Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 43 of 43

Thread: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

  1. #26
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    According to one of my 'mentors', the original Tesla turbine of ~100 years ago suffered from two 'real world' problems ... the first was that in order to achieve efficiency it had to operate at extremely high rpms ( like 50,000+ ) that the metallurgy and bearing technology of the time simply could not support. The second was that no investor money was forthcoming to promote Tesla's bladeless turbine in a market climate where internal combustion engines were still considered to be a 'new' technology in need of refinement. It was only the demands of WW2 defense technology ( and billions from various gov'ts ) that truly spurred gas turbine technological development ... and then they chose bladed turbines because the lower operating rpm's gave a better chance of quick success.

    As to the original development of railroads via private investment, this is true of areas where economic conditions were such that railroad operating revenues could justify the investment. Thus early rail developed near US eastern cities, near US eastern coal mines etc. The gov't subsidy angle came in when other areas that did NOT have sufficient potential for profitable railroad operation wanted rail service.

    In the case of Tesla roadsters, it would appear that the potential customer base that actually wants to buy, let alone can afford to buy the vehicle, is miniscule. Thus the entire Tesla pursuit has been, and will continue to be totally dependent on gov't subsidies in one form or another. Again, putting the electric vehicle arguments aside, the core question is whether or not the 1/2 billion in gov't subsidies already provided to Tesla Motors was a reasonably productive use of those taxpayer funds versus other possibilities that didn't happen for lack of gov't funding ( i.e. the new Constellation nuke power plant ).

  2. #27
    Featured Member
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,731
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 161 Times in 135 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    According to one of my 'mentors', the original Tesla turbine of ~100 years ago suffered from two 'real world' problems ... the first was that in order to achieve efficiency it had to operate at extremely high rpms ( like 50,000+ ) that the metallurgy and bearing technology of the time simply could not support. The second was that no investor money was forthcoming to promote Tesla's bladeless turbine in a market climate where internal combustion engines were still considered to be a 'new' technology in need of refinement. It was only the demands of WW2 defense technology ( and billions from various gov'ts ) that truly spurred gas turbine technological development ... and then they chose bladed turbines because the lower operating rpm's gave a better chance of quick success.
    I hope this isn't too big a threadjack. Originally I posted just to clear up confusion about Tesla. A lady I know, and whom I had previously told about the Tesla turbine, told me about the Tesla EV when it was in the news and thought it was the engine invented by Tesla.

    Tesla built, tested and ran a number of his turbines apparently with no failure of the components. Articles on the turbine appeared in industry and popular science journals from about 1910 to 1920, perhaps after. I have a book which contains reprints of many of these and none them reported problems, except for one written in 1943 which describes tests by Allis Chalmers Manufacturing Company of Milwaulkee conducted some years after the Tesla turbine's invention. Tesla walked out on these tests stating that Allis Chalmers did not build the turbines as he wished them to be built. The speeds quoted throughout the book I have are between about 1400 and 18000 rpm.

    In any case, the problems ACM reported were common to all types of turbines. More so for other types since buckets and blades were more vulnerable to breakage than the discs used in Tesla's turbine and required more precise orientation to the incoming fluid. These conventional turbines required frequent repair and overhaul because of this.The article said that (at the time of writing in 1943) these problems were still awaiting a solution. Hence this problem doesn't seem to be a reason for why other types of gas turbine were developed after WW2 and not Tesla's. It also doesn't explain why Tesla's turbine is not in production now that metals of superior strength are available. Weren't they developed with some of that post-war government funding?

    Tesla's turbine was tested by another person, Fritz Lowenstein, a consulting engineer with long experience with all types of turbines. Lowenstein reported no problems. Perhaps something was wrong at ACM.

    This article also says that Tesla was fairly undiplomatic and uncooperative (sometimes because of his quirks, such as nocturnal working hours) in his dealings with engineers and technical staff and this is one thing that tended to undermine his efforts to get support in putting his turbine into production. The article says he went over the heads of the engineers at ACM and proposed production of his turbine to the management, which apparently was not the done thing in engineering circles and may have put a few noses out of joint.

