Tesla semi

[houstonscott]

dot: Consumers pay out less for transportation dot: Petroleum industry has surplus of fuel, must reduce price / profits dot: USA citizens have cleaner air dot: petroleum investment sector ramps up public relations projects to discredit competing energies

CO2 proven not a warming gas.
Global cooling starts
Petroleum reserves found all over world, becomes renewal.
Consumers reject battery cars.
ICE is cleaner burning than electric power plants.
Air pollution is relegated to poor socialist communist third world countries.
USA is cleanest pollution free country on earth.

Oh, it's not a dream, it's today!

 

[Sodo]

All fine... a sort of free market society. No where else to the extent that I am aware of....

Sort of free market...thats a good way to put it. Advertising is free market.

Follow the money. The investment sectors have so much money they can advertise and control the free market. Why are they performing so well (for their investors?). Because they figured out HOW, with public Relations also called “paid media reporting”. TV, radio, internet, print, and yes, forum trolling.

Keep in mind this is paid for by, and works for investors, not for you. You are the food. Connect the dots.

We have the technology to gather free energies yet energy is a high-performance investment sector where they wanna dig it out of the ground and sell it to you. With no rival (electric) to provide a free market control of the cost. When an investment sector performs well that means high profits for them. You paying MORE to the investors. They’ve raised the cost of energy to you. They get more from you. Connect the dots.

A well-paid shepherd in Africa gets $12day and can afford a cellphone. But a USA family pays $5,000/year? Same technology, same equipment, same costs, different profit margin. But USA communications is a high performance investment sector. Connect the dots.

Our healthcare is the most expensive in the world ( and healthcare is a high-performance investment sector because it has access to the insurance pool ). No changes, please !!! Keep it focused on the citizens who HAVE money, and lots of it, because the investors want that high performance. Don’t worry about the failing health of our nation, our old moms & dads. They can shovel the remainder of their wealth into the high-performing health sector too. The sector NEEDS it.

Watch for investment sectors related to extraction to perform well. As our precious public lands get sold off & pillaged, those performances will climb. Free market? Not free, it’s YOUR public land & resources that are being taken & sold to you. Watch the investment sectors. If they perform well, are there political campaigns, paid TV news helping them along? Creating public support for these investment programs? Undermining support for their economic rivals?

Look at the list of investment sectors in your retirement plan. The high performing sectors perfom well because they advertise well, to control the free market? And now to the point they’ve got control of our government. Imagine that. So much money - they’re now “governing”? We’re in a world of hurt, even Russia is laughing (I’m not).

Divide & Conquer. We’ve been divided (and somewhat conquered), often with the help of guns. Not by the barrel, by the butt end, the holding.

Always connect the dots. The USA needs you to pay better attention. You are the elders. Follow the money. I don’t know what to say about Tesla getting public money, is this really true? Is it spun just so we will oppose the petroleum industry’s scariest rival (alternative fuels)? Or is it a wise move to place the USA ontop of the latest truck technology? Is it wise to allow China or India to become the leader in the next generation of trucks?

But I do see the investment sectors listed in my retirement plan, thats real money that I can follow, its not a spin. Probably should start there. Follow the money (or connect the dots).

 

[tomato coupe]

CO2 proven not a warming gas.
Global cooling starts
Petroleum reserves found all over world, becomes renewal.
Consumers reject battery cars.
ICE is cleaner burning than electric power plants.
Air pollution is relegated to poor socialist communist third world countries.
USA is cleanest pollution free country on earth.

Oh, it's not a dream, it's today!

How can anyone take you seriously when you start a post with a ridiculous statement?

 

[buickanddeere]

How can anyone take you seriously when you start a post with a ridiculous statement?

When looking at the numbers instead of listening to enviro nazis . The effects of CO2 are insignificant and the change of hundreds of ppm is of no consequence .

