Green new deal equals magical thinking

[billvon 2,990]

44 minutes ago, kallend said:

 Electing Trump already did that. 

And when we came up with the stupid, idiotic, impossible plan to send men to the moon, conservatives spoke up as well.  Did you see the plans for the Nova rocket?  Fantasy!  Magical thinking!  We could NEVER build something like that.  Conservatives agreed even before that.  1936: "A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere."

And the Manhattan project.  Nothing but lunacy thinking you can get energy out of plain old cold metal.  What, are you going to just magically convert metal to energy with unicorn farts?  Even if you could, what use is that?

And computers.  Way back when, there were plenty of conservatives who knew the truth.  1943:  "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."  1957: "Data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year."  1977: "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."  

And thank God we rejected the so-called television.  After all, China wasn't making them back then, so by definition they are useless and impossible.  Conservatives knew that the idea was loony.  1926: “While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility.”   1946: “Television won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.”

We are fortunate that conservatives stopped America from embarking on any of those impossible, time-wasting fantasies.  If we did any of those things, we'd only be the world leader in stupidity.

[turtlespeed 220]

49 minutes ago, kallend said:

 Electing Trump already did that. 

Dictionary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non se·qui·tur

/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun

 

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

[gowlerk 2,190]

15 hours ago, lippy said:

If capitalism is so great why isn't China doing it? 

They are.

[kallend 2,026]

14 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Dictionary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non se·qui·tur

/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun

 

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

Shame your blinkers are so tight you're unable to follow. 

[tonyhays 86]

16 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Dictionary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

non se·qui·tur

/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun

 

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

Given that the U.S. is continuously losing ground in how it's perceived by the world it is absolutely a logic conclusion.

 

https://www.gallup.com/analytics/247040/rating-world-leaders-2019.aspx

 

And an opinion piece on that poll...

 

https://www.mintpressnews.com/gallup-poll-us-global-image-plunges-americans-believe-opposite/255846/

[Coreece 190]

On 4/19/2019 at 4:12 AM, billvon said:

We are fortunate that conservatives stopped America from embarking on any of those impossible, time-wasting fantasies.

Didn't that rocket quote come from The New York Times?

 

On 4/19/2019 at 4:12 AM, billvon said:

If we did any of those things, we'd only be the world leader in stupidity.

Just as we would've without those same people, and their inventions.

[jakee 1,489]

On 4/15/2019 at 10:36 PM, turtlespeed said:

Temperature is part of the weather.

They are one in the same in a lot of cases.

That's not how set theory works.

[millertime24 8]

On 4/19/2019 at 12:52 AM, billvon said:

 

As to the road race, a model S would have to stop 8-9 times.  Who would win?  Hard to say, since the model S can go a lot faster, but both vehicles will have to stop more often if they are driving at their top speed.

Really? Which one takes more time to refuel?

[wmw999 2,444]

3 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Really? Which one takes more time to refuel?

I’d assume they’d have an easy battery change-out. That’s pretty fast  

Wendy P. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

29 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

 an easy battery change-out

Hi Wendy,

Or you just go by bus & leave the driving to us:  ‘We’re going electric.’

https://trimet.org/electricbuses/index.htm

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,990]

6 hours ago, millertime24 said:

Really? Which one takes more time to refuel?

The EV.  It also goes a lot faster.  Which one would win?  Hard to say.  Would the extra ~17 minutes you'd need to charge every 3-5 hours or so overcome the speed advantage?  It would depend on:

-how fast the gas car could refuel.  If both cars had to pull off the freeway and take 3 minutes getting to the gas station and 3 minutes getting back on, now you are looking at 9 minutes vs 26 minutes to refuel - and the difference becomes less.

-Altitude.  Gas cars slow down at altitude; EV's go faster.

At sea level, with good access to gas stations, the gas car would probably win.  Through Colorado, the EV would likely see the advantage.

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I’d assume they’d have an easy battery change-out. That’s pretty fast  

Wendy P. 

Yes.  The Tesla is designed for rapid battery swaps. Do that and the EV wins hands-down.

[billvon 2,990]

8 hours ago, Coreece said:

Just as we would've without those same people, and their inventions.

Oh, I think we'd be a lot stupider as a country overall without the work of Einstein, Schottky, Atansoff, the Wrights, Goddard, Cooper and Von Braun.

On the plus side, most Americans would probably be bilingual now.

[millertime24 8]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

The EV.  It also goes a lot faster.  Which one would win?  Hard to say.  Would the extra ~17 minutes you'd need to charge every 3-5 hours or so overcome the speed advantage?  It would depend on:

-how fast the gas car could refuel.  If both cars had to pull off the freeway and take 3 minutes getting to the gas station and 3 minutes getting back on, now you are looking at 9 minutes vs 26 minutes to refuel - and the difference becomes less.

-Altitude.  Gas cars slow down at altitude; EV's go faster.

At sea level, with good access to gas stations, the gas car would probably win.  Through Colorado, the EV would likely see the advantage.

Just out of curiosity, how long does this EV take to charge? Because it takes me roughly 5-7 min to fill my car from 1/4 tank to full. Then I can drive about 350 miles at 75mph before I'm at 1/4 tank again.

 

As an aside, how long do the batteries last before replacement is neccessary? How much do replacement batteries cost? I've never had to replace a fuel tank on a car. Not even my 67 Chevelle.

 

Finally, how much does an EV cost to purchase vs its comparible petrol vehicle? I get that people want us to move away from petroleum based fuel, but until electric becomes as economical for me (the end user) as petroleum, no thanks. 