    As for internal combustion engines being a new development, it was obvious to engineers who knew of Tesla's engine at that time that it was superior in operating principle to the more complex conventional engines, with any possible degree of future refinement of those. Tesla himself recognized that the acceptance of his turbine in industry would be slow, considering the billions of dollars invested in conventional engines, and may have to await a time when industry had a pressing need for it, as had happened with his AC induction motor, which supplanted DC technology.

    That all said, the only way I'm going to be certain the turbine works as Tesla claimed is if I see one working. If it does, it wouldn't need government subsidies to become popular and would reduce fuel and oil consumption and emissions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenathefabulous View Post
    we are all perverts in the SC in my opinion. Hes a pervert, you're a pervert, I'm a pervert.

  3. #28
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    ^^^ actually, your threadjack circles back to two of the central points of 'green energy' ... the first of which for better or worse is the 'political' acceptance of certain types of technology by 'vested interests' i.e. the gov't, major gov't contractors, power players in industries that will be ( at least peripherally ) affected by the widespread implementation of that technology etc. In the case of Tesla's bladeless very high rpm turbine, versus the bladed medium rpm turbines that former piston engine contractors like Rolls Royce and ACM had developed during and immediately after WW2, this was a no-brainer.

    The second point is something that Tesla and 'green energy' advocates really don't like to talk about ... i.e. the 'complete cycle' efficiency numbers , thus actual 'cost versus benefit' numbers. In the case of the Tesla bladeless turbine ...

    (snip)"Efficiency is a function of power output. A light load makes for high efficiency and a heavy load, which increases the slip in the turbine, lowers the efficiency. This is not exclusive to Tesla turbines.
    The turbine efficiency of the gas Tesla turbine is estimated to be above 60, reaching a maximum of 95 percent. Keep in mind that turbine efficiency is different from the cycle efficiency of the engine using the turbine. Axial turbines which operate today in steam plants or jet engines have efficiencies of about 60 - 70 % (Siemens Turbines Data). This is different from the cycle efficiencies of the plant or engine which are between approximately 25% and 42%, and are limited by any irreversibilities to be below the Carnot cycle efficiency. Tesla claimed that a steam version of his device would achieve around 95 percent efficiency.

    In the 1950s, Warren Rice attempted to re-create Tesla's experiments, but he did not perform these early tests on a pump built strictly in line with the Tesla's patented design (it, among other things, was not a Tesla multiple staged turbine nor did it possess Tesla's nozzle). Rice's experimental single stage system used air as the working fluid. Rice's test turbines, as published in early reports, produced an overall measured efficiency of 36% to 41% for a single stage. Higher percentages would be expected if designed as originally proposed by Tesla.

    In his final work with the Tesla turbine and published just prior to his retirement, Rice conducted a bulk-parameter analysis of model laminar flow in multiple disk turbines. A very high claim for rotor efficiency (as opposed to overall device efficiency) for this design was published in 1991 entitled "Tesla Turbomachinery". This paper states:

    "With proper use of the analytical results, the rotor efficiency using laminar flow can be very high, even above 95%. However, in order to attain high rotor efficiency, the flowrate number must be made small which means high rotor efficiency is achieved at the expense of using a large number of disks and hence a physically larger rotor."

    Actual modern multiple stage bladed turbines typically reach 60% - 70% efficiency. Actual volute-rotor matched Tesla-type machines of reasonable size with common fluids (steam, gas, and water) would also be expected to be around this range (if not higher). "(snip)

    from


    Put another way, the 'headline' number of 95% efficiency of Tesla turbines must be footnoted to add that A. this efficiency only occurs at the turbine rotors and not for the overall machine, B. this efficiency only occurs at the light load end of the turbine's performance curve, C. that under 'real world' operating conditions, the Tesla turbine offers no significant overall efficiency advantage versus conventional bladed turbines, and as always D. the Tesla turbine costs more to build than coventional bladed turbines due to the higher rpm's, more demanding metallurgy and manufacturing processes, etc.

