Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty sure I have a bias for independent thinking and fact-based analysis, and against bashing others for having differing views. And I perfectly well know a deflection like yours when I see one.
I don't agree with everything Musk says, and I'm equally enthusiastic about other emerging technologies as I am Tesla's, such as hydrogen fuel cells, improved solar and wind power generation, even biofuel production from algae processing of domestic wastewater, and ethanol distillation from agricultural waste, etc. My big commitment is to whatever turns out to work the best for all concerned.
All roads lead to Rome, in other words, and I am very much encouraged by the competition by differing technologies to displace the dominance of fossil-fuels held for so long, when we have so many renewable power sources to draw on. I don't know which will ultimately win global favor... nobody does... I'm just grateful to be living in a time in which attention to ecological concerns has finally come of age.
There are lots of roads outside the cities in China and they all do not lead to nowhere. Time to rethink some outdated knowledge. We both know that you weren't saying the cities had roads because that is the place to build them.
You attributed a large amount of China's pollution to cars and now suddenly change your tune. How fast the stories change.
Talk radio? Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't listen to them, seems you do. Back to trying to make this personal eh? Typical.
Just what do you think all those "green" industries use for power?
Like I said, put "green" in the name of anything and there are always a segment of the population that can't see past that.
More distractions. How will the super scale battery manufacturing factories clean up the mess they will make? Wait, there won't be any. What was said about everything else that became a mess. Too bad we won't be around to live through it because it will take decades before those who now tout "green" will see the results.
Have any ideas on how all those lithium batteries are going to be recycled if they ever get recycled? Any thoughts at all beyond press releases and promises by those raking in all the money making them?
22% is a large amount. Guess what that 22% is concentrated in the cities hence why the week long traffic jams.
China is the 2nd largest oil importer in the world. They want to reduce the amount of oil imports hence why they want to implement far more electric cars. Tesla is considering China to be a huge market.
Ever hear of the ghost cities in China? Entire cities that were built to house hundreds of thousands of people with malls, roads etc. All empty but highways and roads lead to them. Hence my comment about the roads to nowhere.
Direct. If all transportation were to be stopped overnight, would it help with pollution?
That is as relevant and ridiculous as the question you asked but perhaps you can reply with a "yes" or "no".
Having Chinese girlfriends hardly compares to knowing more than how to get a date. Why would you bring such a personal piece of information into the discussion?
I also had no idea that air pollution remains only in the vicinity of the source of the pollution. Maybe the people in the Northeastern part of the USA would be glad to know that. Seems they would disagree.
You asked where I had FIRSTHAND knowledge from.. Two friends that have spent a heck of a lot of time in China. I don't and never had a Chinese girlfriend, where did you get that from? I believe I said it was a friends WIFE. What about the one that manufacturers all his goods in China? How long have you spent in China?
What is your firsthand knowledge?
The people in the NE USA would be very happy then if China went to all electric vehicles then, once again, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for proving my point even further.
Anyways, I think OpenD kinda proved the point - all cars off the streets and the skies cleared up. Sounds like the FIRSTHAND, WITNESSED information to me.
I guess you also never heard of heat domes and temperature inversions that trap smog. One of the reasons LA and Fairbanks, AK get bad at time as well. And wouldn't you know it. Banned the burning of fossil fuels clears it up. So generating power elsewhere and getting an efficiency return can clean up cities. Isn't it easier to control the pollution from ONE tailpipe (or set of tailpipes as power plants have multiple units sometimes) rather than millions? And then when the coal plants go bye-bye and the next generation plant is cleaner you clean everything up at one.
And just so you know - I have a very large diesel truck. I do burn fossil fuels and I can't go to a battery car for all my needs. It isn't like I am saying tomorrow lets not burn fuel. I am saying lets look at the other tech out there. To be honest, at the moment I am on the fence on whether I like Tesla as a potential vehicle for us or not. I like being able to take along drive without having to worry about where I charge up. So at the moment an EREV is a perfect fit - other than the things I need my truck for.
