Oil giant Shell bets on electric cars
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Owning a Tesla with solar tiles and power wall is 1. Incredibly expensive 2. Incredibly energy intensive and environmentally destructive to manufacture.
If you think your Tesla is "green" you're deluding yourself. If you look at it objectively a Honda Fit would be a FAR better choice for the planet and everyone living on it.
Electric cars are a GREAT idea... just not with current battery and electricity generating tech. +The Tesla Model S and X are ridiculous, heavy, bloated, overly expensive, subsidized(!!!)... A luxury car designed to make rich folks feel a little better about themselves, but it's a delusion.
And Elon Musk is a genius, that's for sure. Nobody can sell stock on speculation like he can!
Owning a Tesla with solar tiles and power wall is 1. Incredibly expensive 2. Incredibly energy intensive and environmentally destructive to manufacture.
If you think your Tesla is "green" you're deluding yourself. If you look at it objectively a Honda Fit would be a FAR better choice for the planet and everyone living on it.
Electric cars are a GREAT idea... just not with current battery and electricity generating tech. +The Tesla Model S and X are ridiculous, heavy, bloated, overly expensive, subsidized(!!!)... A luxury car designed to make rich folks feel a little better about themselves, but it's a delusion.
And Elon Musk is a genius, that's for sure. Nobody can sell stock on speculation like he can!
Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Owning a Tesla with solar tiles and power wall is 1. Incredibly expensive 2. Incredibly energy intensive and environmentally destructive to manufacture.
If you think your Tesla is "green" you're deluding yourself. If you look at it objectively a Honda Fit would be a FAR better choice for the planet and everyone living on it.
Electric cars are a GREAT idea... just not with current battery and electricity generating tech. +The Tesla Model S and X are ridiculous, heavy, bloated, overly expensive, subsidized(!!!)... A luxury car designed to make rich folks feel a little better about themselves, but it's a delusion.
And Elon Musk is a genius, that's for sure. Nobody can sell stock on speculation like he can!
let's not forget that almost everything inside/outside the car is produced from oil..refined Petrochemicals are in > 95% of the materials that make the car...any car for that matter.
Like most things the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Owning a Tesla with solar tiles and power wall is 1. Incredibly expensive 2. Incredibly energy intensive and environmentally destructive to manufacture.
If you think your Tesla is "green" you're deluding yourself. If you look at it objectively a Honda Fit would be a FAR better choice for the planet and everyone living on it.
Electric cars are a GREAT idea... just not with current battery and electricity generating tech. +The Tesla Model S and X are ridiculous, heavy, bloated, overly expensive, subsidized(!!!)... A luxury car designed to make rich folks feel a little better about themselves, but it's a delusion.
And Elon Musk is a genius, that's for sure. Nobody can sell stock on speculation like he can!
Solar cells are a great idea too. So are personal computers. So are cell-phones. If we all waited until they were highly optimized for cost and performance to purchase them, we would never advance the civilization. Solar cells are evolving in their efficiency every year, yet governments like China are installing millions of them anyway.
The inflexion point is now. Now is the time to change to electric, LEDs, wind farms and solar. The technology is ready. Electric cars are nothing new and most are in third or fourth generation. The planet requires it, if humans are to survive, and the diversity of animal life is to be maintained.
Steve N.
Steve N.
maybe...in the mind of a liberal who casts aside any notions of economics and practicality.
Now Steve is fair to assume that you and Bob are all signed up for this conference ? ...........
http://www.wplgroup.com/aci/event/co2-us/
http://www.wplgroup.com/aci/event/co2-us/
I partially agree... I got my ME degree with an eye towards renewable energy tech and have taken classes on evaluating it. I worked for Vestas Wind Turbines for a couple years and am responsible for a a good chunk of the assembly process design of the Nacelle and Hub factory in Brighton, CO. So I do think renewable energy is the future, it's just that supporting tech isn't quite there yet. Despite that, renewables can certainly be used for a fairly large chunk of energy production as things are and the EROEI (Energy return on energy invested) is quite good for wind turbines. I haven't looked into solar for a while so idk about that but I am aware their efficiency is advancing.
Now is not quite the time for electric cars though... the tech has not quite caught up with the concept. I think right now cars like the Tesla S and X are over the top and ridiculous, and the fact they are subsidized is ridiculous as well. IMO they are for rich folks who want to think they are doing something environmentally responsible so they can feel better, but it's delusional. The size and weight of these vehicles is ridiculous, as is the go-fast tech that shortens the life of their batteries which have massive environmental impacts to mine the materials and manufacture them. Plus most are recharged by fossil fuel powered electricity generation anyways, which is much less efficient than simply burning fossil fuels.
I was just reading this new article this morning on the latest study.
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...erta-oil-and-gas-wells-are-worse-than-thought
Methane emissions from oil and gas wells in Alberta, Canada; next door to me.