    The analogy to solar and wind should be somewhat obvious when similar footnotes are added that A. discount the requirements / costs of 'backing up' solar and wind power when the sun goes down or the wind stops blowing, B. derates solar and wind output when there are clouds in the sky or the wind is at less than gale force, C. discounts the environmental costs and worker safety costs of solar cell / rare earth wind generator production ( which are 'conveniently' now all hidden in China ) and D. recognition that the existing technology of nuclear power is far more cost effective and 'practical' from a 'complete cycle' standpoint.

  4. #29
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    ^^^The wind and solar both have storage capacity. In the case of solar with the roof panels over a parking lot, it can generate enough electric to power a good sized building as well as any cars that may need a charge in the lot for up to 3 days without sun. This capacity will of course be increased as time goes on and technology advances.

    There is no argument that the technology is not perfect at this time, but only by investing in it will it improve. Subsidies help speed things along and also create relatively high paying jobs when we really need them. Oil and gas have recieved subsidies for decades, why not give it to renewable fuel type technologies as well?. Of course it doesn't make sense "short" term, but if you don't make some decisions and sacrifices with "long" term in mind, you will fall behind and miss out on lots of opportunities, innovations and improvements.

    There is no need to choose between Nuclear and renewable energy, we can do both until/if the renewabe becomes the hands down winner in efficiency, cost, safety etc. The major nuclear project you mentioned being cancelled was terminated for a number of reasons and none of them had anything to do with "competing" with renewable energy for funds or implementation.

  5. #30
    Featured Member
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,731
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 161 Times in 135 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    ^^^The wind and solar both have storage capacity. In the case of solar with the roof panels over a parking lot, it can generate enough electric to power a good sized building as well as any cars that may need a charge in the lot for up to 3 days without sun. This capacity will of course be increased as time goes on and technology advances.
    The batteries needed to store the power for the building are expensive, because of the cost per battery and the number required. And you don't just buy new batteries once either - they have limited life. (Same goes for the panels; and you need a lot of them to cover a car park. Big problem in a hail storm too.)

    There is no argument that the technology is not perfect at this time, but only by investing in it will it improve. Subsidies help speed things along and also create relatively high paying jobs when we really need them.
    People have been trying to improve solar power for the 55 years since semiconductors came into use. It is an inherently inefficient method of power conversion and is prone to the variability of the source - cloudy days, night-time, varying height of sun in the sky, varying length of night and day and varying angle of sun at various locations on the globe etc. There's just nothing there to develop - it's a bad idea. You may just as well develop some other form of technology or look for a new one. Subsidies aren't going to speed it up amd the high-paying jobs created will simply be a big fat white elephant. We don't really need them.

    If solar had any potential for development, it wouldn't need to be subsidized - it would be developed simply for the benefits and the consequent commercial gain.

    Oil and gas have recieved subsidies for decades, why not give it to renewable fuel type technologies as well?. Of course it doesn't make sense "short" term, but if you don't make some decisions and sacrifices with "long" term in mind, you will fall behind and miss out on lots of opportunities, innovations and improvements.
    The difference is that oil and gas aren't subsidized because they are poor sources of energy. They are subsidized because the government likes to intervene in business.

    There is no need to choose between Nuclear and renewable energy, we can do both until/if the renewabe becomes the hands down winner in efficiency, cost, safety etc.
    Nothing's as efficient, cheap and safe as nuclear power. Why bother using both before solar becomes a winner?

    The major nuclear project you mentioned being cancelled was terminated for a number of reasons and none of them had anything to do with "competing" with renewable energy for funds or implementation.
    Whatever the reasons were, they were nothing to do with nuclear power being inferior.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenathefabulous View Post
    we are all perverts in the SC in my opinion. Hes a pervert, you're a pervert, I'm a pervert.

  6. #31
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    ^^^ I would also add that, based on general observations, relative gov't subsidy amounts for solar and wind are TWENTY TIMES as high as gov't payments to the oil and gas industry. And the nuclear industry essentially receives zero gov't subsidies.