Once again, you haven't provided a solution to the problem and ducked that question. Or is it OK to not be able to see 10 feet in front of you?
I am happy to read what your solution is. And you may even have a better one that what we are discussing... I thought that was the point of the this section of the forum???
You asked where I had FIRSTHAND knowledge from.. Two friends that have spent a heck of a lot of time in China. I don't and never had a Chinese girlfriend, where did you get that from? I believe I said it was a friends WIFE. What about the one that manufacturers all his goods in China? How long have you spent in China?
What is your firsthand knowledge?
The people in the NE USA would be very happy then if China went to all electric vehicles then, once again, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for proving my point even further.
Anyways, I think OpenD kinda proved the point - all cars off the streets and the skies cleared up. Sounds like the FIRSTHAND, WITNESSED information to me.
I guess you also never heard of heat domes and temperature inversions that trap smog. One of the reasons LA and Fairbanks, AK get bad at time as well. And wouldn't you know it. Banned the burning of fossil fuels clears it up. So generating power elsewhere and getting an efficiency return can clean up cities. Isn't it easier to control the pollution from ONE tailpipe (or set of tailpipes as power plants have multiple units sometimes) rather than millions? And then when the coal plants go bye-bye and the next generation plant is cleaner you clean everything up at one.
And just so you know - I have a very large diesel truck. I do burn fossil fuels and I can't go to a battery car for all my needs. It isn't like I am saying tomorrow lets not burn fuel. I am saying lets look at the other tech out there. To be honest, at the moment I am on the fence on whether I like Tesla as a potential vehicle for us or not. I like being able to take along drive without having to worry about where I charge up. So at the moment an EREV is a perfect fit - other than the things I need my truck for.
Once again, you haven't provided a solution to the problem and ducked that question. Or is it OK to not be able to see 10 feet in front of you?
I am happy to read what your solution is. And you may even have a better one that what we are discussing... I thought that was the point of the this section of the forum???
Then that would something called hearsay.
As for solutions, planning comes to mind but then that is allowed since it interferes with progress.
The question which got so much attention was a simple one, what happens to all the batteries in electric cars (that will top 1 million per year quite easily) that become used up? That won't be right away but the numbers will increase until each year the batteries in electric cars sold in years prior age to the point they are unusable.
The answer has been and continues to be that Tesla (Musk) will figure it out. He might have the answer but so far he does not because in his own words, it is too early to discuss it. I point out that not discussing things like this has resulted in many of the problems we now have with energy.
How many times have we heard that Musk and his band of geniuses have it all figured out? If they do, then put it out there.
The other question was the simply function of economics because Musk isn't doing anything because his sole concern is the planet, it is more a concern about his businesses and money. That is all good and fine except portraying him as anything but business is folly. The sword swallowers though believe he can do no wrong. If the batteries his factory will produce don't provide an economic incentive in recycling used batteries, who believes he will do it because it is the right thing to do? If one believes that, then say so but so far, no one will.
There is a hypocrisy in thinking anyone will recycle electric car batteries that cost less to manufacture as new than to recycle as used yet the same people that can't figure out how to recycle a plastic bag use the argument that it isn't cost effective to do so. Ok for one thing and not another? Isn't that convenient?
The solution is for tax payer incentives (Tesla is a good example of how not to do it) to be linked directly to recycling programs and more than an elite income customer base before removing the risk of business from companies. Tesla is an good example of the government funding the startup of a business through tax payer money, then getting paid back through other government incentives for the very money they borrowed.
The solution is for government to assist in fostering and improving the markets for environmentally conscious enterprises, not give money to the enterprise itself. Government can do far more in funding research through public institutions including the funding of educational systems/opportunities for those brilliant minds the country has to offer than funneling billions into businesses that do little more than create more billionaires.
For every dollar sent to companies like Tesla and individuals like Musk, that is a dollar not sent to the very institutions for which tax payers have already established the research and development facilities needed to address the problems being discussed.
