 miles until you're home (or next stop). Get to 150-170 miles (15-20 minute charge max) and be on your way. And MOST OF THE TIME you're leaving and returning from your house so you never need to fill up at a station.
What percentage of the time are you driving > 200 miles in a day? Those few times are the only ones a "filling station" matters at all, and DC quick charging is a pretty good solution and getting better.
At a most fundamental level, money is a substitute for trade because direct trade is inconvenient. The private sector doesn't create money. It produces goods and services that are traded using money. That said, please explain why the government should "create money for the General Welfare".
They're "law abiding" until they're not. Then they're criminals with guns.
Just wanted to add that the problem is inherent. The hole drilled creates a path from the hydrocarbons to the drinking water. A fault in the casing or grout can cause drinking water contamination. All it takes is negligence, incompetence or just Murphy's Law.
"if local government is using public funds to run fiber, allow other telcos the use of that fiber at cost"
That's the best solution. The item that it naturally scarce is owned by the people, serviced by contractors every few years. Then we can have a real competitive market by leasing access to the network.
This might not be a problem if they just disclose what chemicals they're pumping into the ground. Then, we would either 1. Not need to worry or 2. setup monitoring stations to check for those specific chemicals.
So I did the math. To store just 1 MWH of energy using a weight would require 8 thousand tons.
Check my math:
1 MWH = 1MJ x 3600s = 3.6 x 10^9J.
Energy = mass x gravity accel x height. mass = energy / (gravity x height)
mass = 3.6 * 10^9J / (9.81N/kg x 50m) = 7339450 kg = 8090 ton.
Just a data point for those interested in SUVs. I've got a diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee with a great 4-wheel drive system and 7,000 lb. towing capacity. On my recent trip trip to Atlanta, I drove 620 miles mostly highway on one tank using just shy of 20 gallons of diesel. That's 31 mpg for a vehicle with true utility.
I wasn't referring to loan repayment. In response to your "potential for future" statement, I was referring to the ROI in terms of progress and advancement. There's no guarantee the grad student will do anything significant in return for the loan. Tesla on the other hand, already has.
"but low and middle income grad students, who really are the future"
How so? Does the government get some guarantee on these grad students that's any better than what the DOE has? I don't think so.
My issue is that context is often ignored. You already know it's a rocket launcher, that you want it to launch now is obvious and make is superfluous. It should be:
rocketlauncher.go()
Yea, foo is stupid, but your example is to the other extreme.
I tuned into "Rush" today for some entertainment. According to El Rushmo, the NWS is full of liberals who love crisis and government control - and so the "overreaching" forecasts were just for their pleasure.
As for the crisis part, I could only think of Fox News with its constant "ALERT" banners. Compared to the "liberal" NPR, which helps me go to sleep.
GM actually did a cool ground-up design that was called Autonomy (looks like they changed the name to Hy-Wire) since I followed it. It used a skate-board chassis very similar to what Tesla uses now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
You could use battery packs as buffers. 1 MWH of battery buffer should do nicely.
60 mph is 26.8224 meters per second. At 3.2 seconds, that's 8.382 mps2 / gravity (9.8 mps2) = 0.85G. I'll bet it's even higher off the line.
How do you think the model 3 development is funded? This IS the business model. Make expensive cars to raise money for the development of (lower margin) affordable cars. Also, this doesn't inhibit the model 3's development. It's not like they have to do one thing at a time.
Huh? What's your point? Are you being sarcastic?
Also they will likely take less than the 25% margin they take on the model S. So if they shoot for a 10% margin @ $35K they need to build it for $31.5K vs. $26K for a 25% margin.
I always felt awkward saying Windows Phone Phone.
And you don't see the problem?
An OS designed for desktop retrofitted for appliance use.