    As to the other aspect, indeed there is an issue of useful life / maintenance and replacement cost which is typically ignored in solar and wind analyses. Besides the variable power output when the equipment is new, that power output declines as the equipment ages. And battery storage technology is extremely expensive over the long term since the charge / discharge cycle life of the best available batteries is still only on the order of 5 years worth of daily cycles. This is the reason that state / regional power grid operators pay gas fired generating plants to run at idle in order to instantaneously 'make up for' expected power not actually being generated by solar and wind sources ( with that cost passed on to ALL electricity customers in the form of higher electric bills ). And we still haven't begun to discuss the issue of power transmission construction / losses cost issues to bring solar and wind power to viable big city markets ( which are again passed on to ALL electricity customers in the form of higher electric bills ). Of course, the 'green energy' proponents are counting on the fact that, initially at least, these very real additional costs are not being 'booked' against solar and wind power's true economics.

  7. #32
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopper View Post
    The batteries needed to store the power for the building are expensive, because of the cost per battery and the number required. And you don't just buy new batteries once either - they have limited life. (Same goes for the panels; and you need a lot of them to cover a car park. Big problem in a hail storm too.)
    As mentioned the technology will continue to increase and will chip away at these issues. Here is something that is already out regarding the batteries:http://www.physorg.com/news155569564.html "As Sadoway explained in a recent article in MIT's Technology Review, the liquid
    is a promising candidate for solar energy storage for several reasons. For one thing, it costs less than a third of the cost of today's batteries, since the materials are inexpensive and the design allows for simple manufacturing. Further, the liquid battery has a longer lifetime than conventional batteries, since there are no solid active materials to degrade."
    As to the parking lot, it's up to the owner how many panels they use. It's wasted space above the parking lot anyway and the more panels you put in the more energy you generate, with being able to sell the excess energy it makes sense to cover the entire lot. Estimates are that the panels pay for themselves in 3-5 years. Also as a benefit it offers covers for people parking there when there is rain or snow.



    People have been trying to improve solar power for the 55 years since semiconductors came into use. It is an inherently inefficient method of power conversion and is prone to the variability of the source - cloudy days, night-time, varying height of sun in the sky, varying length of night and day and varying angle of sun at various locations on the globe etc.
    They've been trying to develop it very half heartedly over the last 50 years. Insentives and funding have frequently been cut short. Gas was also under $1 for much of that period and there was almost no concern over the environment. The other very large factor was that huge multi-national U.S. companies controlled most of worldwide technology development and mass production. Big oil and gas have been able to politically squash research and development of "new" technologies for decades. For much of that time if innovation wasn't coming from the U.S., it wasn't coming. It is a much different world today and between the price of gas, the publics perception of environmental peril and the "flat earth" of technology and innovation mean that if we don't innovate and develop these technologies someone else will, as they already are.

    There's just nothing there to develop - it's a bad idea. You may just as well develop some other form of technology or look for a new one.
    Totally not true:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toZ1IrlV8ts
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-7U6...eature=related
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...nnovations.php

    Subsidies aren't going to speed it up amd the high-paying jobs created will simply be a big fat white elephant. We don't really need them.
    We currently have millions of high paying jobs related to developing, manufacturing, installing, marketing etc. renewable fuel sources. There are thousands of companies in the U.S. involved in this, $billions of private dollars are being invested and it constitutes one of the few areas of our economy that is both in the growth stage and also the creation of high paying jobs.

