|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work.
I don't know much about Tesla specifically, but in general my understanding was that the logic behind electric cars is that you can find more efficient ways to generate electricity that don't emit so much carbon, but it won't do as much good if a huge portion of emissions come from internal combustion engines on freeways. Even if we solved fusion tomorrow we couldn't cut our emissions as much as we'd like without figuring out how to reduce the emissions of cars, so a shift to electric cars incentivizes green energy development and increases the benefit to the environment from any newly developed green energy technologies. Is there a particular reason you find this argument unpersuasive?
|
On June 03 2017 04:55 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:52 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. I dont think that anyone that hasn't owned one of the vehicles long term can really talk about the "the performance for things that matter to people" not to mention the fact that most of the tesla cars to date have been luxury vehicles that would be more expensive than an average car regardless of emissions. Electric cars aren't new; we all know their faults from a technical performance perspective. If you want to spend more than xDaunt's 20 year loss projection for better feels about a marginal reduction in emissions, be my guest. Preferably that will happen without government handouts.
On June 03 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:06 Toadesstern wrote:On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work. I don't really see the hate for electric cars. Yes they're less convenient right now but I see them take off in a couple years personally and I don't think the basic idea behind them is flawed. Instead of having a thousand different things you want to improve individually including cars you let most things run on electricity and suddenly all you have to improve is your energy production. Obviously ignoring the nasty parts like how "unhealthy" batteries are etc but I don't think that's your argument They are more expensive and while that might change it's nowhere close to doing so. It takes significantly longer to charge a battery than to fill up on gas. Repairs are trickier. You get less miles per tank. Harder to find places to fill up, though this may change in the future. All of these are performance demerits that matter.
My point was more to the fact that the issues as you say are well documented, but i haven't really seen any analysis from a long term perspective that takes these technical shortcomings and determines the actual effect on the lives of the owners. Taking 3 hours to charge sucks, but only if you are trying to go beyond the limits of a single charge. I would venture that someone who can afford the current Tesla's and other EVs likely has a second vehicle at home and can choose to take an alternative vehicle on long distance drives. Price is a definitive issue and odly enough is the specific target that your friend Elon Musk has decided to tackle with his phased rollout of Tesla. We will see if it works out.
|
The entire point of Tesla was to start the R&D on the infrastructure and find out what would be possible with the electric car. I will agree they are overpriced, but Musk absorbed a lot of that early R&D cost to just proving what would be necessary to have the car drive long distances.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego?
What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work. I don't know much about Tesla specifically, but in general my understanding was that the logic behind electric cars is that you can find more efficient ways to generate electricity that don't emit so much carbon, but it won't do as much good if a huge portion of emissions come from internal combustion engines on freeways. Even if we solved fusion tomorrow we couldn't cut our emissions as much as we'd like without figuring out how to reduce the emissions of cars, so a shift to electric cars incentivizes green energy development and increases the benefit to the environment from any newly developed green energy technologies. Is there a particular reason you find this argument unpersuasive?
Not in principle. But we haven't reached a point where electric cars are worth their faults and I don't see that we are close either. I would only concede that we are "closer than we were 40 years ago" to viable electrics.
|
The main perk of a Tesla is that, in the bay area, you get reserved parking spaces all over town. They happen to come with recharging stations, too.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:19 Buckyman wrote:
The main perk of a Tesla is that, in the bay area, you get reserved parking spaces all over town. They happen to come with recharging stations, too.
California fashion statements have their perks in California, yes.
|
cars are parked 95% of the time in Germany.
So in day to day private life there is zero need for capable accumulators and fast recharge speeds.
Only for long distance travel that people want to use their car for the need for both arises
For the intra-city distances they most likely wouldn't "need" a permanent car anyway.
|
say what you will about tesla as a company and elon musk as a huckster who sells hype and lives off government subsidies, the cars are nice as shit to drive/ ride in though
|
On June 03 2017 05:04 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 04:25 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 03:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:43 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:30 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:14 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 02:04 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:00 jcarlsoniv wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:45 Godwrath wrote:
Giving credence to an article that attempts to discredit the Paris accord because it's "merely symbolic" just to be able to missdirect the criticism about the self-denial running rampant amongst republican party, that's rich and deep. As if, the republicans actually gave a shit about the issue and left it because "it wasn't good enough".
