Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Texas and Teslas


  • Please log in to reply
238 replies to this topic

#1 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 10 April 2022 - 22:00

Having just spent a week in and around Austin Texas three things struck me

 

The new Tesla giga factory out side Austin is indeed giga enormous at 4 million sq. foot. It is a full plant too with stamping presses etc.

 

Secondly Austin is full of Teslas  - Model S and Y as well as Model 3. I know Austin is a bit of a liberal island in Texas etc but they are really common and you see other EV's too. Given Texas as the home of the oil industry and it's huge distances that really surprised me.

 

With low taxes on gas and, as far as I am aware, no big purchase tax breaks Texas is tough  market fr EV's so even more surprising versus , say London.

 

Seeing tesla's in rich city isn't that unusual but we also saw plenty out 40 miles beyond the city which strongly suggests to me that EV range anxiety is not a real issue even in Texas.

 

IF EV's can succeed in Texas I think they can succeed anywhere!



Advertisement

#2 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 10 April 2022 - 22:38

There is a pretty cool drone video of the Texas Tesla gigafactory going around on YouTube. If you are familiar with production lines you will definitely want to check it out. Take special note of the megacasting for the rear floor plan and superstructure. A front megacasting is also in the works. Much of the industry is now rushing to copy the process, or try if they can. 



#3 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 April 2022 - 01:11

Love him or hate him, it is pretty remarkable what he’s managed to accomplish and the talent he’s managed to attract and (I hate this word) empower. Perhaps set loose or unleash…

I had a manager like that once (in his own way). When he arrived, we ended up at loggerheads on the regular because I didn’t understand what it was he wanted from me. Then one day, exasperated, he said “This! All of this! This is all yours, you run it! Stop asking for permission, just execute”. From that moment on we got on like a house on fire, and execute I did.

It’s astonishing what can be accomplished when the “manager” removes obstacles instead of placing them.

#4 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 11 April 2022 - 13:40

Having seen the size of the Tesla Austin plant I wondered if it was bigger than the GM Arlington Texas SUV plant .

 

No way , Tesla is 4 million sq ft , Arlington is 5.75 million, nearly 50% bigger. . Mind you a Suburban is 25% longer than a Model 3 so it makes sense!

 

We happened to drive past it a second time last Thursday night when they had the launch party. The whole thing was full of flashing lights etc inside , I think 15,000 attended - definately rockin'



#5 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 28,847 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 April 2022 - 14:06

I am waiting for the Texas brownouts to sour the public mood on powering cars from the socket.



#6 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 23,836 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 11 April 2022 - 17:10

I am waiting for the Texas brownouts to sour the public mood on powering cars from the socket.

Are the Texas Brownouts the NFL team in Austin?



#7 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 April 2022 - 13:07

Cities and districts need and want big companies to locate a factory or warehouse in their area. They are offering themselves up and reckon that they can work out a good deal with challenging teams.

 

https://www.texasmon...factory-austin/

 

"In Tesla’s case, the incentive agreement allows the company to cap its property value at $80 million, as opposed to its projected $1.1 billion valuation, meaning that Tesla will pay just $776,000 a year in property taxes for the first ten years, as opposed to the more than $5 million it would pay without the tax break. The Tesla property’s current tenant, a gravel mining facility, pays just $6,400 a year in property taxes..."

 

Ten years of taxes: gravel miners at $64,000, Tesla at $7.8 million with tax breaks or Tesla at $50 million without tax breaks. Mmm, the problem is whether companies like Tesla drive up the local tax break so much that it will never be paid by other local economic development. 



#8 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 12 April 2022 - 20:12

Thanks Magoo for recommending the factory videos, the front and rear castings and the film  battery production  are very impressive.

 

Using big castings for a car front end is not new as automotive historians may remember the Gregoire AFG and Hotchkiss cast ally car frames in the 1940's.

 

https://www.curbside...hkiss-gregoire/

 

By all accounts Gregoire was not the easiest designer to get along with, that and the poverty of 1946 France doomed his idea which  lso lacked the  technilogical tools available to Tesla but a similar concept 



#9 Chubby_Deuce

Chubby_Deuce
  • Member

  • 6,628 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 13 April 2022 - 14:39

Austin also has money, similar to the SF Bay Area. They're everywhere here because people who can afford $2 million houses can also afford lifestyle brands like Tesla.



#10 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 13 April 2022 - 22:41

Oddly the EIA still thinks the vast majority of light vehicle sales in the USA in 2050 will be gasoline. Not even hybrids. I am rather surprised. If that is so then we'll need to hire a lot of powertrain engineers back.

