Is Elon Musk ready for the straitjacket ?

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT), StarDust
wrote:

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:23:46 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 06:40:17 -0700 (PDT),

Most people lease EV cars, not own it. This tech is moving so fast, not worth to keep for long time.
Also, I wouldn't buy an EV car , unless I drive a lot or only use it to commute to work.
On EV cars , same with solar, the initial cost is too high, I think!
Takes 4-5 years when an EV car start to pay back.

This assumes, of course, that a simple economic payback is at the core
of your decision making process. A person can have other rational
considerations, as well.

It also depends on circumstance. Where I live it is often cheaper when
building a new house to install solar than to connect to the grid. It
pays for itself on the first day, and the subsequent cost per WH is
much less. So it's economically sound, even aside from the pleasure of
not being tied to a utility, and having a more robust power solution.

Where I live, it consumes a few liters of gasoline just getting to a
gas station. I could keep an electric car charged from a couple
hundred dollars worth of PV panels and that would cover almost all my
usage. I'd buy an electric car in an instant, except they haven't yet
produced one that meets my requirements- 4WD SUV format, not a hybrid.
I don't think it will be much longer, though.

yes, well, not every one has solar on roof, not even a house, they rent, but they would like to commute to work , cheap as possible.
Last few years, we're blessed with lower oil prices, but I don't think it will last.
Soon as this EV or hybrid technology is ready for the masses, oil prices will go up substantially and people will buy EV's like candy!

Over about a third of the U.S., solar is already the cheapest
technology. Over most of the U.S. it is quite close in cost to fossil
fuel power. And of course, solar is just getting cheaper, which isn't
going to happen with fossil fuels.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 10:15:11 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:19:07 -0700 (PDT),

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 7:23:46 AM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 06:40:17 -0700 (PDT),

Most people lease EV cars, not own it. This tech is moving so fast, not worth to keep for long time.
Also, I wouldn't buy an EV car , unless I drive a lot or only use it to commute to work.
On EV cars , same with solar, the initial cost is too high, I think!
Takes 4-5 years when an EV car start to pay back.

This assumes, of course, that a simple economic payback is at the core
of your decision making process. A person can have other rational
considerations, as well.

It also depends on circumstance. Where I live it is often cheaper when
building a new house to install solar than to connect to the grid. It
pays for itself on the first day, and the subsequent cost per WH is
much less. So it's economically sound, even aside from the pleasure of
not being tied to a utility, and having a more robust power solution.

Where I live, it consumes a few liters of gasoline just getting to a
gas station. I could keep an electric car charged from a couple
hundred dollars worth of PV panels and that would cover almost all my
usage. I'd buy an electric car in an instant, except they haven't yet
produced one that meets my requirements- 4WD SUV format, not a hybrid.
I don't think it will be much longer, though.

yes, well, not every one has solar on roof, not even a house, they rent, but they would like to commute to work , cheap as possible.
Last few years, we're blessed with lower oil prices, but I don't think it will last.
Soon as this EV or hybrid technology is ready for the masses, oil prices will go up substantially and people will buy EV's like candy!

Over about a third of the U.S., solar is already the cheapest
technology. Over most of the U.S. it is quite close in cost to fossil
fuel power. And of course, solar is just getting cheaper, which isn't
going to happen with fossil fuels.

Never know?

I don't have solar on my house either. One time I talk to a solar sales man, he said - solar is recommended if the average monthly electric bill is over $170 or more.
Otherwise it's not cost effective.
But that was 10 years ago, maybe it's cheaper now.
Back than it cost $20-25 thousand for an average size house for solar.

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:28:21 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 05:37:29 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Divide 150,000km into your driving. Now factor in the $14,000 the battery of a Volt or Leaf costs. Still cheaper than a gasoline car, which can easily hit 250,000km before needing a $3500 engine rebuild.

A new battery chemistry is in the offing.
With very rapid recharging but still limited lifespan.
But doubling in range at frequent intervals.
The holy grail and Achilles heel for electric vehicles is STILL the battery.

The rest is just familiar engineering.
With an overt emphasis on styling at the expense of efficiency and safety.
And, with enough built in obsolescence to maintain a hungry annual market.
They already know how to build cars badly.
Because they've been doing it perfectly for the last century.

The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using taxpayer money to subsidize charging.

On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:31:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:28:21 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 05:37:29 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Divide 150,000km into your driving. Now factor in the $14,000 the battery of a Volt or Leaf costs. Still cheaper than a gasoline car, which can easily hit 250,000km before needing a $3500 engine rebuild.

