This is what they send out when they run out of charge. LOL
Stupid people.


https://insideevs.com/meet-real-powe...-charge-truck/

I am not against nuclear plants, but you seem to ignore the fact that there are risks with nuclear powerplants. I don't know much about them, but I do read history books and I recall seeing the devastation caused by the meltdowns at Fukushima Daiichi, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

With clean energy being a requirement in states like California, Hawaii and many others. Solar and wind farm are not going to go away. If anything, there are more incentives to get as many in as possible. Powerplants are not cheap to build, why build them when you can maximize your existing infrastructure?

I am not a scientist, but most scientist already said the effects of greenhouse gases. I trust them. Plus common sense tells me that all the gas going into the atmosphere is probably not good.

Guys, he’s drank the Kool-aid. No amount of logic or common sense is going to get him to see sense.

Yup I believe in science

Junk science. If you believe in the lies of Al Gore. EVERY prediction of weather change that he and others have said. NEVER came true. :rofl2: All they want to do is to take money from you, and increase their power over you. There's more polar bears today then back in 2007. New York City isn't under water. The polar ice caps are thicker then ever. There is no North West Passage. It's still snowing.

I believe in climate change based on real science. Not this narrative they are pushing. Slowly more scientist coming out against on what Al gore and others have said.

This winter alone. Record breaking cold and snow. Ski resorts shut down because of too much snow. :icon14: Tahoe got close to 50ft for the season. We are in a Grand Solar Minimum. The sun has shut down. Very little sunspot activity. Happens very 400 years, plus we are also in the low point of Solar Cycle 24. Which happens every 11 years. This is causing our jet streams to be in the wrong places. Causing major weather shifts in some places.

I believe in math. And common sense.

There are lots of other chargers around. Not all Superchargers (cost CDN$40K each), and most of them you have to pay for hydro at, unlike Tesla chargers. Tesla had to invest in the network because of the chicken-and-egg issue with EV’s, and range anxiety.

50 miles range? I get that on the track with my ICE. :-)

Yeah, no. You’re spouting Muskovite BS. The incentives for the Gigawatt battery factory will never be repaid and don’t have to be.

For now, for the <5% who operate EV’s there is little impact on the grid. Or on climate.

False. If you drive an EV in West Virginia, or Eastern Europe, or China, you drive a coal powered car. My V8 pickuo pollutes less.

I don’t understand your comment about taxes you paid. Because it make no sense. If yu buy a $100,000 car, you pay taxes on it. Congratulations. But if you buy a $100,000 Tesla in my province, until recently when a new government finally saw sense, you paid $93K for it and I paid the $7,000 difference (you are welcome, sort of). And you paid tax on $93,000 whereas I bought a pickup that I need for the farm and paid tax on the whole amount.

Over 33% of the dollars I pump into my fuel tank every week is tax, which pays for roads (and incentives to EV owners). Electricity, on the other hand, is taxed here at 7%. And electric power rates are heavily subsidized (by general government coffers = tax revenue) in order to avoid mass rebellion. So again, I am subsidizing electric vehicles.

Nuclear makes up more than 60% if our energy supply, water 25%, natural gas 10%, and “renewables” (solar, wind and biomass) about 5%. But wholesale prices of power are $0.045/KWh. Renewables are being paid between $0.75 and $0.90 to generate KWh. You want us to increase that generation capacity???

Sorry. Math and logic. Go pour another glass of that purple drink!

Price per KW generated.
Nuke is at the bottom of the scale. It's the cheapest.

Hydro power. But it has it's drawn backs too. During the day, they product power. Some of the small hydro plants will pump water back up during the night to refill the lake. Bet you didn't know that. You can't count on hydro during a drought either.

Natural gas fired combine cycle power plants are next. I retired from one. A 700MW plant costs about 700 million and 2 years to build.

Coal fire next. At one time. Coal was cheaper then natural gas until Obombo declared war on coal. First Energy shut down 2 plants near me. Duke Energy sold their Ohio based plants to Dynegy. (I was in that sell) So that they didn't have to take responsible to shut down the 11 coal plants. It's in Dynegy's pocket now to retire them. A couple of them already been retired.





Renewables (solar and wind) are the most expensive to produce power. MW for MW they can't complete. Take away the tax rebates. And they would close their doors. Wind mills are labor intensive to maintain. Solar doesn't produce when it's raining, snowing and cloudy. Wind only produces power within a narrow band of wind speeds. Too little or too much, forget it. No power.

The big thing about building new power plants is the NIMBY groups. They don't want anything in their back yard. Then they bitch about the high prices that they have to pay, :shakes head:

In terms of powerplant cost, you are absolutely right. Clean energy is the most expensive, that's not a debate. Why are states switching to it anyway? Because some people actually care about the future and there are consequences of not doing something to curb our emission. You might not believe in it, but majority of professional scientists do. Surely some of them must know something.