Of course the Paris accord wasn't good enough. It is a first fucking step. This is part of the reason I linked a fairly reasoned article concluding that it's likely the last step and people that think otherwise are fooling themselves. What's rich and deep is your deflection and misdirection while claiming others do so. I wonder if it will ever sink it that inattention to counterarguments isn't sufficient to restate your primary argument. I conclude x, and any articles that conclude otherwise are obvious misdirection. But I'm not really following the conclusion that he believes it's the last step and not the first. I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. If I'm trying to address a problem, especially a big problem (and affecting long term positive change for the environment is big), I'd start by defining it. Put some framework around an issue, get consensus, start working towards solutions. I acknowledge that you don't believe the costs of action are being sufficiently considered, and that's an ok argument to have. But the US staking the position of "nah, we're just gonna go home instead" doesn't put us in a better position to solve the problem. Unless I'm missing something, I don't get the assumption that there would be not further steps taken beyond Paris. Getting the globe on the same page is where it starts, but it feels like the US was spacing out while reading, so we've had to flip back to the last chapter before we can move forward again. You quote a paragraph in the middle of the article that follows from the argumentation in the paragraphs preceding. Pay special attention to the political interest and comparison between changing direction in inches when different outcomes are miles apart. I did read it, and I don't necessarily disagree with your point that symbolic gestures are meaningless if there's no plan for follow through. But it seems that he (and you) are starting on the assumption that there will be no follow through, and as a result, this gesture is meaningless. If it were up to many of us, there would but a more expedited and stringent framework for follow through. But when we have to continually argue internally about whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem (or, in some cases, whether the problem even exists), that significantly slows down the capacity for follow through. So, I guess my question to you is - what should be done to make it (any plan, not necessarily Paris) less symbolic and actually effective? I'm kind of at a loss if you only want to draw from what "seems" to be a starting assumption, but not what arguments were ineffective and why, or how they were reliant on those assumptions and collapse without them. I could just as easily respond to "whether or not we even have to do anything about the problem/problem exists" with "whether or not anybody that acknowledges the problem actually wants to pay the associated costs with fixing it in this manner" which also slows follow through. I would raise my hand and say "here is someone who is interested in paying the associated costs with fixing the problem this way". With that said, though, I would agree with y'all that I'd like better understanding of what those costs are and more concrete plans of moving forward. But, again, I would think that gathering the consensus, even if symbolic at the beginning, is the start of formulating the plan forward. Do you agree with xDaunt that it would be better to create more bandaids instead of looking for ways to treat the wound? Is there a good/better way to do both at the same time? A consensus on signing symbolic agreements is a consensus to talk about how serious we are to continue talking about how big, huge, impactful the problem is. It's not a useful consensus. Why try to repaint what xDaunt said and ask for my agreement? If this is an important issue, surely you can take the man at his word and not mischaracterize his description. I'm not trying to misconstrue what he said: On June 03 2017 02:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:23 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:21 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:15 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:07 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 01:56 LegalLord wrote:
The way I see it, the most important link in the Paris Accords and why I put so much stock into it is not as much the US as it is China. Sure, first worlders will get greedy and attempt to skirt the regulations to the extent that it is possible. But China is notorious for dragging their feet something fierce, almost unwilling to even acknowledge that climate change is a problem worth addressing. Yet China finally started to "get it" and have made efforts to (albeit slowly) reduce their carbon footprint.
The US will, as it always has, move slowly. The writing on the wall suggests that it's not economically feasible to skimp on climate forever. It still looks stupid though. Please. The Paris Accords were a boon to China. Built-in comparative advantages and subsidies afforded to the Chinese with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that the Chinese meet their own obligations? Yeah, that's a tough one for the Chinese to accept.... Then what do we need? A stronger deal? A symbolic withdrawal from the commitment as a means of protest? A show of "two can play at that game" and an unwillingness to reduce emissions? While I'm skeptical of a lot of aspects of the deal, even this is a big deal compared to the attitude China had towards this as recently as five years ago which could be effectively summarized as "fuck the environment that shit don't matter to us." China is going to get its own shit in order regardless of the Paris Accord because its people are tired of living in filth. But if you're going to bother with a treaty, then it needs an enforcement mechanism. Ok, that much is fair. Would you support such a treaty? If you want a specific treaty, say, Paris plus incorporated trade consequences for non-compliance? No, because the cost-benefit analysis is still out of whack for the reasons discussed yesterday. I'd rather spend the money on mitigating the consequences of global warming instead of trying to stop global warming. We don't have an effective means of doing the latter. "mitigating the consequences of global warming" = bandaid "trying to stop global warming" = treating the wound What I'm trying to find out is what you suggest we do instead. I think you have some valid points in your opposition to Paris (whether or not I agree with them), so I'm curious what your preferred alternative is. Do we focus on addressing consequences as they emerge? Do we try to design a different agreement that is enforceable? Do we not address the problem(s) at all? Out of the full spectrum of options, I don't know where you stand beyond opposing the agreement before us. "We don't have an effective means of doing the latter." That means we have no effective measures of treating the wound. It doesn't mean to stop looking for measures. He's already on the record supporting green energy development and investment. Your analogy is fallacious and misrepresentative. I hardly know if you're ignorant or deliberate with the flurry of responses and posters.
