We don't need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We just need to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
This process has one possible use: as an energy store to be used with intermittent energy sources, such as wind and solar.
When the intermittent sources are producing more energy than is required for immediate demand, convert some CO2 into a fuel that can later be used when the wind and solar energy sources are producing less than required.
It has level 3 charge which mean 80% and 200 miles in 34 minutes.
If you can use one of the handful of 150kW (or above) chargers currently installed across the USA. Otherwise, it's going to take a lot longer.
I drove a friends Model 3 and it is very disconcerting to have to look to your right as there are no dials where we have grown up expecting them to be.
You get used to the display position very quickly. Besides, some of us got used to driving the original Minis.
Also the mPGe is higher which means Hyundais electric drivetrain is more efficient than Teslas and can get more range out of the same battery pack
Only in town. Model 3 has higher efficiency at freeway speeds and higher overall MPGe.
It has 260 miles and access to CCS and ChargeAmerica so it is pretty much a better long range car than a Tesla MR for 10000 dollars less.
There are very few CCS chargers that deliver more than 50kW, so charging is typically going to be slower than any Tesla. Also, those chargers are not as convenient for road tripping -- they are much more likely to be in a city than along a highway. When I looked last year, there were large cities in the USA that you could not get to in a Chevy Bolt, without charging for hours at a level 2 charger. It's getting better, but has a long way to go before it matches the Supercharger network
And if you are doing a long 400 mile drive would you rather do it in a cramped sedan or a SUV with more legspace.
There is plenty of legroom in a Model 3. It's one of the very few cars that I have driven in which I don't put the seat all the way back.
CO2 emissions are fixable without "demolishing civilization".
It's only the people who want to do nothing about climate change that are pushing the narrative that it's a problem that cannot be solved "without demolishing civilization".
Bullshit. It's a strawman. The countries that are reducing their carbon output have done none of the things that the parent suggests are required to reduce CO2 emissions.
It is a financial boondoggle and the major carbon emitters (China and India) simply don't give a hoot what you want.
Again, bullshit!
China has been investing heavily in renewable energy sources and, guess what, the USA emits more CO2 than India, and of course, on a per-capita basis, the USA's CO2 output is far greater than any other country.
On this path, the USA is going to have the world's most expensive energy and is going to be a huge competitive disadvantage.
You have to look at this along with the death of net neutrality.
The endgame here is for the cable companies to control (and hence have pricing leverage over) both content and content distribution. They will make it more expensive for other content providers to reach AT&T's customers, while protecting Time Warner. AT&T doesn't have to get directly involved in negotiations between Time Warner and cable companies to achieve this.
Simple question to ask in cases like this: why do a merger if you are going to keep the two merged companies separate?
The government didn't actually try very hard in court. Government lawyers failed to make what should have been obvious arguments to support denying permission for the merger.
It's almost like they want the merger to go ahead, but have people think that they don't.
Unfortunately, courts in the USA have already ruled that its permissible for contracts to state one thing in the summary and contradict it in the details, with the detailed version controlling.
What I don't understand is why bank lend money to such companies. Either the banks are incompetent or colluding, or perhaps that, notwithstanding the news of such events, this type of bankruptcy happens rarely.
The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
I think that Tesla will replace the screens at a not too outrageous cost. I see a posting that shows a cost of ~ $1k (although the screen cannot be replaced by itself on older cars).
As for batteries: there is a Model S that has done 400,000 miles. It's had two battery replacements, both paid for by Tesla. The first battery lasted 194,000 miles and failed because of abuse (consistently charging to 95 - 100%).
It doesn't matter that the statistics show their batteries "hold up well". The reason you'll see serious depreciation is the realization that IF the battery fails on you, you're going to be out about $18,000 to buy a replacement, out of warranty
I see an opportunity for an aftermarket warranty. That's what insurance is best at: providing cover for expensive but rare events.
Most ICE vehicles are scrapped after 200,000 miles, so battery replacement at this time isn't really an issue when comparing to ICE vehicles. What's better: spend money on a new battery, or scrap the vehicle?
But looking forward at things? I think you're going to see serious depreciation happen as soon as those 8 year warranties are up, and that, in turn will force prices down on the Model 3.