A new battery chemistry is in the offing.
With very rapid recharging but still limited lifespan.
But doubling in range at frequent intervals.
The holy grail and Achilles heel for electric vehicles is STILL the battery.

The rest is just familiar engineering.
With an overt emphasis on styling at the expense of efficiency and safety.
And, with enough built in obsolescence to maintain a hungry annual market.
They already know how to build cars badly.
Because they've been doing it perfectly for the last century.

The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using taxpayer money to subsidize charging.

Taxpayer money currently subsidizes all fossil fuels, and to a much
larger degree than electric cars.

There is no doubt that electric cars will replace internal combustion
cars in the near future. That is a societally beneficial transition,
and therefore it is reasonable for public money to be used to speed up
this transition- and subsidies are one way that is done.

RichA:
The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using taxpayer
money to subsidize charging.

Chris L Peterson:
Taxpayer money currently subsidizes all fossil fuels, and to a much
larger degree than electric cars.

Indeed! In addition to direct subsidies and tax breaks, the cost of our
current oil wars in the Muddle East is estimated by the Congressional
Budget Office at $2.4 trillion. That includes interest, as the wars are
being fought with borrowed money; the U.S. is $20 trillion short of
having a dime. $2.4 trillion is more than 1000 times greater than
federal subsidies for electric vehicle development and purchases.

There is no doubt that electric cars will replace internal combustion
cars in the near future. That is a societally beneficial transition,
and therefore it is reasonable for public money to be used to speed up
this transition- and subsidies are one way that is done.

I'll take investment in domestic R&D over squandering on war any day.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:41:46 -0400, Davoud wrote:

I'll take investment in domestic R&D over squandering on war any day.

Most of the technology we value most today originated in publicly
funded research.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 16:23:03 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:31:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:28:21 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 05:37:29 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Divide 150,000km into your driving. Now factor in the $14,000 the battery of a Volt or Leaf costs. Still cheaper than a gasoline car, which can easily hit 250,000km before needing a $3500 engine rebuild.

A new battery chemistry is in the offing.
With very rapid recharging but still limited lifespan.
But doubling in range at frequent intervals.
The holy grail and Achilles heel for electric vehicles is STILL the battery.

The rest is just familiar engineering.
With an overt emphasis on styling at the expense of efficiency and safety.
And, with enough built in obsolescence to maintain a hungry annual market.
They already know how to build cars badly.
Because they've been doing it perfectly for the last century.

The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using taxpayer money to subsidize charging.

Taxpayer money currently subsidizes all fossil fuels, and to a much
larger degree than electric cars.

There is no doubt that electric cars will replace internal combustion
cars in the near future. That is a societally beneficial transition,
and therefore it is reasonable for public money to be used to speed up
this transition- and subsidies are one way that is done.

Oil-powered vehicles have a wide range of side effects which we often take for granted simply through long familiarity:
Air pollution leading to millions of deaths worldwide annually directly through oil caused disease.
Noise pollution which undermines the quality of life over much of the world.
A single, "normal" vehicle at cruising speed can be heard over a mile away in a quiet rural setting.
How far away can a billion vehicles be heard?
Could alien life look for oil in our spectrum as a marker for a backward race, which can be easily conquered?
The sound of the engine is often a driver for psychotic driving behaviour in the vulnerable.
As hinted elsewhere, there is the unbelievably vast annual cost in defense of the indefensible.
Oil fuels conflict, terrorism and corruption right around the globe.
It empowers corrupt and backward dictatorships to wield infinitely more power than their impoverished citizens would normally enjoy.
No oil= No Islamic fundamentalism and probably no Islam in the newspapers.
Islam would probably not have survived without massive oil subsidy by corrupt despots in glittering palaces in untamed deserts.

Oil is the dying elephant in the shrinking room which we call home.
And it already stinks to high heaven!

On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:12:19 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 16:23:03 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:31:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:28:21 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 05:37:29 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Divide 150,000km into your driving. Now factor in the $14,000 the battery of a Volt or Leaf costs. Still cheaper than a gasoline car, which can easily hit 250,000km before needing a $3500 engine rebuild.

A new battery chemistry is in the offing.
With very rapid recharging but still limited lifespan.
But doubling in range at frequent intervals.
The holy grail and Achilles heel for electric vehicles is STILL the battery.

The rest is just familiar engineering.
With an overt emphasis on styling at the expense of efficiency and safety.
And, with enough built in obsolescence to maintain a hungry annual market.
They already know how to build cars badly.
Because they've been doing it perfectly for the last century.

The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using taxpayer money to subsidize charging.

Taxpayer money currently subsidizes all fossil fuels, and to a much
larger degree than electric cars.