 

https://www.eia.gov/...resentation.pdf



#11 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 13 April 2022 - 23:35

They are threatening (or perhaps have, I’ve stopped paying attention) to pass legislation that would kybosh the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2030 or 2035 here in Trudystopia.

#12 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 April 2022 - 03:00

Oddly the EIA still thinks the vast majority of light vehicle sales in the USA in 2050 will be gasoline. Not even hybrids. I am rather surprised. If that is so then we'll need to hire a lot of powertrain engineers back.

 

https://www.eia.gov/...resentation.pdf

 

So much for net zero by 2050.

 

Not sure how they came up with that. Certainly the majority of European makers will be 100% EV.



#13 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 April 2022 - 07:30

I suppose I'm going to have to look at their methodology. It certainly disagrees with the current 'consensus', most first world countries seem to be angling towards 50%-90% BEV by 2030-2035.



#14 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,798 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 April 2022 - 10:52

They are threatening (or perhaps have, I’ve stopped paying attention) to pass legislation that would kybosh the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2030 or 2035 here in Trudystopia.

Great idea in a cold climate. ehem. Pretty sure Trudeau is done next election tho right? When is that?



#15 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 68,126 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 April 2022 - 12:31

So much for net zero by 2050.

 

 

Why do we think transportation is the solution? Low hanging fruit? Industrial power generation(ie the manufacturing of materials) has huge potential gains. Commercial power generation and efficiencies in transmission and more energy efficient homes/buildings have potential. I'd rather x-thousand in home improvement credits than new car purchases. 

There are gains in existing infrastructure tweaks than trying to create an entirely new car industry and car-energy network.



#16 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 14 April 2022 - 13:53

At first glance the 50% of US vehicles as EV's by 2050 does seem low but three things are worth considering which might explain it.

 

1) While EU and UK governments have publically committed to passing laws requiring 100% EV or hybrid by 2035 at teh latest. So VAG, BMW etc have had to declare 100% EV production. No such binding commitments exist in the USA and given the current balance of power in  USA  politics and it would be silly for the AEA to assume such a law will happen.

 

2) Whilst Ford and GM have siad they will be 100% EV in USA by 2035 the Japanese mfrs. haven't done so and Stellantis have said only 50% EV in USA in their last investor briefing.. So the EIA don't have any legal or corporate evidence of 100% EV by 20235.

 

3) Vehicle life is quite high in USA , about 12.1 yrs average so , say 15 yrs to scrapping. Therefore to get 50% EV by 2050 you need 50% EV sales by 2035. 

 

So their assumptions may not be to far out?


Edited by mariner, 14 April 2022 - 14:22.


#17 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 14 April 2022 - 21:50

They were specifically talking about new vehicle sales, not fleet, other than that I agree.



#18 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 April 2022 - 23:28

Great idea in a cold climate. ehem. Pretty sure Trudeau is done next election tho right? When is that?

There are other bigger issues with some of the energy policies being pushed, besides transportation. The “we must do something immediately” crowd seems to be over-riding the “your punitive taxes on fossil fuels will freeze and starve the poor to death” crowd. Beats me who’s correct but I would guess somewhere in the middle. Irrespective, we’re being led by a Teflon buffoon. Doesn’t seem to matter how many scandals he’s involved in or how many missteps, he’s still the chosen one, especially because “conservatives will have your gay children converted and your wives tied to the oven while Bruno g immigrants at the stake” crowd seems to have some traction on social media. I’m not familiar with this world anymore.

#19 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 April 2022 - 23:50

Why do we think transportation is the solution? Low hanging fruit? Industrial power generation(ie the manufacturing of materials) has huge potential gains. Commercial power generation and efficiencies in transmission and more energy efficient homes/buildings have potential. I'd rather x-thousand in home improvement credits than new car purchases. 

There are gains in existing infrastructure tweaks than trying to create an entirely new car industry and car-energy network.

Transportation is not "the solution".

OTOH when a government commits to net zero by 2050 (most countries now - even China by 2060) I cant see how that is possible with a large percentage of new car car sales remaining fossil-fueled.



Advertisement

#20 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 14 April 2022 - 23:52

There are other bigger issues with some of the energy policies being pushed, besides transportation. The “we must do something immediately” crowd seems to be over-riding the “your punitive taxes on fossil fuels will freeze and starve the poor to death” crowd.

