Spin Forum Dumping Bin

[mtangelsfan]

7 minutes ago, #CF8 said:

Solar tech is becoming better every year. The more electricity we get from means other than burning petroleum, the better e-cars are than internal combustion cars in every way (as confirmed by these articles.) How anyone can hold on to the contrarian (conservative, lock-step rhetoric) view of e-cars is beyond stupid.

 

 

Its amazing how some people take criticism and make something so much bigger out of it.  Right now they are not the end all be all.  At this point in time, using an electric car is not saving the planet.  It may occur, or it may be some other tech that hasn't come yet.

[ABC]

3 minutes ago, Jason said:

It will but it isn't quite there yet. 

of course, it is, and only getting better. at some point, it'll be exponentially. then another tech will have the same growing pains to replace that current tech. rinse and repeat.

[ABC]

Anybody got some anti e-car article from 2003 they want to share?

 

[mtangelsfan]

http://www.triplepundit.com/podium/secret-environment-issues-caused-green-electric-cars/

Is this current enough for you?

[Lhalo]

Take the government subsidies away from electric cars and their sales would go down the toilet.

[Kevin]

8 hours ago, calscuf said:

Jay is busy watching Matlock.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound was off but I think I got the gist of it."

Cals prepping for a case.

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Lawrence said:

Take the government subsidies away from electric cars and their sales would go down the toilet.

i thought the stonecutters held back the electric car years ago.

[RallyMo]

15 hours ago, Lawrence said:

Take the government subsidies away from electric cars and their sales would go down the toilet.

Would you say that they'd be in such a dire condition that they'd need a gimormous government bailout, or is that unthinkable for a company involved in the automobile industry in your opinion?

[mtangelsfan]

No government bailouts.

Ever

[RallyMo]

38 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

No government bailouts.

Ever

I'm with you, man.

So is Lawrence.

[mtangelsfan]

I bet he is actually.

[RallyMo]

20 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

I bet he is actually.

Oh, I know it.

He need not worry about it, though. Even if Tesla and the like go kaput if and when subsidies go away, we'll always have a healthy traditional auto industry that has never had a need for financial shots in the arm from the government.

[mtangelsfan]

I don't think they will.  At some point the money will be there to basically force tech to find alternate fuels for transportation.

[Blarg]

I think the exponential curve of electric and solar power isn't coming any time soon. Scientifically there would have to be a discovery of some sort that changes the course of both industries to allow it's growth because we are close to the ceiling of what current technology can squeeze out of these resources. Just like petroleum products there is an end game to efficiency and how many Jules can be squeezed out of its atomic composition.

I looking forward to that group of people that find that new key to kingdom, it is the next step in weening from gas powered vehicles and oil dependency but we are in a fight between established energy providers and underfunded new technologies trying to grab market shares. 

This won't be my generations gift to humanity. That was personal computing that has accelerated learning. Kind of like the printing press started the move towards educating the masses, the personal computer and connecting everyone to databases of knowledge is moving this century forward but the fruits of that are really just graduating into the sciences that could be. My kids generation and those after are what will have that eureka moment.

Meanwhile I'll be in my garage trying to get a pair of 60 year old carburators to sync up so I can putter around the old town in a car unsafe at any speed next to the silent self driving cars on the road. It will be glorious.

[Adam]

I'm in the Alex Epstein camp. Maybe because I want to be, but he makes a compelling moral case for fossil fuels. 

[red321]

There is generally a ramp up curve when you start transitioning to a new technology, especially when you consider there are multiple pieces. The development of the electric car technology, battery technology, and renewable energy production or all interlocked pieces. The Western states are already making huge strides in transitioning to renewables, the Times had a recent article talking about how California's solar industry is outpacing the electric grids ability to store all the energy produced some days and it needs to work with other states to dump extra power...that is something that will improve over time (upgrades to power grid, better battery technologies) and allow California to depend even less on fossil fuels.

It's an interesting article and really paints a picture that one of the challenges is the state isn't coordinating its energy policy and is in a period of flux as we transition from fossil fuels as a primary source of energy, to be a backup source to fill in the gaps.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-electricity-solar/

Perhaps the most glaring example: The California Legislature has mandated that one-half of the state’s electricity come from renewable sources by 2030; today it’s about one-fourth. That goal once was considered wildly optimistic. But solar panels have become much more efficient and less expensive. So solar power is now often the same price or cheaper than most other types of electricity, and production has soared so much that the target now looks laughably easy to achieve....

