|
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article , says...
On 7/15/2012 10:53 AM, BAR wrote: In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Don't tell him to diversify, he thinks he knows what he is doing. More likely he isn't mostly invested in tech, even if he does actually control his own investments. Um, if you think so. More crazy **** in your head without any justification, though. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "X ` Man" wrote in message m... On 7/14/12 6:07 PM, BAR wrote: 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Gee, does that mean 55 percent doesn't? Well, then, why do anything? What are you righties so scared of? ---------------------------------------------- BAR was in error and corrected himself. Using round numbers, 70 percent is from fossil fuels. 19 percent from nuclear reactors. 10 percent from solar, geothermal, wind, etc. And that is the problem, the right wing is scared to death to wean off of fossil fuels. ------------------------------------------- I don't think responsible Republicans are *scared* to get off our dependence on fossil fuels. It's a issue of practicality and reality. Eventually we won't be using fossil fuels but it isn't going to happen tomorrow. Solar, wind, geothermal have all been in development for decades. Despite the promise and despite the advances and improvements, they can't come close to meeting the energy needs even as it currently exists. Now, start adding millions of battery powered vehicles that need electrical power to run and the capacity of non-fossil energy sources to charge them becomes miniscule. Just like the laws of conservation of energy, we (as a technology driven society) have a habit of solving one problem by creating another. Not too long ago asbestos was the greatest thing since sliced bread for brake linings, school floor tiles and fire retardant insulation. Oooops! Of course it won't happen overnight, but I just can't understand why the right just doesn't want to explore new technology if it doesn't involve fossil fuel. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php ----------------------------------------------------------------- The fiscal conservatives are saying why is the government throwing money at a car only the rich can afford? If you want to crank up the electric car market, look at subsidies for ZAP and other cheap around town cars. Not one where the average purchaser has a $250,000 Adjusted Gross Income. Again, as with all new technology, at first, it's expensive. ------------------------------------ New Technology? there were about 20 electric car companies in 1920. Got 30-50 miles on a charge then. How about supporting a $2000 electric car? Yes, new technology. Compare the Tesla to those built in 1920 and get back with me. -------------------------------------------------- comparison. Still costs 3x a gasoline car. Gets a few more miles per charge. Still uses fossil fuel to get charged. Better looking, more comfortable. 1920, did not get taxpayer subsidy. Nastier stuff for the battery. Lots more fossil fuel to build the fluff that makes the car look so cool. Still good for around town. Want to go on a 300 mile trip? Plug in a fossil fuel powered internal combustion engine. Again, and again, you fail to understand that new technology is expensive at first, but then gets cheaper and cheaper. That's just the way it is. As crude as the model T was, it would cost $14,000 in today's dollars. That isn't cheap for something that crude. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:20 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php ----------------------------------------------------------------- The fiscal conservatives are saying why is the government throwing money at a car only the rich can afford? If you want to crank up the electric car market, look at subsidies for ZAP and other cheap around town cars. Not one where the average purchaser has a $250,000 Adjusted Gross Income. Again, as with all new technology, at first, it's expensive. ------------------------------------ New Technology? there were about 20 electric car companies in 1920. Got 30-50 miles on a charge then. How about supporting a $2000 electric car? Yes, new technology. Compare the Tesla to those built in 1920 and get back with me. I couldn't find any reports about any of the 1920's cars bricking. Telsa must be on the cutting edge of car bricking. How much you gots invested? Oh, so the 1920's cars didn't have any problems? ------------------------------------------ Probably less problems. Was a lot simpler car. And most trips were short enough for a battery powered vehicle. Problem was the Model T was 1/3 the price. So... if the model T was a third of the price, and in today's dollars the model T would be $14,000, that would mean that a very crudely built electric car would be $42,000. Being how the Tesla is an engineering marvel that gets a good distance at a staggering pace, it's not so bad priced, eh? |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... In article om, says... On 7/14/2012 12:55 PM, iBoaterer