The "must do something immediately" crowd includes the vast majority of scientists so I wager they are right.



#21 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 April 2022 - 00:17

Cities and districts need and want big companies to locate a factory or warehouse in their area. They are offering themselves up and reckon that they can work out a good deal with challenging teams.

 

https://www.texasmon...factory-austin/

 

"In Tesla’s case, the incentive agreement allows the company to cap its property value at $80 million, as opposed to its projected $1.1 billion valuation, meaning that Tesla will pay just $776,000 a year in property taxes for the first ten years, as opposed to the more than $5 million it would pay without the tax break. The Tesla property’s current tenant, a gravel mining facility, pays just $6,400 a year in property taxes..."

 

Ten years of taxes: gravel miners at $64,000, Tesla at $7.8 million with tax breaks or Tesla at $50 million without tax breaks. Mmm, the problem is whether companies like Tesla drive up the local tax break so much that it will never be paid by other local economic development. 

 

 

I am opposed to sweetheart tax and real estate deals to lure in manufacturers. With automation and mechanization, the number of jobs they actually provide is shrinking every day, when jobs are typically the main argument for the special incentives. So it's a kind of bait-and-switch. In truth these deals are great for the politicians and powers that be, but not so much for the taxpayers or for working people. 


Edited by Magoo, 15 April 2022 - 00:17.


#22 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 15 April 2022 - 00:19

I believe all the global automakers will be out of the ICE business well before 2050 except for a few weird niche markets -- with or without government mandates. EVs are better, that is all. 



#23 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 April 2022 - 11:16

With automation and mechanization, the number of jobs they actually provide is shrinking every day, when jobs are typically the main argument for the special incentives. 

Yes, automation is an important consideration. To be fair to "economic regeneration managers", their main argument for many years has been that they bring in fairly well paid managerial jobs which create lower paid jobs in retail and services. This has to be offset against a temporary spike in property prices and wage inflation. But the demand for economic regeneration always favours big companies until local authorities act less desperately.



#24 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 17 April 2022 - 15:57

The "must do something immediately" crowd includes the vast majority of scientists so I wager they are righ

 

Indeed. We know from history that large groups are never wrong, never biased, never coerced.

 

Note here - I'm not saying they're wrong, but the list of things that scientists have been wrong about in the past is rather enormous, and that's fine because science is method or process, not a thing and at least in theory, future science can either corroborate or correct past science. At present, scientists can't seem to agree on what a proper human diet is or even whether sex and gender are mutable constructs or immutable biology, but we can surely trust them about climate change because there's definitely no risk to funding or future employment opportunities if you stand against the status quo, there's no vested interests, nobody standing to make enormous amount of money or consolidate enormous amount of power and control should we fully embrace the climate change model of "humans are a pox on the earth".

 

The greenness of green energy is in some cases a complete fraud (biomass in particular) or hiding the very real non-dollar costs, from conflict minerals to fossil-fuel intensive, unrecyclable carbon fiber to dangerous chemical waste products. The same companies that are embracing climate change with both hands are still trying to sell you a new phone every year, clothing fashion periods that are literally measured in days, a "globally connected supply chain" that has zero resilience and posits that having your energy-intensive, chemical-waste-producing products made in countries with zero health protections, zero workers rights and pitiful wages is in fact a good thing for everyone. Perhaps I'm too cynical but everyone is lying, everyone is grifting, it is always about the money.   It doesn't matter what position on any issue you take - someone has found a means to monetize it (or else you wouldn't have heard of it) and the moment money is on the line, truth takes a back seat.



#25 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 17 April 2022 - 16:06

Just as a tack on to my previous post. I'm not in any way opposed to electric transportation. I have some tinfoil concerns about "my" data being streamed in real-time to big corps but that is absolutely a losing battle on pretty much every front. I think from a car-guy perspective, Magoo has made convincing arguments. Tesla's product is clearly more than sufficient for 90% (perhaps more) of private transport needs and I think save for the bonzai coastal runs, would meet my family's needs without any hiccup whatsoever. Unfortunately I a) like to own, not lease and b) am still paying for a house and three kids.The cheapest used Tesla was still more than the last three cars I've purchased combined.

 

I look forward to the day when I have the power and performance of an electric car, along with the convenience of "filling up" at home. Although I hear that it's worthwhile to build out your own window-washing station (assuming you live somewhere with precipitation and/or melting snow) at home.



#26 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 April 2022 - 04:40

Indeed. We know from history that large groups are never wrong, never biased, never coerced.