There is no doubt that electric cars will replace internal combustion
cars in the near future. That is a societally beneficial transition,
and therefore it is reasonable for public money to be used to speed up
this transition- and subsidies are one way that is done.

Oil-powered vehicles have a wide range of side effects which we often take for granted simply through long familiarity:
Air pollution leading to millions of deaths worldwide annually directly through oil caused disease.
Noise pollution which undermines the quality of life over much of the world.
A single, "normal" vehicle at cruising speed can be heard over a mile away in a quiet rural setting.
How far away can a billion vehicles be heard?
Could alien life look for oil in our spectrum as a marker for a backward race, which can be easily conquered?
The sound of the engine is often a driver for psychotic driving behaviour in the vulnerable.
As hinted elsewhere, there is the unbelievably vast annual cost in defense of the indefensible.
Oil fuels conflict, terrorism and corruption right around the globe.
It empowers corrupt and backward dictatorships to wield infinitely more power than their impoverished citizens would normally enjoy.
No oil= No Islamic fundamentalism and probably no Islam in the newspapers.
Islam would probably not have survived without massive oil subsidy by corrupt despots in glittering palaces in untamed deserts.

Oil is the dying elephant in the shrinking room which we call home.
And it already stinks to high heaven!

It'll be around for a while, at least in your life time.
Even if the globe switch to electric cars, plastics still needs oil and for many other things , like shopping bags!
Jobs, paper or plastic, please?

StarDust wrote:
On Sunday, October 8, 2017 at 11:12:19 PM UTC-7, Chris.B wrote:
On Sunday, 8 October 2017 16:23:03 UTC+2, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 20:31:08 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Saturday, October 7, 2017 at 4:28:21 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 05:37:29 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
Divide 150,000km into your driving. Now factor in the $14,000 the
battery of a Volt or Leaf costs. Still cheaper than a gasoline car,
which can easily hit 250,000km before needing a $3500 engine rebuild.

A new battery chemistry is in the offing.
With very rapid recharging but still limited lifespan.
But doubling in range at frequent intervals.
The holy grail and Achilles heel for electric vehicles is STILL the battery.

The rest is just familiar engineering.
With an overt emphasis on styling at the expense of efficiency and safety.
And, with enough built in obsolescence to maintain a hungry annual market.
They already know how to build cars badly.
Because they've been doing it perfectly for the last century.

The only way an electric car would be cheaper is if they keep using
taxpayer money to subsidize charging.

Taxpayer money currently subsidizes all fossil fuels, and to a much
larger degree than electric cars.

There is no doubt that electric cars will replace internal combustion
cars in the near future. That is a societally beneficial transition,
and therefore it is reasonable for public money to be used to speed up
this transition- and subsidies are one way that is done.

Oil-powered vehicles have a wide range of side effects which we often
take for granted simply through long familiarity:
Air pollution leading to millions of deaths worldwide annually directly
through oil caused disease.
Noise pollution which undermines the quality of life over much of the world.
A single, "normal" vehicle at cruising speed can be heard over a mile
away in a quiet rural setting.
How far away can a billion vehicles be heard?
Could alien life look for oil in our spectrum as a marker for a backward
race, which can be easily conquered?
The sound of the engine is often a driver for psychotic driving
behaviour in the vulnerable.
As hinted elsewhere, there is the unbelievably vast annual cost in
defense of the indefensible.
Oil fuels conflict, terrorism and corruption right around the globe.
It empowers corrupt and backward dictatorships to wield infinitely more
power than their impoverished citizens would normally enjoy.
No oil= No Islamic fundamentalism and probably no Islam in the newspapers.
Islam would probably not have survived without massive oil subsidy by
corrupt despots in glittering palaces in untamed deserts.

Oil is the dying elephant in the shrinking room which we call home.
And it already stinks to high heaven!

It'll be around for a while, at least in your life time.
Even if the globe switch to electric cars, plastics still needs oil and
for many other things , like shopping bags!
Jobs, paper or plastic, please?


Oil isn’t necessary for plastics it’s just a convenient feedstock. Sugars
can do the job. Also coal.
In fact the coal can supply the CO2 needed to male plastics using sugar.

On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:12:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote:

Oil isn’t necessary for plastics it’s just a convenient feedstock. Sugars
can do the job. Also coal.
In fact the coal can supply the CO2 needed to male plastics using sugar.

Using oil for plastics isn't much of a problem, in any case, since
plastic sequesters fossil carbon, it doesn't release it into the
atmosphere. The problems with plastic are with the material itself,
regardless of the source feedstock.