    If solar had any potential for development, it wouldn't need to be subsidized - it would be developed simply for the benefits and the consequent commercial gain.
    This is not true, as mentioned $billions is being invested from private sources for potential gain and the benefits likely to be realized. Subsidies from government speed that process up and create innovation and more importantly jobs at a quicker rate. They did the same thing with the internet technology.
    http://www.greenbaba.com/2008031321/...big-money.html

    "Worldwide sales for companies specializing in biofuels, wind farms, solar panels and fuel cells grew 40 percent in 2007 to reach $77.3 billion,"

    "Solar photovoltaic sales grew 30 percent, totaling $20.3 billion."

    http://cleantechnica.com/2008/05/28/...-coal-by-2020/

    "Big Money Bets Solar Cheaper than Coal by 2020"

    “Chevron, Goldman Sachs, FPL, PG&E and other companies have filed more than 50 applications with the Bureau of Land Management to lease government-owned desert property for solar power systems. Google’s philantropic division put $10 million into eSolar, a start-up"


    The difference is that oil and gas aren't subsidized because they are poor sources of energy. They are subsidized because the government likes to intervene in business.
    This is the funniest part of the whole post. Oil companies are subsidized because of lobbying by the oil industry and large political campaign contributions in return.

    Nothing's as efficient, cheap and safe as nuclear power. Why bother using both before solar becomes a winner?
    http://cleantech.com/news/node/554 "For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants"
    Besides this, it takes a lot of manpower to run a nuclear plant, the insurance rates are astonomical because of the risk involved. While there aren't a lot of safety incidents with a nuclear plant, there is the potential of having another Chernobyl or 3 Mile-Island, in addition the waste product is hazardous, cost money to store and will have to be dealt with for thousands of years.

    I'm not saying at all not to use nuclear, I think over time though it will become obsolete as the other technologies with less negatives get cheaper and more efficient. There is still plenty of money for subsidies and investment into nuclear power. In the case listed below, the government was in favor of the project and was negotiating with the company when they pulled out. In answer to your question about using both till solar is a winner, there are a lot of reasons. For one, the technology won't improve without practical application. Also, there are $billions in private funding going to start-ups and renewable energy firms, what are you going to do- make that illegal and force the companies to send the money back?. A shopping center owner can install the parking lot panels like Google, Dell and Kyocera have done and save millions on their electric bills, they can't install a mini-nuclear plant behind the building and get those savings.

    Whatever the reasons were, they were nothing to do with nuclear power being inferior.
    Here were the exact reasons that I saw listed. I highlighted the one revelent to this conversation:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...155178010.html
    "The economics of building a multibillion-dollar nuclear reactor have deteriorated with a sharp drop in the price of natural gas—a common power-plant fuel—and a pullback in electricity demand during the recession."

    "A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget said it was surprised by Constellation's decision, adding the federal government was working with the company up until being notified of its withdrawal. The office urged Constellation to look at a new set of terms and continue working on the project."

    "A fight also has developed between Constellation and EDF over whether the French company is required to buy 12 power plants"

  8. #33
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ I would also add that, based on general observations, relative gov't subsidy amounts for solar and wind are TWENTY TIMES as high as gov't payments to the oil and gas industry. And the nuclear industry essentially receives zero gov't subsidies
    Totally not true:

    As mentioned in the previous post nuclear plants usually require 60-90% in government subsidies to construct.

    Oil subsidies are estimated to be between $15-$35 Billion per year as related to the following:

    • Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
    • Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
    • Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
    • Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
    • Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
    • Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
    • Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
    • The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
    • Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
    • Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
    • Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid (more below)

      In addition to those:
      Defense requirements - Some have suggested that the demands of defending Middle Eastern oil fields added (pre-Iraq war that is) between $10 billion and $20 billion a year in subsidies to the true cost of oil.

    http://cleantech.com/news/node/554

  9. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    ^^^ well, so far at least, Tesla has received 400%+ in gov't subsidies ... i.e. $450 million in gov't 'loans' versus $100 million value of total Tesla Roadster production. There are also so many 'semantics' issues in your nuclear vs oil / gas vs solar / wind subsidies that it simply makes the head spin. Obviously these discussions are becoming 'circular' i.e. re-posts of non-objective 'propaganda' on both 'sides'. Ultimately, the only way that the two 'sides' will ever agree on facts is to let the solar / wind / electric vehicle subsidized spectacle run its course to eventually see what the 'real world' costs and consequence picture looks like.