 

Note here - I'm not saying they're wrong, but the list of things that scientists have been wrong about in the past is rather enormous, and that's fine because science is method or process, not a thing and at least in theory, future science can either corroborate or correct past science. At present, scientists can't seem to agree on what a proper human diet is or even whether sex and gender are mutable constructs or immutable biology, but we can surely trust them about climate change because there's definitely no risk to funding or future employment opportunities if you stand against the status quo, there's no vested interests, nobody standing to make enormous amount of money or consolidate enormous amount of power and control should we fully embrace the climate change model of "humans are a pox on the earth".

 

The greenness of green energy is in some cases a complete fraud (biomass in particular) or hiding the very real non-dollar costs, from conflict minerals to fossil-fuel intensive, unrecyclable carbon fiber to dangerous chemical waste products. The same companies that are embracing climate change with both hands are still trying to sell you a new phone every year, clothing fashion periods that are literally measured in days, a "globally connected supply chain" that has zero resilience and posits that having your energy-intensive, chemical-waste-producing products made in countries with zero health protections, zero workers rights and pitiful wages is in fact a good thing for everyone. Perhaps I'm too cynical but everyone is lying, everyone is grifting, it is always about the money.   It doesn't matter what position on any issue you take - someone has found a means to monetize it (or else you wouldn't have heard of it) and the moment money is on the line, truth takes a back seat.

 

Not relevant to my point.

If you need to take a wager one way or the other, only a fool would bet against such a large consensus among experts. 



#27 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 23,836 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 18 April 2022 - 09:15

Not relevant to my point.

If you need to take a wager one way or the other, only a fool would bet against such a large consensus among experts. 

Especially if you are likely to be burnt at the stake for blaspheming against the large consensus that the Sun, Moon and stars orbited around the Earth.  

 

Or be ostracised if you deny the existence of phlogiston, or that human health is reliant on the four humours.

 

It is wise to retain a degree of scepticism when all the experts appear to agree.



#28 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 18 April 2022 - 09:56

Big clue - they don't actually agree when it gets to the nitty gritty

 

 Is there more CO2 than in 1880? yes. Has the earth got warmer on average since then? yes. After that I'm afraid the consensus becomes cherry picking. If bloke A says 99% of the temperature rise is due to CO2, and bloke B says 51%, are they agreeing?



#29 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,041 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 18 April 2022 - 18:01

Private cars, I'm told, only contribute 7% of CO2 emmissions - Surely we're aiming at the wrong target; by far the largest nett contributor is food production, in particular, meat production; and no, I'm not a veggie...



#30 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 April 2022 - 21:39

Need to target everything if the goal is zero. Cars seem to be fairly easy. The technology exists already, just need to get costs down and scale up.



#31 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 April 2022 - 21:40

Especially if you are likely to be burnt at the stake for blaspheming against the large consensus that the Sun, Moon and stars orbited around the Earth.  

Galileo vs Pope?

The scientist was right.


Edited by gruntguru, 18 April 2022 - 21:40.


#32 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 18 April 2022 - 22:53

Especially if you are likely to be burnt at the stake for blaspheming against the large consensus that the Sun, Moon and stars orbited around the Earth.  

 

Or be ostracised if you deny the existence of phlogiston, or that human health is reliant on the four humours.

 

It is wise to retain a degree of scepticism when all the experts appear to agree.

 

Galileo vs Pope?

The scientist was right.

 

Way to miss the point.
 



#33 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,041 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 19 April 2022 - 18:25

I pulled up, just in time, at a "T" junction the other night - I thought that the dazzling light display was in the window in the shop on the other side of the road, it turned out that it was the arse-end of a Prius. Why, as lights consume battery power, do electric cars adorn themselves so?



#34 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 19 April 2022 - 18:36

I pulled up, just in time, at a "T" junction the other night - I thought that the dazzling light display was in the window in the shop on the other side of the road, it turned out that it was the arse-end of a Prius. Why, as lights consume battery power, do electric cars adorn themselves so?

LED lights cost sod all to run.  And EVs have big batteries.



#35 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 2,350 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 19 April 2022 - 20:20

I feel like LEDs in general have given engineers and product designers license to adorn everything with an endless array of lights. My favourites are the ones embedded in electronics that are likely to end up in your bedroom (phone, laptop, television etc) that invariably contain flashing, blinking, pulsing or otherwise absolutely unnecessary lights to pollute your sleeping darkness. On the upside it did push a lot of that garbage out of my bedroom.