Then throw out the analogy, it couldn't matter less. I understand where xDaunt stands, and you're doing a fantastic job of not giving your own alternative (again, beyond opposition of what's in front of us).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
say what you will about tesla as a company and elon musk as a huckster who sells hype and lives off government subsidies, the cars are nice as shit to drive/ ride in though
Sure. I'd never buy one though, since I can and do buy used luxury cars for 10-20% of the cost. Whereas Musk loooves his car selling monopolies.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:23 Artisreal wrote:
cars are parked 95% of the time in Germany.
So in day to day private life there is zero need for capable accumulators and fast recharge speeds.
Only for long distance travel that people want to use their car for the need for both arises
For the intra-city distances they most likely wouldn't "need" a permanent car anyway.
That's definitely not how it works in the US outside of a few key dense cities. I drive at least 60 km almost every day.
|
On June 03 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:06 Toadesstern wrote:On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that. 1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work. I don't really see the hate for electric cars. Yes they're less convenient right now but I see them take off in a couple years personally and I don't think the basic idea behind them is flawed. Instead of having a thousand different things you want to improve individually including cars you let most things run on electricity and suddenly all you have to improve is your energy production. Obviously ignoring the nasty parts like how "unhealthy" batteries are etc but I don't think that's your argument They are more expensive and while that might change it's nowhere close to doing so. It takes significantly longer to charge a battery than to fill up on gas. Repairs are trickier. You get less miles per tank. Harder to find places to fill up, though this may change in the future. All of these are performance demerits that matter.
I said in a couple years for a reason. I don't have an electric car right now either for a reason but if they're going to keep improving I might consider it in the future. The cost is a big thing but I don't think Tesla is actually going for cheap cars, they're going for the luxury brand. Maybe in 20 years if there's something from Toyota, VW (they claimed they want to get in on it) or the likes with their massive infrastructur maybe.
And then you say charging takes longer than filling up a gas tank. Yeah it does but on the other hand you can charge it over night at home and be done with charging for a good 99 out of 100 days of the year.
You get less miles per tank, or rather the distance problem, sure but I think it's a fair bit cheaper per mile? Maybe not in the US with your gas prices, idk.
Either way, I agree with you that they're not where I want them to be to get one myself but like I said, I don't think the idea behind it is fundamentally flawed and thus do think they'll be a thing in a couple years.
|
I'll ask again out of curiosity, what's your take on fusion? LL
On June 03 2017 05:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:23 Artisreal wrote:
cars are parked 95% of the time in Germany.
So in day to day private life there is zero need for capable accumulators and fast recharge speeds.
Only for long distance travel that people want to use their car for the need for both arises
For the intra-city distances they most likely wouldn't "need" a permanent car anyway. That's definitely not how it works in the US outside of a few key dense cities. I drive at least 60 km almost every day.
That's why I mentioned Germany 
|
On June 03 2017 05:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:24 ticklishmusic wrote:
say what you will about tesla as a company and elon musk as a huckster who sells hype and lives off government subsidies, the cars are nice as shit to drive/ ride in though
Sure. I'd never buy one though, since I can and do buy used luxury cars for 10-20% of the cost. Whereas Musk loooves his car selling monopolies.
agreed. i think there are definitely some design features other luxury car makers should consider... using as inspiration.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:30 Artisreal wrote:
I'll ask again out of curiosity, what's your take on fusion? LL
If it's feasible I'm fine with it.
|
So, the billions of dollars of governmental subsidies that diddn't produce a singe kWh yet are fine?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:30 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 05:13 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 05:06 Toadesstern wrote:On June 03 2017 05:00 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:54 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 04:40 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 04:23 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 03:36 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 03:00 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
He:
1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns.
2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers.
3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds.
4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year.
And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that.