From a consumer perspective, most solar can pay itself off before the end of its life. It's just a matter if you are willing to take a major hit up front to pay for something that can take 5-20 years to pay off. Obviously where you live will vary your ROI, but people should be encouraged to get it if they can afford it and the ROI makes sense. You might say it doesn't help anyone but the homeowners, but they can actually lower the demand on the grid during peak hours and help soften the load during peak hours. You must know something about the spike.

Track sessions are 20-30 minutes long. Even at 30 minutes at an average of 60mph, you really only need enough fuel for 30 miles. In the Z, you won't even get there because fuel starvation will kick in long before the end of the 30 minutes. I am sure you are good enough to figure that out since your math is so good.

Now you are moving from the Department of Energy loan program to the tax incentives where Nevada gave Tesla. You do know the difference between a tax incentive to build a plant vs. a loan right? Didn't Scott Walker give Foxconn $3m in incentives to build in Wisconsin too? I guess you are right, the plan is failing horribly, the gigafactory factory is just a mirage. The people in Sparks Nevada are giving away their home due to the failure. https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2018/...is/1619609002/

Maybe it is time for a Bombardier type bailout, can we get JT to help out?

The tax incentives were implemented to help speed up the adoption of zero emission vehicle (you can say less emission or whatever you want to call it).
You might not like it, but you pay for it sooner or later through the damages caused by the change in storm intensity. I worked as an actuary, storm intensity due to climate change was part of the rate adjustment we factored in.

You can say you are being taxed unfairly, but I can argue the same because I have to pay for gas/oil subsidy unwillingly either. How do we settle the score on that?

Unlike you, I have both EV and gas cars. I am not badmouthing gas cars because I hate them, I just think we are at a point where people seriously have to consider changing their habits if it is possible. If you are in a fortunate situation where you can make a choice to help, maybe sacrifice a little for others. I am not religious, but I believe in karma. Maybe karma is coming back to allow me to get a Ferrari this or next year and gave me a chance to put a deposit on a roadster.

Polar ice caps are growing exponentially, polar bears are thriving better than ever, science is rebutted with cartoon mockery... :icon14: Is it election time already?! :icon17:

Linking increases in storm intensity directly to vehicle emissions is reckless and misguided. This type of negligent thinking is a big part of the problem.

Sue the EPA ad NOAA then. It took two seconds to search for them

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/fuelforthestorm/

:icon14:

Your suggestion to sue is stupid, as well as representative of the ridiculously litigious attitude in our society these days :shakes head:

I trust the EPA just as much as I trust the FDA and Big Pharma. Don't think for one second they don't have agendas they are pushing.

And those studies you linked are missing tangible evidence that greenhouse gases are responsible for increasing storm intensity. There are a lot of variables at play with regard to climate change. Humans always like to think they are big and important. But the fact is the sun influences weather on earth FAR more than humans currently do.

Now obviously emissions are on the rise pretty significantly based on technological progress and human population growth on earth. And that is certainly a good reason to start looking into alternative energy sources. But we also need to look at our current sources and see what changes we can make to help mitigate the impact. Short-sighted energy alternatives presented in a fear-mongering atmosphere are a waste of time and resources.

I think I am quite clear about the difference between a loan and a grant. I never mentioned loans. "Government handouts and incentives" was the term I used, and the Nevada deal was a doozie. Your knee-jerk response is just wanting to defend the indefensible. And you can have JT and his tom-foolery if you want him, 'cuz we don't. ;-)

The tax incentives were there as a government gift to manufacturers of EV's, who didn't therefore have to produce a competitive product. It was far easier to lobby politicians and charm them into thinking it would look "green" on their CV, than to do the work to get the cost of the car and the technology down. Or to convince consumers to pay the extra cost and "take one for the team" as it were.

I'm not against electrics. But I think that Fuel Cell will be the way of the future and for governments to force the market's hand like this is not appropriate.

Believe it or not, the planet has little to fear from farting cattle or the internal combustion engine. It's the human infestation that causes all of the manageable changes - be it to the environment, climate, or biosphere. There are lots of other variables, but those mankind cannot do anything about. It's doubtful that the earth can sustain the current 7.5billion population, let along the projected 8.5+ in only 11 years from now. But short of a good war or global epidemic (neither of which are likely, or likely to leave an inhabitable planet), I don't have an answer.

I probably have a few dozen more trips around the sun than most of you, and figure I've earned the right to live my remaining years without being overly concerned about things I cannot fix. I've done my bit - I did not procreate. When my wife and I go, we're the end of our line, and we won't have added another human or two to burden already stretched resources.

How did this get from a thread about a Nissan EV concept to a philosophical argument about the state of the globe and pseudo-science, anyway???

Anyway, for those "dreaming about Tesla", I'd suggest the very real Porsche Taycan which will probably take the wind out of the new Tesla sales - sports car and SUV variants at reasonable (for Porsche) prices, with the performance, cachet, and quality that the brand implies.