Actuall statistics show that battery packs on Teslas hold up very well (when not abused). Long term prognosis is much better than an ICE vehicle. Do you think traditional gasoline engines are successfully tested by their manufacturer over an equivalent 1 million miles, like the Model 3 motor? https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
I replaced the spark plugs on my 2004 Hyundai Sonata, which involved taking the intake manifold off,
You think that's bad? On my 2004 Subaru Outback with the H6 engine, spark plug replacement requires disconnecting the engine from its mounts and jacking the engine up.
I saw a video of replacement of a headlamp bulb on a Ford: it required removal of the front bumper -- and this is a part that will likely need replacement several times during the life of the car.
The boot (trunk in US English) lets water in when you open it after its been raining too. It's pretty bad, all the water on the rear window rolls down into the opening.
Many other cars suffer from this problem.
Also the only way to control the wipers is via the touchscreen.
False. There is a button at the end of the left stalk.
I will agree that the auto-wiper function needs work. IMHO, good and bad performance seems to be related to crosswind.
The screen crashes some times.
Never happened on my Model 3. I think there are some Model 3s with hardware issues that cause the crashes. Most people don't see any crashes, but a very small number of people see lots of crashes (my impression from the forums).
As TFA notes there are still a lot of fit and finish and especially paint issues too.
Again, not on my Model 3. I think the fit and finish issues were mostly on early Model 3s and now people are more critical. Take a look at the creases on other cars as you drive: you will see many cars where the creases don't line up properly.
It's another bullshit, tortured definition, that the Supreme Court used to justify a decision that conformed, not to the law, but their own ideologies.
I don't think that everything that followed from that decision is bad. Just that it is a bullshit decision, made on the basis of ideology, not the law as written.
Those decisions rely on finding the word "affects" in the Interstate Commerce clause. Personally, I can't find it, but apparently the members of the Supreme Court can.
"Originalists" should be up in arms about those decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. We just need to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
This process has one possible use: as an energy store to be used with intermittent energy sources, such as wind and solar.
When the intermittent sources are producing more energy than is required for immediate demand, convert some CO2 into a fuel that can later be used when the wind and solar energy sources are producing less than required.
You didn't even read the summary, did you:
Not a showroom. A workshop.
Someone already asked that question and it has been answered.
https://security.googleblog.co...
Basically, browsers recognize the domain on a list and the browser enforces https.
As well as scaling issues, what moving to EC2, Google Cloud or other solutions gets you is a possible reduction in system admin costs.
Of course, there is a minimum: if you only have one system admin, you probably can't reduce your system admin costs.
No, they are not. The M3 is better..
At real highway speeds (70-75 mph), I suspect that won't be true. The Model 3 is outstanding at high speed efficiency, much better than any other EV.
Are you posting here because you will actually buy a Kona, or because you have an irrational hate for Tesla?
If you can use one of the handful of 150kW (or above) chargers currently installed across the USA. Otherwise, it's going to take a lot longer.
You get used to the display position very quickly. Besides, some of us got used to driving the original Minis.
Only in town. Model 3 has higher efficiency at freeway speeds and higher overall MPGe.
There are very few CCS chargers that deliver more than 50kW, so charging is typically going to be slower than any Tesla. Also, those chargers are not as convenient for road tripping -- they are much more likely to be in a city than along a highway. When I looked last year, there were large cities in the USA that you could not get to in a Chevy Bolt, without charging for hours at a level 2 charger. It's getting better, but has a long way to go before it matches the Supercharger network
There is plenty of legroom in a Model 3. It's one of the very few cars that I have driven in which I don't put the seat all the way back.
CO2 emissions are fixable without "demolishing civilization".
It's only the people who want to do nothing about climate change that are pushing the narrative that it's a problem that cannot be solved "without demolishing civilization".
"Insightful"?
Bullshit. It's a strawman. The countries that are reducing their carbon output have done none of the things that the parent suggests are required to reduce CO2 emissions.
Again, bullshit!
China has been investing heavily in renewable energy sources and, guess what, the USA emits more CO2 than India, and of course, on a per-capita basis, the USA's CO2 output is far greater than any other country.
On this path, the USA is going to have the world's most expensive energy and is going to be a huge competitive disadvantage.
