Gen 4 melted salt thorium reactor. In addition, these can use current nuke waste and leave us 5% of the volume that is safe in 200 years. Zero chance if a failure, unless all of the laws of physics suddenly collapse.
it is not just scaling up that is costing. The Super Charger Network, combined with service centers, sales stores, fighting against red states, etc. all costs money.
If they are only losing 4000 / car, I am impressed. Chance are that when they open gigafactory AND have Model X up to at least 20K cars / year ( along with 50K / year on MS), they will be breakeven or close to it.
nah, we did that with GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, MB, etc.
And yes, Ford was bailed out since we lent them 10's of billions to revamp with NO INTEREST.
instead, slowly increase the fuel tax by.10/gal for the next 10 years. If consumers know that gas/diesel prices will go up a dollar over th next 10 years, they will start buying high MPG cars now, or even switching to EVs.
Look, O got loads of money from the nuke industry. Why? Because he is a fan of nukes.
The problem was that the dems were opposed to it, and the GOP is opposed to ANYTHING that O tries to do.
Right now, is the PERFECT time for the GOP to get off their fucking ass and put forward a bill to really fund nukes. O would back it.
BUT, you nut jobs will not do it.
And those prices have NOTHING to do with the costs of wind. It has EVERYTHING to do with making PROFITS from idiots.
Utilities through out the nation are adding wind to replace coal. In particular, they are doing it because the electricity is much cheaper than coal.
sorry, but wind is cheaper than coal, and with the next iteration of wind generators, they should be cheaper than nat gas.
EIA, and others all show this. You can not show ANYPLACE where Coal is actually cheaper than wind.
Basically, it is the extremists that are killing America, and even the west.
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
However few ppl have noticed the fact that the far left HATES science and pick and choose what they want to.
Take the case of AGW. A rational person says that the science is overwhelming in favor of AGW. Therefore the smart thing is to drop our CO2 and relatively soon.
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes. In particular, we need gen IV nukes since they can not meltdown. In addition, these can make use of the nuke waste/ aboveground thorium, rather than mining for U.
Yet, the far left fights it. And the far right, really has not done SQUAT for the nuke industry.
Then you have the fact that the far left screams about America's emissions. Yet, current calculated numbers from 2013 show that China accounts for more than 30% of CO2, while the entire west accounts for less than 28%. In addition, China's emission far outweigh even America's emissions. Both in current, as well as total since 150 years ago, or even 1000 years ago.
And that does not include what OCO2 is showing. OCO2's numbers are showing that CHina's emission is well over 40%, and probably closer to 45%. That is HUGE. Absolutely fucking HUGE.
BUT, what does the far left do? They scream that America needs to buy wind/solar from China and continue to drop our emissions. At the same time, they claim that China's growing their Wind/solar faster than America, while ignoring the fact that China's % of electricity from Coal grows EVERY YEAR, and is now in the high 80s.
LOL.
Again, another far right winger that refuses to accept science. Not only does science show that man-made CO2 is far more than 100x nature, but ppl ARE falling over due to the pollution. As to CO2 killing them, it continues to get thinned out so that it does not kill them directly. However, elevated CO2 causes faster heart beat and breathing, which will make ppl living in CHina (or close to any coal plants), breath in many more pollutants.
You know, I am convinced that it is extremists on both sides, like you on the right, and others on the left, that are killing America, if not the world. Neither of you accept science. How many on the left refuse to accept that nuke plants are safe? None. How many accept that the numbers prove that AE can not be done in time to stop CO2 (therefor we NEED nukes)? None.
There there are fools like you that refuse to accept the science about AGW. Hell, the fact that you think that nature spits out more CO2 than does mankind makes you even more foolish than the far left. It is PURE FACT that we are putting out more Co2 than does nature. I mean this is directly measured.
N2 does not effect anything. It is neutral
Where is O2 pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces? If it did, then yes, it WOULD be a pollutant.
The CO2 monitoring is useful for finding major sources of LOCAL pollution, but, it really can not deal well with large 'Whiffs' of it.