Tesla/Musk took for nothing, the technologies developed by NASA and some of the best learning institutions in the USA and used them to make Tesla cars, Musk didn't invent the technology. Then, Tesla will license that same technology to other companies. That is contrary to the public good. Instead, the public agencies and institutions that developed the technologies should have been funded and then through the public trust in them, springboarded not Tesla, but many other companies so that competition would seek and release the true innovation int his country.
Government's role is not the creation of businesses but the conditions in which businesses prosper. What other solutions never saw the light of day because everyone was too busy falling over themselves to become infatuated with Musk? While Musk might be brilliant, he isn't the only one.
We shoved untold billions at the US auto makers who to this day can't see the light of alternative propulsion systems for consumer purchased vehicles and then sent more to Tesla. That didn't create a market, the market already existed. Instead, we got cars few people can afford to buy, grandiose plans like hyperloop which came from movies and serve as a distraction.
The people who funded Tesla are the ones unable to buy one of the cars it produces. Were there no active market, Tesla would be one thing but that isn't the case. The market existed yet the public funded technologies were turned over to Tesla only to be licensed and used to produce cars for the very people who according to known lifestyles, generate among the highest carbon footprints in society?
Before sword swallowers choke on Tesla, it isn't about Tesla, it is used as an example of the lack of planning and vision. Planning is needed in far greater detail than we have now or we will repeat the mistakes of history and in 20 years people will be screaming about landfills covered in batteries with no viable solutions to deal with them.
So go ahead, stand up for progress before planning because the do something crowd always says the same thing, anything even the wrong thing is better than nothing. Since when?
We shoved untold billions at the US auto makers who to this day can't see the light of alternative propulsion systems for consumer purchased vehicles and then sent more to Tesla.
Umm, there is a little car known as the Chevy Volt. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
Umm, there is a little car known as the Chevy Volt. But please, don't let facts get in the way of your ranting.
Little known because other than the 3 people who bought one last year no one has seen one since.
The Volt is not an electric car and it is hardly a typical car design that can be used for much more than putting a Tesla sticker on it and hoping no one notices.
The Volt isn't practical and not affordable for most people either. Price a Volt and see what you get for the money, zip. Without subsidies they'd never sell one. GM got bailed out and still relies on what, gasoline fueled vehicles. So why did GM get bailed out if we turn around and then create Tesla? Hoping that GM gets some message?
What was the plan? There wasn't one. For all that we got the Volt? For the money shoveled into Tesla we couldn't have added that to the GM free lunch and require them to advance the technologies owned by the American people to do better. Instead we propped up a dinosaur of a car company that will repeat the mistakes of it's past. Wait, it already did that.
The Volt. Better hurry, there is a sale on and you might not get one.
Thanks for a thought provoking response, instead of an attack. Yep, everything I know is hearsay, but it is better than the hearsay you get watching/reading the news.
FWIW we have a Volt, Ford has the CMAX Energi, Cadillac just released the XLR which is sorta like a dressed up volt, although the propulsion system was tweaked a little for more performance. There are several Volts, CMAXs and Tesla's around me as well. Not a huge number, but enough that I notice them.
I agree with you that Elon Musk is a business man and running Tesla as a business and to make money. I still think that someone, regardless of how it was funded and even if done for nefarious reasons, needed to kick the auto manufacturers in the pants and get them thinking. Legislation and mandated recycling fixes the new vs. recycle argument. Unless there is just no way to recycle them. Since, I am not a battery engineer, I don't know about what/how the batteries in Tesla's can be recycled. Now that the public is getting engaged in EVs - hopefully a better battery is designed anyways. I think we can all agree there is much to be gained in this area. Or we abandon this tech and go to something else like hydrogen/fuel cell. My point is, at least someone is trying to build a different and less polluting vehicle. If I could, I would get a hydrogen fuel cell car, but they don't sell them in my state. As you can tell, I like testing out the latest tech.
It's about time oil got some competition. Why does petroleum cost so much more per gigajoule than other fossil fuel? Because of its near monopoly on the rransportation fuel market.