 

[tomato coupe]

When looking at the numbers instead of listening to enviro nazis . The effects of CO2 are insignificant and the change of hundreds of ppm is of no consequence .

I suspect there is nothing that would convince you otherwise, so the following excerpt is not meant for you, but others reading this thread:

Is water a far more important a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, as some claim? It is not surprising that there is a lot of confusion about this the answer is far from simple.

Firstly, there is the greenhouse effect, and then there is global warming. The greenhouse effect is caused by certain gases (and clouds) absorbing and re-emitting the infrared radiating from Earth's surface. It currently keeps our planet 20 deg C to 30 deg C warmer than it would be otherwise. Global warming is the rise in temperatures caused by an increase in the levels of greenhouse gases due to human activity.

Water vapour is by far the most important contributor to the greenhouse effect. Pinning down its precise contribution is tricky, not least because the absorption spectra of different greenhouse gases overlap.

At some of these overlaps, the atmosphere already absorbs 100% of radiation, meaning that adding more greenhouse gases cannot increase absorption at these specific frequencies. For other frequencies, only a small proportion is currently absorbed, so higher levels of greenhouse gases do make a difference.

This means that when it comes to the greenhouse effect, two plus two does not equal four. If it were possible to leave the clouds but remove all other water vapour from the atmosphere, only about 40% less infrared of all frequencies would be absorbed. Take away the clouds and all other greenhouses gases, however, and the water vapour alone would still absorb about 60% of the infrared now absorbed.

By contrast, if CO2 alone was removed from the atmosphere, only 15% less infrared would be absorbed. If CO2 was the only greenhouse gas, it would absorb 26% of the infrared currently absorbed by the atmosphere.

A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.

Water cycle:
So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days.

This rapid turnover means that even if human activity was directly adding or removing significant amounts of water vapour (it isn't), there would be no slow build-up of water vapour as is happening with CO2 (see Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are tiny compared with natural sources).

The level of water vapour in the atmosphere is determined mainly by temperature, and any excess is rapidly lost. The level of CO2 is determined by the balance between sources and sinks, and it would take hundreds of years for it to return to pre-industrials levels even if all emissions ceased tomorrow. Put another way, there is no limit to how much rain can fall, but there is a limit to how much extra CO2 the oceans and other sinks can soak up.

Of course, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas emitted by humans. And many, such as methane, are far more powerful greenhouse gases in terms of infrared absorption per molecule.

While methane persists for only about a decade before breaking down, other gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), can persist in the atmosphere for hundreds or even tens of thousands years. Per molecule, their warming effect is thousands of times greater than carbon dioxide. (Production of CFCs in now banned in most of the world, but because of their ozone destroying properties, not greenhouse properties.)

 

[houstonscott]

I suspect there is nothing that would convince you otherwise, so the following excerpt is not meant for you, but others reading this thread:

Unfortunately, all the above is proved wrong every time it's pugged into a model over the last 50 years. Now what; temps have dropped, ocean levels are dropping. Antarctic ice is at record high levels and the arctic isn't melting away. The so called scientists can't get right and in an agenda to pin it on man through CO2, they've actually proven it a non factor. Buzzzzzz..... Back to the drawing board. Want to play again.

 

[tomato coupe]

Unfortunately, all the above is proved wrong every time it's pugged into a model over the last 50 years. Now what; temps have dropped, ocean levels are dropping.

I'm not interested in starting a debate about global warming on this forum, but there is a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists (from every country, ethnic background, gender, religion, political persuasion, etc.) are in agreement on it. (It's also interesting that the consensus is highest among the scientists with the highest level of expertise.)

 

[houstonscott]

I'm not interested in starting a debate about global warming on this forum, but there is a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists (from every country, ethnic background, gender, religion, political persuasion, etc.) are in agreement on it. (It's also interesting that the consensus is highest among the scientists with the highest level of expertise.)