#36 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 April 2022 - 11:22

I feel like LEDs in general have given engineers and product designers license to adorn everything with an endless array of lights. My favourites are the ones embedded in electronics that are likely to end up in your bedroom (phone, laptop, television etc) that invariably contain flashing, blinking, pulsing or otherwise absolutely unnecessary lights to pollute your sleeping darkness. On the upside it did push a lot of that garbage out of my bedroom.

LEDs are quite useful on TVs, hi-fi etc to remind you to check how much power they are using in stand-by. Sometimes you ought to pull out the plug like grandma.

 

The LEDs (old fashioned ones behind a light diffuser) on my landline phone in the bedroom also serve a purpose. The click from the PSU with the change of ambient light awakes me briefly so I know if there has been a brown out overnight.

 

Our old analogue office phones had a very limited volume control. A 50K or 30K resistor between the ringer contacts fixed it so that phones generated subtly different tones, each identifiable in a busy environment.

 

Brash signals are not necessarily more useful than discreet ones.



#37 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 9,041 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 20 April 2022 - 12:15

LED lights cost sod all to run.  And EVs have big batteries.

And light displays that look misleading may cause accidents...



#38 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 4,105 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 20 April 2022 - 12:44

And light displays that look misleading may cause accidents...

The rear lights of cars are pretty well regulated, I believe.



#39 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,347 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 April 2022 - 13:35

The rear lights of cars are pretty well regulated, I believe.

Probably not enforced. Years ago, UK bicycle lighting regulations required a lamp defined by area and minimum luminance. It would be hard to find anything in retail outlets today which complies with that law. Lots of bright lights, flashing lights, but unlikely to meet the area criteria. When a cyclist is moving around stationary vehicles in the dark, a big red lamp is more identifiable than a small bright flasher.

 

And so with silly car lighting systems. Car manufacturers should not appoint "designers" to design lighting systems, noting that many designers understand the safety issues as much as engineers. The quality and safety sign off for a design must come from an engineer rather than a stylist.



Advertisement

#40 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 2,143 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 20 April 2022 - 13:41

One big opportunity for EV's in the USA has only just struck me  - CAR WASH'S

 

Once most US car wash's were the pull through mechanical type, now with so many SUV's  and pick-up,s they are mainly static spray it yourself bays . It takes at least 10 minutes to washa car yourself and probably nearer 20 minutes for big SUV. So that is enough time to put 100 miles into an EV battery without wasting any personal time.

 

The US is covered in car washes , all with power supplies and lots of space plus cash desk etc. Whilst many are "mom and pop" there are also large chains of over 150 outlets whom would potntially have the capital backing to install EV points.

 

If I were an entrepreneur with some risk capital I might go around all those car washes to sign them up for EV charger pods at each wash bay with me providing all the power installation.

 

BUT would it be safe to have the charger plugged in while you wash the car?


Edited by mariner, 20 April 2022 - 13:42.


#41 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 9,061 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 20 April 2022 - 17:40

One big opportunity for EV's in the USA has only just struck me  - CAR WASH'S

 

Once most US car wash's were the pull through mechanical type, now with so many SUV's  and pick-up,s they are mainly static spray it yourself bays . It takes at least 10 minutes to washa car yourself and probably nearer 20 minutes for big SUV. So that is enough time to put 100 miles into an EV battery without wasting any personal time.

 

The US is covered in car washes , all with power supplies and lots of space plus cash desk etc. Whilst many are "mom and pop" there are also large chains of over 150 outlets whom would potntially have the capital backing to install EV points.

 

If I were an entrepreneur with some risk capital I might go around all those car washes to sign them up for EV charger pods at each wash bay with me providing all the power installation.

 

BUT would it be safe to have the charger plugged in while you wash the car?

That's an interesting one - it makes sense to look into it.

However, I think there's a lot of other low hanging fruits - restaurants, supermarkets, malls etc - basically every time your car is parked it's a great opportunity for some added mileage. 



#42 BRG

BRG
  • Member

  • 23,836 posts
  • Joined: September 99

Posted 20 April 2022 - 18:51

BUT would it be safe to have the charger plugged in while you wash the car?

3 phase power and high pressure water jets?  A marriage made in Heaven.  



#43 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 6,595 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 20 April 2022 - 19:26

will boost the used-car market :)



#44 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 7,425 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 20 April 2022 - 21:22

Indeed. We know from history that large groups are never wrong, never biased, never coerced.

 

Note here - I'm not saying they're wrong, but the list of things that scientists have been wrong about in the past is rather enormous, and that's fine because science is method or process, not a thing and at least in theory, future science can either corroborate or correct past science. At present, scientists can't seem to agree on what a proper human diet is or even whether sex and gender are mutable constructs or immutable biology, but we can surely trust them about climate change because there's definitely no risk to funding or future employment opportunities if you stand against the status quo, there's no vested interests, nobody standing to make enormous amount of money or consolidate enormous amount of power and control should we fully embrace the climate change model of "humans are a pox on the earth".

 

The greenness of green energy is in some cases a complete fraud (biomass in particular) or hiding the very real non-dollar costs, from conflict minerals to fossil-fuel intensive, unrecyclable carbon fiber to dangerous chemical waste products. The same companies that are embracing climate change with both hands are still trying to sell you a new phone every year, clothing fashion periods that are literally measured in days, a "globally connected supply chain" that has zero resilience and posits that having your energy-intensive, chemical-waste-producing products made in countries with zero health protections, zero workers rights and pitiful wages is in fact a good thing for everyone. Perhaps I'm too cynical but everyone is lying, everyone is grifting, it is always about the money.   It doesn't matter what position on any issue you take - someone has found a means to monetize it (or else you wouldn't have heard of it) and the moment money is on the line, truth takes a back seat.

I wanted to provide a detailed response to this but haven't had to time to research the numbers. The point you make - which I will generalise as "follow the money" is a good one. Unfortunately the "money" you are choosing to follow (climate research) is a tiny drop in a very big ocean. On the opposing side you have the fossil fuel industry and fossil fuel reserves. About 50% of all economically recoverable reserves are still in the ground https://fossilfuel.c...-fuel-reserves/. With historically escalating prices, the future value of those reserves would be several times the value of what has been extracted so far.

 

Anyone care to guess how much money that is? I wonder how many scientists you could buy with that money?



#45 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 3,216 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 24 April 2022 - 22:24

It appears to me that in research funding, there is far better money on the denial side of climate change, the problem being the lack of credible material and arguments. 



#46 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 24,990 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 24 April 2022 - 23:13

The Earth doesn't have a big PR budget and massive political operation throwing money around to protect its interests. Of course climate denialism is far better funded than honest research.



#47 Fat Boy

Fat Boy
  • Member

  • 2,455 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 25 April 2022 - 00:35

I'm tired of Armageddon all the time. I quit.

#48 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 10,608 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 25 April 2022 - 01:35

The "must do something immediately" crowd includes the vast majority of scientists so I wager they are right.

Last night I was watching a special on ancient Egypt,, and they referred to global warming about 4000 years ago.

And as most should know we are in an ice age now. The world is cyclical.

Not saying we are helping it but all the climate 'experts' cant see back 40 years let alone 4000.

A dozen years ago during a drought we had an 'expert' that siad the River Murray would never run again. Subsequently it has flooded twice since then.. Same 'expert' said the seas would rise some hege amount. So then he buys a beachside house.

Known as Flim Flamery and was Australian of the year. With a Labor Govt!



#49 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 6,136 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 25 April 2022 - 01:55

 Lord Thomas B. Macaulay said, back in 1830, in response to Thomas Malthus’ gloomy theory about mankind’s future expressed in 1795 :

“We cannot prove that those are in error who tell us that society has reached a turning point, that we have seen our best days. But so said all before us, and with just as much apparent reason. On what principle is that, when we see nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”

 

My friends just bought a house 2 plots away from Tim's, I wonder how he justifies having to use  an outboard motor to get his shopping (there's no road access, everyone has a jetty and a runabout).


Edited by Greg Locock, 25 April 2022 - 02:14.


#50 Catalina Park

Catalina Park
  • Member

  • 6,606 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 25 April 2022 - 05:44

A dozen years ago during a drought we had an 'expert' that siad the River Murray would never run again.

Tim Flannery never actually said that. Can you show me anything from a reliable source that shows this quote?

Same 'expert' said the seas would rise some hege amount. So then he buys a beachside house.

Tim Flannery was quoting NASA’s James Hanson on the possibility of a 25 metre sea-level rise due to catastrophic ice melt and notes that such an eventuality would take thousands of years to materialise given current melt rates.
So thousands of years? I think his waterfront place is safe for now.

Known as Flim Flamery and was Australian of the year. With a Labor Govt!

He was named Australian of the year by John Howard.