wrote: In article m, says... On 7/14/2012 11:13 AM, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php How much is it? I want one. But it doesn't use fossil fuel, how could you possibly drive one? Also, it's new technology, and in conservative's minds, that's a bad thing. Way ahead of you Bozo. I have 2 electric vehicles already. Where does the electricity come from? 45% of the electricity generated in the US comes from fossil fuels. Yes, but the point you hard core righties fail to understand is that the equivalent fuel mileage is around 100 miles per gallon. If we get off of our asses and build more non fossil fuel electric infrastructure that number will go down. But stupid people are just too afraid of getting off of fossil fuel. ------------------------------------------------- Probably a lot less than 100 mpg. There is loss in the lines getting the power to your house. About 8% now. Loss in the charging equipment (heat) and loss in the battery itself in charging. Probably maybe 70% tops efficiency in charging the car. And then loss in the car discharging the battery. How many KWH at the power plant required for the car to go 50 miles? No, it's 100 mpg. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article m, says... On 7/15/2012 9:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article om, says... On 7/15/2012 8:29 AM, iBoaterer wrote: In article , says... In article , says... On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 11:13:03 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...Smooth-silent- fast-3706414.php "Model S prices range all the way from $57,400 to $105,400 before state and federal incentives. The silver sedan I tried would cost about $70,000." Yeah this is a car for the masses. Make sure you read up on the "bricking" problem that Tesla's have. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/04/au...tery-Failures- Make-Bricking-a-Buzzword.html?pagewanted=all And no gasoline cars have problems right? You do realize don't you, that this is new technology, R&D is ongoing. What sort of new technology have you invested in? Actually quite a bit. Most of my stocks are in technology. YOU NEED TO DIVERSIFY Um, I never said that all of my investable money is in stocks..... What I said, and you failed to comprehend is that most of my STOCKS are in technology. Look at NENE for one. -------------------------------------- IMO You are a fool to have most of your stocks in tech. Why? Most "fools" are too stupid to understand that oil is a very finite resource and we MUST find energy somewhere else. OH, and I suppose someone that has tech stocks like Apple, HP, NENE, etc. are fools???? |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
"Califbill" wrote in message m... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Oh, so the 1920's cars didn't have any problems? ------------------------------------------ Probably less problems. Was a lot simpler car. And most trips were short enough for a battery powered vehicle. Problem was the Model T was 1/3 the price. ------------------------------------------------ Anyone remember "Mad" magazine with Alfred E. Neuman? I remember reading an issue as a kid ... probably back in the late 50's. The back page had a topic or subject that asked a question. To see the answer, you would fold the page in thirds on vertical dotted lines. I remember this particular issue asked what would be the "perfect" car design, combining low cost, reliability and fuel economy, When you folded the page to display the hidden image, there was a picture of a Model T. |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On Jul 15, 7:02*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
Anyone remember "Mad" magazine with Alfred E. Neuman? " What, me worry?" |
Nope, the right wing says this won't work.
On 7/15/12 8:02 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"Califbill" wrote in message m... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... Oh, so the 1920's cars didn't have any problems? ------------------------------------------ Probably less problems. Was a lot simpler car. And most trips were short enough for a battery powered vehicle. Problem was the Model T was 1/3 the price. ------------------------------------------------ Anyone remember "Mad" magazine with Alfred E. Neuman? I remember reading an issue as a kid ... probably back in the late 50's. The back page had a topic or subject that asked a question. To see the answer, you would fold the page in thirds on vertical dotted lines. I remember this particular issue asked what would be the "perfect" car design, combining low cost, reliability and fuel economy, When you folded the page to display the hidden image, there was a picture of a Model T. I liked the Model A's a lot more. We had a Model A V-8 rigged as a small "derrick" to lift outboard boats off their delivery trucks and onto dollies in the showroom. Learned to drive at a highly illegal age in the boatyard on that truck and the jeep. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:45 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com