I don't want a debate either, so let's not assert its true. Writing a full page attempting to make your case then claiming you don't want a debate seems bogus. Let's let it remain an unproven theory, quit making reference to it as a reason to go through the gyrations to switch to electric cars.

 

[vvanders]

I'm not interested in starting a debate about global warming on this forum, but there is a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists (from every country, ethnic background, gender, religion, political persuasion, etc.) are in agreement on it. (It's also interesting that the consensus is highest among the scientists with the highest level of expertise.)

Don't bother, you're trying to make a fact based argument to his ideological view. Anything you present will just be dismissed as invalid due to bad actors, paid shills, the deep state, or any other excuse that he can come up with.

That said it doesn't really matter. All CO2 arguments aside EVs are still going to see more market penetration due to their operating economics as battery prices fall. Pretty much every mfgr is moving that way and we'll only see an increase as the technology gets better due to compounding improvements.

 

[sd455dan]

^^^ YEP

 

[/pine]

Have you not heard?....the entire AGW theory has been debunked... it's old news...geeze!

 

[tungularafishcamp]

I I wasn't done living in the town of kodiak, I would have already bought some kind of EV.
Our little town is the perfect place for them, limited roads, sky high fuel prices, very stable relatively cheap elec. because of hydro/windmills.

I think as soon as it makes $ and sense to switch more and more people, business's, as well as government entities will plug in.

 

[flyerdan]

If they follow the model for electronics, they will get better and the price will go down. Remember when VCRs first came out, they were like $1200. by the time they were being superseded they were less than $50, and had lots more whiz-bang features than the first ones.
Granted, it's not a linear comparison, but the electronic aspect of it would improve on a more rapid scale than ICE tech will.

 

[buickanddeere]

I'm not interested in starting a debate about global warming on this forum, but there is a good reason why the vast majority of climate scientists (from every country, ethnic background, gender, religion, political persuasion, etc.) are in agreement on it. (It's also interesting that the consensus is highest among the scientists with the highest level of expertise.)

Depends if the scientist is on the payroll to “prove” and ice age, global warming, climate change or what ever the next new term is . How about those flooded coastal cities that were promised a couple of decades ago.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

If they follow the model for electronics, they will get better and the price will go down. Remember when VCRs first came out, they were like $1200. by the time they were being superseded they were less than $50, and had lots more whiz-bang features than the first ones.
Granted, it's not a linear comparison, but the electronic aspect of it would improve on a more rapid scale than ICE tech will.

Not Linear may be the key word in the EV debate. There may be solutions much better than even the limited potential of EV's.

 

[two_bit_score]

Not Linear may be the key word in the EV debate. There may be solutions much better than even the limited potential of EV's.

Well he may have stumbled onto the real secret.

 

[houstonscott]

Tesla: Model 3 production problems prompt electric Semi delay

 

[houstonscott]

Parts order for Tesla Model 3 cut by 4 percent starting in December: report

 

[houstonscott]

Who sold 1, plug-in vehicles last month? (Not Tesla, Nissan, or Chevy)

 

[buickanddeere]

If they follow the model for electronics, they will get better and the price will go down. Remember when VCRs first came out, they were like $1200. by the time they were being superseded they were less than $50, and had lots more whiz-bang features than the first ones.
Granted, it's not a linear comparison, but the electronic aspect of it would improve on a more rapid scale than ICE tech will.

VCR’s were new tech. Of course prices were high when the fad was new . Any tech has a advancement curve that is initially rapid with the improvement proportional to the extra cost and engineering. As the tech matures there are some gains however the cost is very high for a small unit of gain. Engineering becomes complex and the tech complicated . For instance there are no new significant gains left to improve the lbs of fuel per HP per hour for a Diesel engine . Some diesels from the late 1950’s exceed the efficiency of some diesels in the same HP range today.
Electric motors , no different . Gasoline and diesel still have the same btu’s per pound. Elements such as Lithium still have the same number of electrons per pound .