    All I can say in addition is that even Al Gore 'has seen the light' where the 'real world' costs and consequences picture re Ethanol is concerned. However, the E90 Ethanol mandate remains in place, the ethanol refiner and corn farming subsidies remain in place, the ethanol tariffs remain in place, the price of E90 gasoline is significantly higher relative to crude oil prices than before the E90 Ethanol mandate was put into effect, the price of corn ( and other agricultural commodities ) are all higher etc. and the US taxpayer / E90 gasoline buyer has ponied up tens of billions of subsidy dollars to boot. See . My obvious point is that, at its inception, the 'official' ethanol numbers were presented as being just as rosy as the solar / wind numbers now being bandied about - but that the 'real world' cost and unintended consequences picture turned out to be far different 3-4 years down the road ( AFTER it was too late to back away ). I guess it will take multiple billions in subsidies plus 3-4 years worth of solar / wind evolution to arrive at a similar point !

  10. #35
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    and speaking of unaccounted costs and unintended side effects, this just released by ABC news ... from

    (snip)"— The Leaf is powered entirely by electricity, and therefore has a much bigger battery. Nissan says the Leaf can go about 100 miles on a full charge. It will take 20 hours to do this with a standard outlet [ built-in 120v 15 amp battery charger - sic ], and eight hours with a [ separately purchased 220 volt 30 amp - sic ] charger. Nissan strongly recommends a charger.

    Installing a home charging station could take anywhere from a few days to a couple of months. It depends on the time it takes to get a local work permit and to have the charging station inspected after installation. The installation itself should only take a few hours.

    Whether you go for a charging station or not, carmakers and utilities want your home checked out to make sure the wiring in your house and in your neighborhood can handle the extra load. Plugging [ the built in 120v 15amp 20 hour charger - sic] into a regular socket that serves other appliances will almost certainly trip your circuit breaker. The extra electricity demand from a [ 220v 30 amp 8 hour - sic ] home charger can overwhelm small neighborhood transformers and kill power to a whole block.

    Utilities and carmakers may have a tough time getting the first wave of buyers to heed their advice. These early adopters are used to wrestling with new technology, and they like to do things their own way.

    Scott Little, 62, an experimental physicist from Austin, Texas, has reserved a Nissan Leaf, but he's not going to install the charger because of what he calls its "ridiculous" price. "The idea of paying $2,000 for what amounts to a dryer plug irritates a guy like me," he says. Instead, he's going to use his wall socket for a while, and eventually install chargers himself at his home and his farm, 40 miles away.(snip)

    Of course, the article doesn't mention that the battery capacity and thus the battery charging power requirement of the Tesla Roadster is about twice that of the Nissan Leaf !

  11. #36
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    ^^^ well, so far at least, Tesla has received 400%+ in gov't subsidies ... i.e. $450 million in gov't 'loans' versus $100 million value of total Tesla Roadster production. There are also so many 'semantics' issues in your nuclear vs oil / gas vs solar / wind subsidies that it simply makes the head spin. Obviously these discussions are becoming 'circular' i.e. re-posts of non-objective 'propaganda' on both 'sides'. Ultimately, the only way that the two 'sides' will ever agree on facts is to let the solar / wind / electric vehicle subsidized spectacle run its course to eventually see what the 'real world' costs and consequence picture looks like.
    I agree about letting all technologies run their course. I'm not in favor of eliminating oil, nuclear or anything else. There is no doubt however that by far the most innovation, private investment and rapid job creation is in the fields of renewable energy. If after trying they are proven ineffective or the numbers bear out, oil, nuclear or coal or better, then so be it.