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...erta-oil-and-gas-wells-are-worse-than-thought
Methane emissions from oil and gas wells in Alberta, Canada; next door to me.
I would buy a Tesla SP100D. . . . . . for the sheer torque and acceleration,
but given the specs, the overwhelmingly "practical" car is the P100D.
To make sure this isn't taken the wrong way, we really need a "BAZINGA" emoticon.
but given the specs, the overwhelmingly "practical" car is the P100D.
To make sure this isn't taken the wrong way, we really need a "BAZINGA" emoticon.
• http://blog.ucsusa.org/rachael-nealer/gasoline-vs-electric-global-warming-emissions-953
• https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/
___
• http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a12823804/electric-vs-gas-powered-cars/
___
? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/
? https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-cars-pros-cons/
• https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/
___
• http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-technology/a12823804/electric-vs-gas-powered-cars/
? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/electric-cars-are-not-necessarily-clean/
? https://www.fleetcarma.com/electric-cars-pros-cons/
Last edited:
So, you are saying that because I want to save the planet and the human race by driving electricity rates up temporarily, I'm a liberal?
If you prioritize short-term economic gains and jobs over humans right to clean water, healthy air, pristine landscapes, and the existential threat of Global Warming, what does that make you?
Besides, I don't cast aside any notions. The economics of renewables and electric cars is what will make the world economy grow in the next century, not coal and oil. Chinese President Xi just gave an extensive talk to his party about how China will become the #1 world power and leave the US in the dust, by developing renewables and electric vehicles that the US has abandoned (except Tesla) and by abandoning oil and coal. He states plainly that the US is providing an opening for China to become #1 by abandoning the TPP and backing out of the Paris Accords. He says China will focus more on development than manufacturing in the future, just the opposite of what the Trump administration wants to do. Trump is taking us back to a pre-technology era to save blue-collar jobs. China is moving their people into a technology era and educating their people to do those jobs. It's technology that improves the standard of living and increases lifespan.
It's technology (automation, cheap natgas due to fracking and renewables) that has caused coal jobs to be lost. Steel mill, auto and other manufacturing jobs have been lost because of automation and because the US could not compete in the global markets without moving to other countries where either wages are cheaper, or they were unwilling to spend the capital to fully automate. There are millions of jobs unfilled in the US today because we don't have the skilled workers to fill them. Industries are pleading with Trump to loosen immigration so that we can fill those jobs.
Not only does the US have a population that is poorly educated compared to other developed countries, a significant number of people are now opioid addicts that cannot get a job. Education cannot solve everything in the technology era, but we have a long way to go to improve education if we want to fill those unfilled tech jobs. Some people are just not smart enough to do those technical jobs, so they will find work in home construction and maintenance, small manufacturing, food service or hospitality.
Hillary and Bernie have the right idea: make trade schools and community colleges government funded, so they are free for anyone. Instead of going to a 4-year college after high-school, those that cannot make the grade can learn trades like construction, machining, plumbing, electrician, welder, HASMAT technician etc.. Trump is encouraging companies to do more apprenticeships, but it needs more than just verbal encouragement. These companies need cash incentives, like tax breaks IMO.
In a society where there are a large number of citizens unqualified for the available jobs, some sort of welfare or subsidy system will eventually be required. This requires a more socialist government.
Steve N.
Last edited:
Sounds like another clean-coal solution. The largest, and one of the only operating power plants in the US with CO2 sequestration only pulls 10% of the CO2 from the exhaust. It also costs 15% of the power from the plant to remove the CO2 from the exhaust.
Not that this is not a bad idea, we need to be looking at all ideas, but it makes more sense to stop emitting so much excess CO2 that the trees and ocean cannot absorb in the next 20 years.
These types of solutions will be unlikely for vehicles. It will be much cheaper just to go with an electric vehicle. This is interesting for power plants using natgas though, since the transition to renewables will take decades.
Steve N.
Last edited:
you evidently don't know much about Tesla. Let me enlighten you:
Tesla Model 3 starts at $35K, so this is the peoples car, not luxury, although it is very nice.
Range is over 300 miles if you need it.
The weight of the car is beneficial for the best handling, ride and safety. Even the Model S, which is 5K lbs, is not that much heavier than similar luxury cars with big engines. The Tesla is Consumer Reports highest rated car for safety.
The Tesla can be charged from a power wall in your garage at night, which is charged during the day from Solar City roof tiles on your roof. Completely off the grid if you want. you can also put power back into the grid. I charge my Tesla from the AC power here, which is 97% renewable.
I fully expect my battery to last 20-25 years. The battery is never fully charged in order to increase its life. I will likely want to upgrade it with new battery technology at that time anyway.
Steve N.
Empirical Audio
I'm all for using gov't policy to drive positive change but it seems like this rarely works out... in the case of Tesla I think the subsidies were not the right thing to do because the cars aren't much better vs a smaller, fuel-efficient gas car, and could be worse depending on how they are recharged. We need to encourage new tech in smart ways that address the challenges we have in effective ways and gov't doesn't have the best track record in this. IDK what the best solution is, and I'm not sure there will be a good solution until more people put our long-term survival ahead of short-term convenience and gain.