[billvon 2,990]

29 minutes ago, millertime24 said:

Just out of curiosity, how long does this EV take to charge? Because it takes me roughly 5-7 min to fill my car from 1/4 tank to full. Then I can drive about 350 miles at 75mph before I'm at 1/4 tank again.

 

As an aside, how long do the batteries last before replacement is neccessary? How much do replacement batteries cost? I've never had to replace a fuel tank on a car. Not even my 67 Chevelle.

 

Finally, how much does an EV cost to purchase vs its comparible petrol vehicle? I get that people want us to move away from petroleum based fuel, but until electric becomes as economical for me (the end user) as petroleum, no thanks. 

A model S with a V3 supercharger charges at 250 kilowatts.  A 100D will charge in about 25 minutes to ~90%.  Then you'll be able to go about 300 miles.  Model 3 is similar.  Smaller battery but lighter car so range is similar but it charges in about 20 minutes to 90%.

Battery replacement depends.  The first Leafs were awful; 30,000 miles and the batteries were down to 70%.   Modern Leafs are getting 90,000 miles.  Tesla batteries average 90% after 160,000 miles; estimates are that they will last 500,000 miles before they are down to 70%.  If you supercharge all the time (not great for the batteries) they last about 100,000.

Cheapest model 3 is $35,000 without incentives.  The Hyundai Ioniq is about $30,000.  (The Smart Fortwo is $24,000 but it sucks.)  Incentives range from none to $7500.

 

[millertime24 8]

What are these incentives and where do they come from?

 

Edit- what gas car is comparible in performance to a model 3?

Edited April 21, 2019 by millertime24

[millertime24 8]

I guess another question I have is what do routine MX replacement parts cost on EV (not tires brakes etc. I'm talking parts comparible to, say, a water pump, alternator etc.)?

[brenthutch 444]

22 minutes ago, millertime24 said:

What are these incentives and where do they come from?

And why do we need them?  

[airdvr 210]

9 hours ago, billvon said:

The EV.  It also goes a lot faster.  Which one would win?  Hard to say.  Would the extra ~17 minutes you'd need to charge every 3-5 hours or so overcome the speed advantage?  It would depend on:

-how fast the gas car could refuel.  If both cars had to pull off the freeway and take 3 minutes getting to the gas station and 3 minutes getting back on, now you are looking at 9 minutes vs 26 minutes to refuel - and the difference becomes less.

-Altitude.  Gas cars slow down at altitude; EV's go faster.

At sea level, with good access to gas stations, the gas car would probably win.  Through Colorado, the EV would likely see the advantage.

You're assuming a race...I'm assuming a cross country trip (real world).  You're both required to obey traffic laws.  Care to revise your estimate?

You mentioned this mythical $35,000 Model 3.  Can you point me to where one might buy one?  Tesla is still such a white elephant that the car shopping sight cars.com doesn't even offer Tesla as a manufacturer on it's website.

[PhreeZone 20]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

You mentioned this mythical $35,000 Model 3.  Can you point me to where one might buy one?  Tesla is still such a white elephant that the car shopping sight cars.com doesn't even offer Tesla as a manufacturer on it's website

Tesla only sells direct via its website or its showroom only. Cars.com links to independent dealers so show their inventory so they will not be able to show Tesla cars. You can order a 250 mile range two wheel drive Model 3 for about 37000 after the last federal incentive and have it in 2 weeks. Previously with the higher incentives the price was under 35000 but now its about 37000 before tax and title. That puts it near the same pricing as a Ford Explorer or a decent Chevy Impala. A Model 3 is equipied more like a premium brand like BMW, Mercedes, or Acura and as such its pretty much in line with their pricing for the Model 3 vs their low end cars like a BMW 3 Series or an Acura TLX.

As to the maintenance questions - all EV's win big on that since they do not have anything in the way of moving parts except for the drive motors and things like an AC pump. Most motors that are in use are rated for an average lifespan of 25 years of continuous usage and start/stop operations do not cause any additional wear. There are no transmission issues or additional components like radiators or other parts that an ICE needs. No oil changes either. From what I have seen from a few EV owners locally - they rotate the tires, replace brake pads as needed and thats about it.

[millertime24 8]

3 hours ago, PhreeZone said:

 You can order a 250 mile range two wheel drive Model 3 for about 37000 after the last federal incentive and have it in 2 weeks. Previously with the higher incentives the price was under 35000 but now its about 37000 before tax and title. 

I'll ask again, what are these incentives and where do they come from?

Edited April 21, 2019 by millertime24

[brenthutch 444]

I’m pretty sure we (the taxpayer) are paying and the incentives run into the thousands.  I just don’t understand, if EVs are so awesome, why do we need to incentivize their purchase?

[kallend 2,026]

US fossil fuel production is subsidized to the tune of $20 billion annually.  That's in additon to the indirect costs of health and eco-damage associated with them.

If fossil fuels are so awsome how come we need to incentivize their production.

[brenthutch 444]

Because the tax revenues from fossil fuels are much much more than $20 billion.

BTW when conducting a cost benefit analysis, one must account for the benefit as well as the cost.  It is undeniable that a larger carbon footprint correlates to greater longevity and a higher standard of living.

Edited April 21, 2019 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 444]

And while I have my MBA hat on.....any financial burden imposed on fossil fuel production will just be passed on to the consumer, a de facto regressive tax on the poor.