Posted on 02/25/2015 12:04:07 PM PST by ckilmer
.
I have been running the electrical needs of my ranch, which is 10 miles or more from the end of the “grid,” off of solar PV panels and lead-acid storage batteries for almost 15 years.
These facilities have their limitations, beyond which one cannot go. Batteries wear out at a fairly predictable rate, solid state circuits are delicate, and often fail, and cold weather reduces the effectiveness of batteries, often by 80% or more.
When you have nothing else to rely upon, you thank God for them, and carry on about your life accordingly.
Petroleum fueled autos are presently the cleanest, safest, and most reliable mode of transport in existence. Electric autos are not “clean” because they rely on the least efficient modes of power generation for the excess load they add to our power grid, and not in the least bit dependable, and the real experts say that regardless of the puffing braggadocio of the hucksters, there is presently no technology on the horizon that can make them reliable at reasonable cost, fiscal, nor environmental.
Musk is a swindling huckster that has sucked the titty of federal and state funding to the limit.
.
.
>> “It must be great to have Uncle Sugar help pay for your passions.” <<
.
As Elon Musk has found to his great advantage!
.
I also wonder about that. On a hot summer day here while waiting for an eternal red light on a sloped freeway off ramp I noticed that the ramp was almost covered with water. It was only from car’s AC condensers. Thanked god that this can’t happen during the winter or the ramp would have been solid black ice. Have they even tested this to see what the water vapor will do with a group of vehicles idling at a stop during sub freezing temps anywhere?
Petroleum fueled autos are presently the cleanest, safest, and most reliable mode of transport in existence.
.................
Agree.
Electric autos are not “clean” because they rely on the least efficient modes of power generation for the excess load they add to our power grid,
................
This makes no sense. Unless you’re talking about charging electric cars via solar. Which yes is more imperfect than filling up your gas tank with gas—or it will be until battery technology gets better.
and not in the least bit dependable,
.................
Tesla is dependable enough. Consumer Reports rated the Tesla S overall best in 2004. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/04/top-picks-2014/index.htm
and the real experts say that regardless of the puffing braggadocio of the hucksters, there is presently no technology on the horizon that can make them reliable at reasonable cost, fiscal, nor environmental.
...................
In 2017 Tesla expects to their battery plant in Nevada to start mass producing batteries on the cheap. They figure they can cut the price of their cars to 35K & keep their performance. That’s down from 70 k currently.
The Tesla S gets 270 miles on a charge. They have a battery that can do 500 miles on a charge but its still to expensive to produce commercially.
It makes total sense!
Charging cars on plug-in circuits increases the load on the already over-loaded grid, and requires the use of peaking generation plants that do not burn as cleanly as modern automobile engines do, thus gas powered cars are “cleaner” than electric plug-in cars.
Tesla’s talk about what their proposed battery plants will do is presently all hype. Their plants will be no different than the existing plants.
Their “500 mile battery” is a dream at best. There is no reason to believe that they can take the existing technology further than anyone else has been able to.
Consumer Reports is a marxist socialist company that has lied about cars (and other products) for 50 years or more!
.
I’m on your side in this argument, but aren’t most peaking plants nat gas fired gas turbines, which are pretty clean, no?
.
Turbines do not burn as cleanly as compression engines do.
Those that run vehicles on natural gas get cleaner output than the generating plants do.
.
Charging cars on plug-in circuits increases the load on the already over-loaded grid, and requires the use of peaking generation plants that do not burn as cleanly as modern automobile engines do, thus gas powered cars are “cleaner” than electric plug-in cars.
..................
My understanding is that the peaking plants are usually natural gas which are pretty clean compared to coal. That said, I don’t care about the green arguments and neither do you.
Tesla’s talk about what their proposed battery plants will do is presently all hype. Their plants will be no different than the existing plants.
...............
What the big plant in Reno Nevada currently under construction will do is mass produce batteries and thereby gain economies of scale. That will chop down the price of the Tesla S from 70k to 35k. That’s coming in two years.
Their “500 mile battery” is a dream at best. There is no reason to believe that they can take the existing technology further than anyone else has been able to.
....................
Maybe Musk is blowing smoke on this one. But expense has always been the big problem with the good batteries. They can make them. Just not economically. There’s a huge world wide effort out right now to find cheap materials that will hold a charge and recharge quickly. No telling when that will happen. But typically when a the big hunt is on by labs around the world —they find what they’re looking for.
Consumer Reports is a marxist socialist company that has lied about cars (and other products) for 50 years or more!
..............
I agree that the democrat party is marxist socialist. I’ve never heard this said of consumer reports. Hey you’re the first.
I’ve always felt that CU (based in the Yonkers NY area) was staffed with typical Northeast mentality liberals.
Some of the flaws of their methodology (or bias, take your pick) show up when they produce widely divergent ratings for the same vehicle sold under two mfgr names.
In addition they had a decades long aversion to GM vehicles which quickly became affection when the company was in cahoots with the Obama regime.
.
No, I’m not the first.
Chrysler sued them for their false allegations and won.
.
I googled “Chrysler sued consumer reports” and found nothing.
soo. what everybody knows is that about Chrysler is that its always been a good company making such good cars that its always been profitable....NOT.
Chrysler didn’t make it through the 2008 downturn. Its now an Italian subsidiary.
It would not have been news to anybody if Consumer Reports had panned a Chrysler car at some point. Nor would it be likely that Chrysler would have been so foolish as to sue Consumer Reports and make themselves look even worse.
But maybe you can google your reference and show me a legitimate link.
As I have mentioned before...the point for fuel cell cars is not that they are ready for prime time. But rather that they are steadily improving. That the people who are developing them have both the will and the way to make them ready for prime time.
And this will be great news for guys like you and me. Because there will be a massive competition between natural gas, gasoline cars, fuel cell cars and electric cars —which will drive down the costs of fuel and transportation.
Enough of your nonsense!
Chrysler sold two models in the ‘70s that were essentially Audi/Volkswagen chasis with a different body style, and marketed them as Plymouth and Dodge. One was called the Horizon, the other I don’t remember.
Consumer reports listed them both as well as the Audi and VW models.
They listed the Chrysler models as unacceptable and too dangerous to drive, while the identical Audi and VW were listed as superior in every category.
Consumer Reports has never been honest, nor reliable.
.
you need a real car guy to argue with you about your old half remembered chimeras. I can’t help you on any of this stuff.
In any case I’m talking about the future of the car industry an not its past.
.
The future of tyranny you mean!
Nothing else could promote the nightmare that you envision.
.
The future of tyranny you mean!
Nothing else could promote the nightmare that you envision.
...............
cheaper energy and transportation costs = tyranny?
.
Nothing you have promoted is “cheaper,” or in any way a path toward greater freedom.
The purpose of electric cars is the destruction of the mobility of the masses, to make them more easily controlled.
.
Nothing you have promoted is “cheaper,” or in any way a path toward greater freedom.
The purpose of electric cars is the destruction of the mobility of the masses, to make them more easily controlled.
..............
I’m not promoting anything. I’m just saying that electric cars and fuel cell cars are getting getting better and cheaper. I think they have enough backing to continue to get better and cheaper. You think not. Very well. We disagree.
If you have to go back 40 years in order to find an example of them screwing up then that is about the best endorsement you can give. Consumer Reports has been a very high quality publication for as long as I can remember and they go way beyond what any other media outlet does to remain editorially independent. Seriously, you should look into the lengths they go to in order to not have advertiser or OEM influence on their publication.
“The purpose of electric cars is the destruction of the mobility of the masses, to make them more easily controlled.”
That is a little tin-foil-hatty, don't you think? I would actually like a Chevy Volt myself so that I can cut the amount of money I send to OPEC by about 90%. And since it also has a gasoline engine, I would have zero loss in mobility.
For now, gasoline is the most cost effective. Once batteries improve that will no longer be the case, and the Arab countries will be crushed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.