And luckily for the US, our president's beliefs and behavior aren't law and many local gov'ts are committed to adhering to the Paris agreements. If all 50 states recognize it and the Fed gov't doesn't.. well it doesn't really matter anymore what he thinks or does. Unlike China, we have a lot more freedom to make these decisions on other-than-national levels. And China has a ways to go until their engineers are anywhere near as qualified as US and Europe although they will close this gap eventually.
So far the US as well as the entire world hasn't been moving fast enough on both climate change/energy issues as well as agriculture. Both are inter-related and inseparable, and ag issues are just as bad for us and the planet. In ag, we're moving in exactly the WRONG direction with gmo/roundup-ready crops, the use of powerful and persistent pesticides that kill all sorts of things we probably don't want to kill, like honeybees, but they are just the most noticeable insect out of hundreds or thousands of species we're killing. It's the combination of poor ag and poor energy practices that are going to cause problems.
The climate and ag issues are also going to hit feedback loops that are going to accelerate the rate of change of undesirable effects and it's all going to be much worse than we think right now. I've always thought, and still do, that the solution is going to have to be technology based, i.e. we are going to have to figure out how to manipulate the planet's climate and go back to organic, local agriculture. In many ways it IS too late to correct the damage we've done just by reducing the production of greenhouse gasses and adapting renewable energy tech. We're going to have to come up with tech to correct for these problems directly as well as adapting more sustainable methods of producing energy and food.
And luckily for the US, our president's beliefs and behavior aren't law and many local gov'ts are committed to adhering to the Paris agreements. If all 50 states recognize it and the Fed gov't doesn't.. well it doesn't really matter anymore what he thinks or does. Unlike China, we have a lot more freedom to make these decisions on other-than-national levels. And China has a ways to go until their engineers are anywhere near as qualified as US and Europe although they will close this gap eventually.
So far the US as well as the entire world hasn't been moving fast enough on both climate change/energy issues as well as agriculture. Both are inter-related and inseparable, and ag issues are just as bad for us and the planet. In ag, we're moving in exactly the WRONG direction with gmo/roundup-ready crops, the use of powerful and persistent pesticides that kill all sorts of things we probably don't want to kill, like honeybees, but they are just the most noticeable insect out of hundreds or thousands of species we're killing. It's the combination of poor ag and poor energy practices that are going to cause problems.
The climate and ag issues are also going to hit feedback loops that are going to accelerate the rate of change of undesirable effects and it's all going to be much worse than we think right now. I've always thought, and still do, that the solution is going to have to be technology based, i.e. we are going to have to figure out how to manipulate the planet's climate and go back to organic, local agriculture. In many ways it IS too late to correct the damage we've done just by reducing the production of greenhouse gasses and adapting renewable energy tech. We're going to have to come up with tech to correct for these problems directly as well as adapting more sustainable methods of producing energy and food.
Everyone posting in this thread are good concerned citizens. :b
We try to find solutions all together for a cleaner better world, that's all. Just like all countries do with the Paris Accord, ...except for two. :b
It's ok, because it won't last long; they'll eventually wake up when intelligent people replace the fake faces. :b Oups! Did I just say that...I sure did.
We try to find solutions all together for a cleaner better world, that's all. Just like all countries do with the Paris Accord, ...except for two. :b
It's ok, because it won't last long; they'll eventually wake up when intelligent people replace the fake faces. :b Oups! Did I just say that...I sure did.
After that statement I won't bother to refute your ignorant and biased comments. If you think a car that weighs more results in improved handling you're as delusional as all the Tesla owners who think their car is "saving the planet". I'm also not sure hydroelectric power can really be lumped in with renewables, it has some pretty major trade-offs. Might as well call nuclear renewable too if you think hydro is a great idea.
You seem smart but your enthusiasm for and economic buy-in of a Tesla vehicle is clouding your judgement. You're completely ignoring the downsides, which are substantial.
Staff online
-
treitz3Super Moderator
Members online
- Zdude
- lscangus
- Jambo
- Jackl3y
- han_n
- srmusic
- keithc
- matthias
- 2fastdriving
- ricjor1
- Salectric
- WildPhydeaux
- donnedonne
- ralphfcooke
- Young Skywalker
- XV-1
- budburma
- asamuelson
- jeffreybehr
- Bobvin
- Argonaut
- bgrav
- MJR
- cmchan
- baocrazy78
- treitz3
- pjwd
- ton77
- son
- TooCool4
- Dentdog
- DonH50
- Cutlr7
- Inline Six
- dimitrisx
- Ron Resnick
- MarkusBarkus
- ozzzy
- audio.bill
- luca.pelliccioli
- Maril555
- Superdad
- Colekat
- Gregadd
- Downtheline
- pattad
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |