15
   

CAP AND TRADE-FOR IT/AGIN IT?

 
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 02:18 pm
@old europe,
Youve gotta read further about the Tesla. The base price of 50K is after a rebate , so you spend almost 60K up front and waith for your check in the mail. ALSO, the base priced one only has a range of 160 miles and requires a 44o chrage package. Id need to step up my house current a bit. They say that a 220 mile and a 300 mile unit WILL SOON be available. Devils in the details. I presume that these articles are written with the assistance of the late Billy MAy. (The article is sort of a "pitch")
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 02:25 pm
@farmerman,




I'm sure the article was written with the assistance of PrezBO because the details were buried.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 04:55 pm
@farmerman,
Weeeell, you said in your post that you didn't think that the price of the cars was the issue.... I agree about the article, though. I'd also say that the Tesla models are certainly marketed to a rather specific target group.

Regarding the details, though: the Tesla S doesn't actually require 440 V charging - it just has the capability. You'd be able to charge it from 110, 220 or 440 V outlets. They've also announced a 45-minute QuickCharge feature for the Model S, and they're apparently planning a cooperation with a network of gas stations or something similar - this is where the 5-minute battery swap feature comes in - that would allow owners to drive their Teslas without having to charge them by plugging them in every 300 miles.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:12 pm
OK I ask again. Wouldent the price come down if the electric cars were mass produced. $65,000 or even $50,000 is way above what I can afford in a car.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:41 pm
@rabel22,


It doesn't matter what the price is... it's still going to cause more pollution
than it's less expensive, efficient internal combustion driven competitor.

Look at the source of electricity to power the unproven Tesla and you will
begin to understand my point.

Tax and Trade is a huge rip-off!!
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:48 pm
@H2O MAN,
The Tesla is not unproven, it's currently being sold. People are buying and driving them. Just because you can't afford one doesn't mean it doesn't work.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 05:50 pm
@old europe,


Obama's economic plan has been sold and it's un-proven...
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 06:11 pm
@old europe,
Fine, thats all well and good, but the 300 mile Tesla is not available till 2011. Is the battery technology yet available? or where would you get a 300 mile swap out? Looks like INFRASTRUCTURE's another problem that needs to be addressed.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 06:17 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

...the 300 mile Tesla is not available till 2011. Is the battery technology yet available? or where would you get a 300 mile swap out?
Looks like Infrastructure's another problem that needs to be addressed.



Agreed.

The whole idea looks great on paper, but it faces many problems in the real world.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 06:34 pm
@farmerman,
I'm sure the battery technology is available, as the roadsters with the 244 miles range are already being shipped. Even the Mini E prototypes that BMW is currently field-testing have a range of approximately 100 miles per charge - a lot more than the 30 or 40 miles range that earlier electric cars had. And I would assume that once they go into mass production, they might also be more affordable than the Tesla models.

I'm not saying that tomorrow, every car will be an electric car. All I'm saying is that we're currently at a point where buying an electric car might soon become affordable and desirable for a certain, broader group of people, and the electric cars that will become available within a rather short time will actually be attractive cars that people want to drive - which is quite an improvement over the conception cars and prototypes of the last couple of years.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 06:41 pm
@old europe,


Even if the vehicles become affordable to the masses, disposal of those batteries is going to be a huge problem.

Maintenance and repair will be overly expensive and there are a host of major problems when one of these vehicles is mangled in a crash.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:38 pm
@H2O MAN,
How many years will it take to set up swap out or recharge stations? I have this hybrid and I have to wait several days to secure a spot for a service because hybrid mechanics are specially certified by Ford.

The pump and fluid system for the battery and electrical system coolers are like something from a nuke plant. If it gets a small hiccup, the system S.C.R.A.M.s and you have about 4 to 5 miles of operations on the battery (the engine shuts down and the fuel system goes into hiding so that theres no het of ignition from an electrical discharge).
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 07:55 pm
@farmerman,


Imagine that you owned a Tesla and there is just one service facility... you have to ship the vehicle back to the factory for all service.
The cost and the fuel consumed shipping the thing is an entirely different matter.

Like I said, it looks great on paper, but there are serious real world obstacles in the way.

Be glad that you have a FORD, because Obama has GM is shutting down servicing dealers left and right.
Specialized service will be a nightmare for GM owners very soon.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Jun, 2009 09:27 pm
@H2O MAN,
You do realize that sales and service of auto dealerships are separate profit centers?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 05:04 am
@farmerman,
Sales is not even necessarily much of a profit center, either--it's service where they rake it in.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Jul, 2009 05:12 am
@farmerman,


Yes, and Setanta splained it very well.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 10:52 am
It's really pretty frightening how the politicization of this issue has overwhelmed the science, and, it's quite depressing to realize, the scientists who have wished to remain true to the fundamentals of scientific learning.

I guess we can take some comfort in the fact that the politically correct steamroller hasn't totally flattened dissent in the scientific community and the debate has been reinvigorated.

The questions that remain are how much money, time and resources (not to mention a Nobel Peace Prize) has already been wasted and is it too late to stop the steamroller from further flattening our economy with Cap and Trade?

The Climate Change Climate Change
The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day.

The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so easily swayed.

Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't.

This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament breaks for the winter.

Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 11:18 am
National Review Online has posted an article detailing 50 reasons to oppose the Cap & Trade bill. It's called "A Garden of Piggish Delights"

I haven't read through the entire list, but if even 50% is accurate, this bill is a disaster waiting to be passed into law. I wanted to provide a link though in case anyone is interested in reviewing it themselves.

I underderstand that the National Review cannot be considered a unbiased news source, and I doubt they would claim they are, but it might suprise many who believe NR and all conservatives are blindly pro-business that the first 14 reasons on the list are categorizeds as "Special Interest Sops" and have to do with the windfalls large corporations will receive thanks to the bill

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc1MmVhMGYxY2UzNzAwMTJlODBjZjg2NDJjNmM2MWE=&w=MA==#1
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2009 06:03 am
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-fbo.gif
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2009 09:44 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
This is on top of the shaky science that underpins Waxman Markey. Its an interesting article. Thanks for posting it
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/13/2021 at 05:31:21