OTOH, OCO2 is already showing where the REAL CO2 comes from, and is making a mockery of the numbers that the far left comes up with. Keep in mind that CO2 numbers are predicated on various items:
1) the first is via monitoring. That works well if you have monitors all over the nation. This is used heavily for doing calcs in the western nations. However, when monitors are NOT all over the nations, then you have an issue.
2) calculations based on gov. supplied numbers. This is what is used in most of the world, in particular, for China. THis fails since nearly ALL govs. CHEAT on these numbers.
3) Space based monitoring. OCO2 is now showing that numbers are wrong.
So, while I would not fully trust the numbers from Google, they will give an idea of where bad emissions are from. OTOH, Sats will give a better idea of which area CO2 is coming from, as well as being sucked up.
Thankfully, OCO3 is now being worked on, and will give a much better idea of where CO2 emissions are coming from within locations.
BS.
Monitoring, and standardizing, has been done for the last 30 years on these instruments.
By having them on trucks and measuring the local areas, it gives a better idea of WHERE the various pollution occurs from.
I agree about CO2. Far better is the use of satellites to study CO2. And in fact, OCO2 is making a mockery, as well as shocking, of the numbers that are being displayed.
However, the vehicle is measuring many other items. As such, they will find out GENERALLY, what is going on.
Google should only be using electric cars for this mapping efforts. They have the money, and can buy large amounts of them from Nissan, or even Tesla. And if Google would invest into Tesla, I would bet that they could get Tesla to produce a small electric truck for them. In fact, it should be on a sub-compact frame and could be sold to utilities and google.
Slashdot Mirror
Gen 4 melted salt thorium reactor. In addition, these can use current nuke waste and leave us 5% of the volume that is safe in 200 years. Zero chance if a failure, unless all of the laws of physics suddenly collapse.
BTW, the other states blocking Tesla, are Iowa , Texas, and AZ. All of these states are red WRT state gov.
Mi, MD, and NJ are ran by GOP.
which blue states has banned Tesla? They are all red states.
it is not just scaling up that is costing. The Super Charger Network, combined with service centers, sales stores, fighting against red states, etc. all costs money.
If they are only losing 4000 / car, I am impressed. Chance are that when they open gigafactory AND have Model X up to at least 20K cars / year ( along with 50K / year on MS), they will be breakeven or close to it.
nah, we did that with GM, Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, MB, etc.
And yes, Ford was bailed out since we lent them 10's of billions to revamp with NO INTEREST.
Hey idiot; Tesla already has that done. 90 second exchange. But ppl do not want that. It is way too expensive. Like buying a tank of gas.
Good point. I had not thought about that.but it makes sense for taxis.
instead, slowly increase the fuel tax by .10/gal for the next 10 years. If consumers know that gas/diesel prices will go up a dollar over th next 10 years, they will start buying high MPG cars now, or even switching to EVs.
It was developed some 20 years earlier in the 60s.
Hell, the concept of linking documents together was done up before Berner-Lee.
What Tim did, was create an open language based on SGML's standard.
Look, O got loads of money from the nuke industry. Why? Because he is a fan of nukes.
The problem was that the dems were opposed to it, and the GOP is opposed to ANYTHING that O tries to do.
Right now, is the PERFECT time for the GOP to get off their fucking ass and put forward a bill to really fund nukes. O would back it.
BUT, you nut jobs will not do it.
And those prices have NOTHING to do with the costs of wind. It has EVERYTHING to do with making PROFITS from idiots.
Utilities through out the nation are adding wind to replace coal. In particular, they are doing it because the electricity is much cheaper than coal.
sorry, but wind is cheaper than coal, and with the next iteration of wind generators, they should be cheaper than nat gas.
EIA, and others all show this. You can not show ANYPLACE where Coal is actually cheaper than wind.
Basically, it is the extremists that are killing America, and even the west.
Many ppl note the fact that the far right HATES science and pick and choose what they want to. And they are correct.
However few ppl have noticed the fact that the far left HATES science and pick and choose what they want to.
Take the case of AGW. A rational person says that the science is overwhelming in favor of AGW. Therefore the smart thing is to drop our CO2 and relatively soon.
BUT, if you run the numbers, you will see that we NEED nukes. In particular, we need gen IV nukes since they can not meltdown. In addition, these can make use of the nuke waste/ aboveground thorium, rather than mining for U.