....The average cost of solar power for residential, commercial and utility-scale projects declined 73% between 2010 and 2016. Solar electricity now costs 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour — the amount needed to light a 100-watt bulb for 10 hours — to produce, or about the same as electricity produced by a natural gas plant and half the cost of a nuclear facility, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

[red321]

48 minutes ago, Adam said:

I'm in the Alex Epstein camp. Maybe because I want to be, but he makes a compelling moral case for fossil fuels. 

No he doesn't...at least from what I can see on the book recap.

Myth: Fossil fuels are hurting the developing world.
Truth: Fossil fuels are the key to improving the quality of life for billions of people in the developing world. If we withhold them, access to clean water plummets, critical medical machines like incubators become impossible to operate, and life expectancy drops significantly. Calls to “get off fossil fuels” are calls to degrade the lives of innocent people who merely want the same opportunities we enjoy in the West.

 

Or Truth...you can use clean technologies to help the developing world improve quality of life, rather than building their industry and last centuries technology while the modern world moves to renewable clean energy

[Adam]

I've seen/heard a lot of interviews with him and he doesn't argue against that.  He argues against extreme measures that would cripple the developing worlds. Alternative energies are nowhere near capable of helping and may never be.

 

 I've gotten through about half of this.

 

[red321]

The idea that renewable energies can't get you there 100% immediately, or ever, is just poor logic. The last few years have seen significant investments in renewables and we've seen the cost come down and efficiencies go up..and maybe we never to get 100%, but if you can get to 80-90% you can then fill in the gap.

There is always a transition period as economies and society moves from one phase to another. How you manage that transition is what's important.

We moved from stone to bronze to iron. We transitioned from horse, to steam train, to car, to airplane. That didn't happen overnight.

I think part of the challenge is both sides argue against the extreme position of the other side, rather than sit down and figure out what is ultimately the best strategic plan.

[Adam]

8 minutes ago, red321 said:

 

We transitioned from horse, to steam train, to car, to airplane. That didn't happen overnight.

 

It took fossil fuels!!

 

I think Epstein's concerns about eliminating a large portion of fossil fuel use and its impact on the world is pretty compelling. That's all. The rhetorical question appears to be "why greatly sacrafice quality of life for what are potentially minsicule environmental benefits.?" If that is the case, which is what Epstein's primary point is, it doesn't make much sense to me. 

 

[Adam]

PS - if you watch that debate, be prepared to sit through two guys who don't seem to like talking in front of audiences much. 

[red321]

Just now, Adam said:

It took fossil fuels!!

 

I think Epstein's concerns about eliminating a large portion of fossil fuel use and its impact on the world is pretty compelling. That's all. The rhetorical question appears to be "why greatly sacrafice quality of life for what are potentially minsicule environmental benefits.?" If that is the case, which is what Epstein's primary point is, it doesn't make much sense to me. 

 

It absolutely did...and now we are moving beyond fossil fuels.

If he's basing his argument on the miniscule environmental benefits line, especially when you take into consideration climate change and the significant environmental damage that results from fossil fuels. (coal, air quality, carbon, oil spills, carcinogens, etc. etc. etc.) it's hard to take it very seriously.

 

[Adam]

4 minutes ago, red321 said:

It absolutely did...and now we are moving beyond fossil fuels.

If he's basing his argument on the miniscule environmental benefits line, especially when you take into consideration climate change and the significant environmental damage that results from fossil fuels. (coal, air quality, carbon, oil spills, carcinogens, etc. etc. etc.) it's hard to take it very seriously.

 

He seems to suggest that our energies would be better focused on creating technologies to combat the impact of fossil fuels rather than eliminating fossil fuels. 

But his larger point is that alternative sources are far too inefficient and expensive. 

[Jay]

There are undesirable environmental side-effects of solar and battery technology. Maybe not so much CO2 pollution but other forms of pollution.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy

 

[Jason]

https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-06-29/judge-blocks-californias-high-capacity-magazine-ban

A win for constitutional rights. I know many on this forum are anti gun but this was a major overreach of the California DOJ and bullshit law! Government seizing legally obtained property is not a thing we should be OK with. At least I'm not