    All I can say in addition is that even Al Gore 'has seen the light' where the 'real world' costs and consequences picture re Ethanol is concerned. However, the E90 Ethanol mandate remains in place, the ethanol refiner and corn farming subsidies remain in place, the ethanol tariffs remain in place, the price of E90 gasoline is significantly higher relative to crude oil prices than before the E90 Ethanol mandate was put into effect, the price of corn ( and other agricultural commodities ) are all higher etc. and the US taxpayer / E90 gasoline buyer has ponied up tens of billions of subsidy dollars to boot. See http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11...was-a-mistake/ . My obvious point is that, at its inception, the 'official' ethanol numbers were presented as being just as rosy as the solar / wind numbers now being bandied about - but that the 'real world' cost and unintended consequences picture turned out to be far different 3-4 years down the road ( AFTER it was too late to back away ). I guess it will take multiple billions in subsidies plus 3-4 years worth of solar / wind evolution to arrive at a similar point !
    Ethanol was tried and while did make some sense when originally proposed, it only benefited a very few amount of people in terms of job creation and economic stimulation. I agree that it has been a failure, but we would'nt have known if we hadn't have tried.

    The potential for negative unintended consequences in regards to wind/solar would seem to be a lot less that of ethanol and the amount of people positively affected through job growth and economic stimulation is already many times greater than ethanol ever was. In addition, ethanol was more of a single product with a very restrictive future outlook. The renewable energy field is an industry with hundreds of technologies that will affect many thousands of different areas on an international level. In addition, although in it's infancy it is already producing hundreds of $billions in private transactions, economic stimulation and responsible for millions of newly created jobs.

  12. #37
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    I agree that it has been a failure, but we would'nt have known if we hadn't have tried.
    and we as US taxpayers and E90 gasoline buyers wouldn't be 'out' tens of billions of dollars in subsidy money either !


    it is already producing hundreds of $billions in private transactions, economic stimulation and responsible for millions of newly created jobs.
    Again this circles right back to the 'broken window' theory. Arguably, at this point in time at least, every one of those newly created jobs is being funded by solar / wind gov't subsidy money ... at least partially !!! Not one of these jobs is 'self-funding' based on actual business profitability. In addition, nobody is accounting for the non 'green energy' related US jobs that were lost as a result of the higher taxes and higher electric rates necessary to ( partially ) pay for the 'green energy' subsidies causing cutbacks / offshoring / outsourcing by mainstream US businesses !!! The Spanish study showed something over 2 mainstream jobs being lost for every 'green' job being added.



    (snip)"A new study from the Spanish university of Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, is the first critical analysis of government aid programs for green jobs. It shows that if the US adopted similar policies, it would destroy more than double the number of jobs created. The "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" shows that the US goal of creating 5 million green jobs could destroy as many as 11 million jobs elsewhere, a ratio of one to 2.2, or 9 jobs lost for every four green jobs.

    The Spanish study also calculated that it cost 571,138 Euros to create each job. That's more than $755,000 for each green collar job."(snip)

    granted that there are a number of 'problems' with the Spanish study. However, the point remains that 'green' job creation doesn't occur in a vacuum, i.e. the subsidy costs however collected ( i.e. higher taxes or higher electric rates or US dollar devaluation etc.) do negatively impact mainstream US business operations.


    The potential for negative unintended consequences in regards to wind/solar would seem to be a lot less
    Not really. We've already discussed the 'buried' cost of electrical grid operators having to pay gas fired power plants to run at idle to 'cover butt' when wind / solar generation drops off ( that is recovered from every electricity user). We haven't discussed the 'buried' cost of utilities building interconnecting power lines from mountaintops or deserts to major cities in order to carry solar / wind power to a viable market ( that must also be recovered from every electricity user ). We haven't discussed the 'buried' cost of utilities having to install larger city substations, larger street power lines, larger neighborhood pole transformers etc. in order to allow electric vehicles to be charged by more than a handful of houses in the same block ( that must also be recovered from every electricity user). In a 'free market' economy, all of these 'buried' costs would be charged exclusively to the businesses and customers that actually require / use them ! However, doing so ... i.e. attempting to charge say 5 electric vehicle owners in the block a 20% share = $5,000 of the $25,000 utility cost of upgrading street power lines and pole transformers as a fee, instead of charging all 25 block residents $1,000 each over a number of years via higher electric rates ( even though 20 of them still drive gas engine cars and don't contribute at all to the need for the utility upgrade ) , would certainly affect the viability of Nissan Leaf ownership, wouldn't it !!!