Yet, the far left fights it. And the far right, really has not done SQUAT for the nuke industry.
Then you have the fact that the far left screams about America's emissions. Yet, current calculated numbers from 2013 show that China accounts for more than 30% of CO2, while the entire west accounts for less than 28%. In addition, China's emission far outweigh even America's emissions. Both in current, as well as total since 150 years ago, or even 1000 years ago.
And that does not include what OCO2 is showing. OCO2's numbers are showing that CHina's emission is well over 40%, and probably closer to 45%. That is HUGE. Absolutely fucking HUGE.
BUT, what does the far left do? They scream that America needs to buy wind/solar from China and continue to drop our emissions. At the same time, they claim that China's growing their Wind/solar faster than America, while ignoring the fact that China's % of electricity from Coal grows EVERY YEAR, and is now in the high 80s.
climate boogey man? Afraid of it? Nope.
Just accept the fact that it is a real issue rather than be too afraid/stupid of dealing with issues.
LOL.
Again, another far right winger that refuses to accept science. Not only does science show that man-made CO2 is far more than 100x nature, but ppl ARE falling over due to the pollution. As to CO2 killing them, it continues to get thinned out so that it does not kill them directly. However, elevated CO2 causes faster heart beat and breathing, which will make ppl living in CHina (or close to any coal plants), breath in many more pollutants.
You know, I am convinced that it is extremists on both sides, like you on the right, and others on the left, that are killing America, if not the world. Neither of you accept science. How many on the left refuse to accept that nuke plants are safe? None. How many accept that the numbers prove that AE can not be done in time to stop CO2 (therefor we NEED nukes)? None.
There there are fools like you that refuse to accept the science about AGW. Hell, the fact that you think that nature spits out more CO2 than does mankind makes you even more foolish than the far left. It is PURE FACT that we are putting out more Co2 than does nature. I mean this is directly measured.
So, you have not been reading real research and just get your news from faux and kook brothers?
N2 does not effect anything. It is neutral
Where is O2 pouring into the atmosphere at a rate of more than 100x what nature produces? If it did, then yes, it WOULD be a pollutant.
Nice BSing for yourself.
The CO2 monitoring is useful for finding major sources of LOCAL pollution, but, it really can not deal well with large 'Whiffs' of it.
OTOH, OCO2 is already showing where the REAL CO2 comes from, and is making a mockery of the numbers that the far left comes up with. Keep in mind that CO2 numbers are predicated on various items:
1) the first is via monitoring. That works well if you have monitors all over the nation. This is used heavily for doing calcs in the western nations. However, when monitors are NOT all over the nations, then you have an issue.
2) calculations based on gov. supplied numbers. This is what is used in most of the world, in particular, for China. THis fails since nearly ALL govs. CHEAT on these numbers.
3) Space based monitoring. OCO2 is now showing that numbers are wrong.
So, while I would not fully trust the numbers from Google, they will give an idea of where bad emissions are from. OTOH, Sats will give a better idea of which area CO2 is coming from, as well as being sucked up.
Thankfully, OCO3 is now being worked on, and will give a much better idea of where CO2 emissions are coming from within locations.
BS.
Monitoring, and standardizing, has been done for the last 30 years on these instruments.
By having them on trucks and measuring the local areas, it gives a better idea of WHERE the various pollution occurs from.
It is no more political reason then it would be political to measure the amount of rain that is falling.
I agree about CO2. Far better is the use of satellites to study CO2. And in fact, OCO2 is making a mockery, as well as shocking, of the numbers that are being displayed.
However, the vehicle is measuring many other items. As such, they will find out GENERALLY, what is going on.
Google should only be using electric cars for this mapping efforts. They have the money, and can buy large amounts of them from Nissan, or even Tesla. And if Google would invest into Tesla, I would bet that they could get Tesla to produce a small electric truck for them. In fact, it should be on a sub-compact frame and could be sold to utilities and google.
No, trucks are not that sensitive. Bulk of loss is from aerodynamics , not rolling. That is why semis have cabins.
That is because series hybrids are done wrong. They can be far more efficient than a mechanical system by using multiple small engine/gens.