Thanks for a thought provoking response, instead of an attack. Yep, everything I know is hearsay, but it is better than the hearsay you get watching/reading the news.
FWIW we have a Volt, Ford has the CMAX Energi, Cadillac just released the XLR which is sorta like a dressed up volt, although the propulsion system was tweaked a little for more performance. There are several Volts, CMAXs and Tesla's around me as well. Not a huge number, but enough that I notice them.
I agree with you that Elon Musk is a business man and running Tesla as a business and to make money. I still think that someone, regardless of how it was funded and even if done for nefarious reasons, needed to kick the auto manufacturers in the pants and get them thinking. Legislation and mandated recycling fixes the new vs. recycle argument. Unless there is just no way to recycle them. Since, I am not a battery engineer, I don't know about what/how the batteries in Tesla's can be recycled. Now that the public is getting engaged in EVs - hopefully a better battery is designed anyways. I think we can all agree there is much to be gained in this area. Or we abandon this tech and go to something else like hydrogen/fuel cell. My point is, at least someone is trying to build a different and less polluting vehicle. If I could, I would get a hydrogen fuel cell car, but they don't sell them in my state. As you can tell, I like testing out the latest tech.
Finally, someone who can speak intelligently about this topic.
I see fuel cell vehicles of some type will come out from a variety of manufacturers within 5 years. I know that the consortium funded alternative energy vehicle program in California bypassed on electric for the most part and focuses now on fuel cells. I believe Nissan, Volkswagon, Toyota and Ford to name a few are directly tied into it.
Americans aren't going to change their travel habits although the maximum benefit comes not from a new technology but from lifestyle changes. If the efforts were directed more at facilitating the reduction in travel needed for employment (commutes are getting longer every day) the amount of fuel even for gasoline cars could be reduced considerably and push any time horizon much farther out. Even where shortening the commutes isn't possible, reducing the time in traffic would have a far greater impact than a new technology especially considering how long it takes to get that out to most people that would use it. If we consider even the most efficient electric car (Tesla), how long can it run if it needs to operate air conditioning or heating plus lights and the other creature comforts if the travel time is long even if the travel distance is short?
In the USA, far less gasoline would be used if the infrastructure such as roadways was made more efficient. The bang for the buck goes way up because every vehicle on those roads gains an efficiency not just some. There is no comparison to what even a good penetration of electric vehicles in the market can accomplish compared to improving the road systems.
Then we get to refueling and there electric always runs into the charging problem. It isn't enough that one can charge at work, there is only so much space that can be allocated to such services and there isn't going to be enough charging stations to support away from home charging if the sales escalate. Already it is difficult to find available charging stations where they do exist.
There is the battery swap idea but then that requires a standardized battery and I can't see all the competitors agreeing on a standard anymore than they can agree on battery voltages or gasoline engine displacements.
The fuel cell keeps coming back as the winner because it has all the benefits of a point of use fuel and the alternative sources demanded by new environmental initiatives.
The so-called typical commute is anything but that, few people actually have a typical commute and even where the typical commute is accurate in terms of distance, often the time it takes to travel that distance is anything but typical. In those cases, the AC or heater is usually running and haven driven a Volt more than a few times, the hit the battery takes when all the creature comforts are being used is very significant and cuts the endurance on battery measurably. Also, if for whatever reason endurance becomes a concern, there are no recharging station at the next off ramp and even if there were, it isn't and for the foreseeable future won't be a fill er up and get going affair. Fuel cells have that advantage over batteries not to mention being able to extend the distance or time traveled at the time of the decision to do so.
I think we'll see an explosion in fuel cell vehicle availability within 5 years (no pun intended) because of the inherent benefits of that technology over anything batteries can offer even 10 years out.
Sorry, I'm not interested in wading through all the negativity and incessant rant, rant, rant against EVs. It certainly isn't convincing me in any way.
One of the details that didn't make it into the original story is that the "gigafactory" Elon Musk envisions includes battery recycling as well as manufacturing.
Of course. Why wouldn't it, if one is actually engaged in forward thinking?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