You have to look at this along with the death of net neutrality.
The endgame here is for the cable companies to control (and hence have pricing leverage over) both content and content distribution. They will make it more expensive for other content providers to reach AT&T's customers, while protecting Time Warner. AT&T doesn't have to get directly involved in negotiations between Time Warner and cable companies to achieve this.
Simple question to ask in cases like this: why do a merger if you are going to keep the two merged companies separate?
The government didn't actually try very hard in court. Government lawyers failed to make what should have been obvious arguments to support denying permission for the merger.
It's almost like they want the merger to go ahead, but have people think that they don't.
Unfortunately, courts in the USA have already ruled that its permissible for contracts to state one thing in the summary and contradict it in the details, with the detailed version controlling.
What I don't understand is why bank lend money to such companies. Either the banks are incompetent or colluding, or perhaps that, notwithstanding the news of such events, this type of bankruptcy happens rarely.
The login doesn't ask for the complete password. Instead, it asks for 4 selected characters from the password plus 3 selected characters from my PIN.
I don't see how they can validate a few characters from a password unless they have it stored in plain text.
Actually, this applies to two banks. Both UK based.
The idea that people can read and understand terms and conditions is ridiculous. The idea that people knowingly agree to Ts and Cs is a lie. The Ts&Cs are too long for even a lawyer to read:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Read and get all the details buried in a document longer than Hamlet, including all the little nuances? Not realistic.
Are you sure it was a pager? There are other devices that vibrate and can be controlled remotely, other than cellphones and pagers.
When was this?
In other words, you are a troll, or perhaps a paid shill, with no actual knowledge on the subject.
And if Youtube shuts down the comments, authors will post a link to some other site for discussion. Exactly what Google doesn't want!
I think that Tesla will replace the screens at a not too outrageous cost. I see a posting that shows a cost of ~ $1k (although the screen cannot be replaced by itself on older cars).
As for batteries: there is a Model S that has done 400,000 miles. It's had two battery replacements, both paid for by Tesla. The first battery lasted 194,000 miles and failed because of abuse (consistently charging to 95 - 100%).
I see an opportunity for an aftermarket warranty. That's what insurance is best at: providing cover for expensive but rare events.
Most ICE vehicles are scrapped after 200,000 miles, so battery replacement at this time isn't really an issue when comparing to ICE vehicles. What's better: spend money on a new battery, or scrap the vehicle?
And you know this how? From your extensive collection of precisely zero Model 3s?
Actuall statistics show that battery packs on Teslas hold up very well (when not abused). Long term prognosis is much better than an ICE vehicle. Do you think traditional gasoline engines are successfully tested by their manufacturer over an equivalent 1 million miles, like the Model 3 motor?
https://cleantechnica.com/2018...
You think that's bad? On my 2004 Subaru Outback with the H6 engine, spark plug replacement requires disconnecting the engine from its mounts and jacking the engine up.
I saw a video of replacement of a headlamp bulb on a Ford: it required removal of the front bumper -- and this is a part that will likely need replacement several times during the life of the car.
Many other cars suffer from this problem.
False. There is a button at the end of the left stalk.
I will agree that the auto-wiper function needs work. IMHO, good and bad performance seems to be related to crosswind.
Never happened on my Model 3. I think there are some Model 3s with hardware issues that cause the crashes. Most people don't see any crashes, but a very small number of people see lots of crashes (my impression from the forums).
Again, not on my Model 3. I think the fit and finish issues were mostly on early Model 3s and now people are more critical. Take a look at the creases on other cars as you drive: you will see many cars where the creases don't line up properly.
But that's not what "regulate" means.
It's another bullshit, tortured definition, that the Supreme Court used to justify a decision that conformed, not to the law, but their own ideologies.
I don't think that everything that followed from that decision is bad. Just that it is a bullshit decision, made on the basis of ideology, not the law as written.
Scientists are a special type of person who are not entitled to protection under the first amendment?
In your world, who is allowed to promote political solutions? My guess is you and only people you agree with.
Those decisions rely on finding the word "affects" in the Interstate Commerce clause. Personally, I can't find it, but apparently the members of the Supreme Court can.
"Originalists" should be up in arms about those decisions.