1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments. Electric cars have yet to be proven feasible despite being around for decades. While that may change it is yet to be so and all Musk has shown is that he is capable of selling electric fashion statements for many tens of thousands of dollars. And until electricity is a more environmentally friendly and acceptably feasible tool for fuel, internal combustion engines with adequate emissions controls win on the environmental front easily. "Not immediately economically feasible" fucking lol. No, those three points prove that he's sucking at the government's teet while knowingly losing money overall yet lining his pockets. Being technically unfeasible is quite a damning criteria of failure for his roof tile idea since you can't change physics because tech fashion demands it. So is scamming people with solar panel rent schemes. But hey, as long as you claim "we just need to hit ECONOMIES OF SCALE" and "AMAZON didn't make money for a long time so we don't have to either" on every single project you ever take on, apparently that makes it all good. His cult of personality is the core of everything he does and that is highly relevant, rather than criticizing at the margins. Why do people care about his electric cars but not so much those of major car producers (often making a more feasible product)? Because Musk and Tesla are so cool. A rocket that undercuts its competition (and loses money overall) that has a ~90% safety record, providing a moderate cost, moderate reliability service while promising significantly more than it delivers? Because Musk and SpaceX are so cool (for this one, I suppose it's worth noting the caveat that this actually is a pretty useful service at that low-cost launch margin despite being severely overhyped and not economically viable). A company that abuses solar panel subsidies to rent out solar panels and then lie to people about how profitable they can be? Because Musk and SolarCity are so cool. And we could go on about his other stupid ventures (a vacuum chamber that doesn't work and costs a lot of money, digging tunnels for a problem that doesn't really matter) but I think the point has already been made: his cult of personality allows him to line his pockets with government and shareholder money while delivering little of value compared to the amount of money that is being tossed in their direction. And the legions of fans who make people believe he is the second coming of Jesus through attrition allow him to be well-received despite being a large-scale fraud. Net positive contribution to society my ass. You seem to be conflating electric cars' feasibility (economically from the manufacturer's standpoint, I'm assuming) with whether they are environmentally friendly there, which doesn't make sense. It's a fringe viewpoint that electric cars are worse for the environment than internal combustion engines "with controls". And that sounds like a bit of a conspiracy that all of Musk's projects have to do with his "cult of personality" and that people buy his stuff for the cool factor. They're buying it to be environmentally friendly. That's a much more obvious explanation. And yes, traffic is a problem that matters. How is traffic not a problem that matters? Worse performance for things that matter to people (such as not spending hours to charge the car or getting more than 200 miles on one tank), more expensive, and somewhat less emissive overall. Great trade. Conspiracy that it's about his personality, rofl. It's all about how "cool" a Tesla is, the environment part is an afterthought like it is in any other aspect of life that involves "sacrifice for the environment." This game with Musk fans gets tiresome after a while; it disappoints me just how little self-reflection people have to throw endless cash at ideas that would be obviously unfeasible if you don't bullshit up justifications to the contrary. The problem with traffic is a lack of underground roads, my ass. While it's true that the cars are only as clean as the primary source of energy production, the bigger issue for large urban areas is pollution, which is a silent health hazard that kills more people than most other things. So cleaner air is already a big step up. That said it would be better to reduce the number of cars overall and get more traffic on rails. Cars are pretty terrible mode of transportation from just about any point of view. How is public transportation in US cities in general? I assume not great outside of the big hubs? Reducing pollution and reducing cars in general is definitely a good thing. But I am not convinced electric cars are the answer, and I am quite convinced that Musk fanboy trains are definitely not the answer. Public transportation varies by location; some places have good service, other places you'd be an idiot not to drive everywhere. The overarching problem is more that the US is a huge country and public transit scales rather poorly for large distances. In my previous job I drove ~50 km in one direction to work, which would be a slow hell on public transportation. In my current job, a public transport commute would not be unreasonable, and under proper incentives I could be coerced into taking the train to work. I don't really see the hate for electric cars. Yes they're less convenient right now but I see them take off in a couple years personally and I don't think the basic idea behind them is flawed. Instead of having a thousand different things you want to improve individually including cars you let most things run on electricity and suddenly all you have to improve is your energy production. Obviously ignoring the nasty parts like how "unhealthy" batteries are etc but I don't think that's your argument They are more expensive and while that might change it's nowhere close to doing so. It takes significantly longer to charge a battery than to fill up on gas. Repairs are trickier. You get less miles per tank. Harder to find places to fill up, though this may change in the future. All of these are performance demerits that matter. I said in a couple years for a reason. I don't have an electric car right now either for a reason but if they're going to keep improving I might consider it in the future. The cost is a big thing but I don't think Tesla is actually going for cheap cars, they're going for the luxury brand. Maybe in 20 years if there's something from Toyota, VW (they claimed they want to get in on it) or the likes with their massive infrastructur maybe. And then you say charging takes longer than filling up a gas tank. Yeah it does but on the other hand you can charge it over night at home and be done with charging for a good 99 out of 100 days of the year. You get less miles per tank, or rather the distance problem, sure but I think it's a fair bit cheaper per mile? Maybe not in the US with your gas prices, idk. Either way, I agree with you that they're not where I want them to be to get one myself but like I said, I don't think the idea behind it is fundamentally flawed and thus do think they'll be a thing in a couple years.
I drive > 600 km trips multiple times per year. A few hours charging in the middle of those would be a very nontrivial shitty situation.
Electrics aren't better than internal combustion engines, they won't be for at least some years, and I'm honestly not sure they ever will be. And we certainly shouldn't be subsidizing hucksters like Musk just because we want to pretend to be green.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 03 2017 05:32 Artisreal wrote:
So, the billions of dollars of governmental subsidies that diddn't produce a singe kWh yet are fine?
We talking fusion billionaires lining their pockets or R&D labs (including academic institutions) getting funding for their work?
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Yup, that is fine. R&D is always hit and miss in terms of results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