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 11-30-2010 at 03:12 PM.

  13. #38
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    and we as US taxpayers and E90 gasoline buyers wouldn't be 'out' tens of billions of dollars in subsidy money either !
    It's not a simple question of being "out" the total amount of money spent on ethanol- there is a lot of foriegn oil we didn't have to buy, it created jobs and most of the money spent in subsidies stayed here in the U.S. and stimulated the economy in a multitude of ways. I


    Again this circles right back to the 'broken window' theory. Arguably, at this point in time at least, every one of those newly created jobs is being funded by solar / wind gov't subsidy money ... at least partially !!! Not one of these jobs is 'self-funding' based on actual business profitability.
    This isn't true, there is hundreds and hundreds of $billions of private money being invested in "green energy" and there are hundreds of profitable companies. I've listed other before, but here is another one:
    http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2008...fx4547168.html

    "Renewable Energy Corporation said it is confident of continued profitable growth in the coming years..."
    "We have been targeting a cost reduction of 50 pct between 2005-2010 level, but we have ambitions beyond that..."

    I know that you'll argue that there are subsidies involved that factor into the sales and profits of this company and the others, but as has been discussed, we are also subsidizing oil, gas and nuclear. The benefits to subsidizing "renewables" are many and differ from the others in that there is the potential with innovation for them to remove almosts all the negatives that the other fuels carry like extraction and having to buy overseas and toxic by products etc. and for other reasons listed here:
    http://www.articlesbase.com/environm...gy-787337.html

    In addition, nobody is accounting for the non 'green energy' related US jobs that were lost as a result of the higher taxes and higher electric rates necessary to ( partially ) pay for the 'green energy' subsidies causing cutbacks / offshoring / outsourcing by mainstream US businesses !!! The Spanish study showed something over 2 mainstream jobs being lost for every 'green' job being added.
    I am accounting for that, the electric rates are higher by a few cents to subsidize the "green energy" and the tax imact is extremely minimul. We are already also paying and have for decades $billions in subsidies and tax breaks for every type of fuel. If that wasn't the case and it was the first time it was being done was with renewable's then you'd have a better argument. Because it has been standard practice though and because of the fact that we have the most to gain from the improvement and implementation of renewable technology largely discredits your argument. Also the fact that many $billions of private dollars are flooding into the renewable sector (many times that going into any other area) further shows that the market is in favor of this tact and that people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and have high expectations on future results.

    In addition, as far as jobs are concerned, we are in such a whole with jobs and most of the jobs that weren't pretty necessary have already been lost. The "green technology" jobs tend to be pretty high paying and the millions of them that are currently in place equates to people the government doesn't have to pay unemployment benefits too. This along with all the direct stimulations made to thousands of other companies and jobs (as mentioned in previous threads) make it even more of a no-brainer.

    It's not just tree-huggers that are interested in this stuff and are putting putting their money where their mouths are. Here is something Warren Buffet and Bill Gates are investing in and getting involved with. It also shows that this technology will develop, improve and be defining the future whether or not the U.S. is involved.
    http://money.cnn.com/2009/04/13/tech...ctric.fortune/

    "Warren Buffett hasn't just seen the car of the future, he's sitting in the driver's seat. Why he's banking on an obscure Chinese electric car company and a CEO..."
    (snip)"A new study from the Spanish university of Rey Juan Carlos in Madrid, is the first critical analysis of government aid programs for green jobs. It shows that if the US adopted similar policies, it would destroy more than double the number of jobs created. The "Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources" shows that the US goal of creating 5 million green jobs could destroy as many as 11 million jobs elsewhere, a ratio of one to 2.2, or 9 jobs lost for every four green jobs.
    Your comparison using the Spanish study is flawed. First off, it lists only one country (who did a pretty inefficient job of implementing the program). There are many other countries who are having success and creating sustained jobs AND getting a lot of their power from renewables AND having companies make sustained profits- even without subsidies.

    As mentioned numerous times already is the rapid improvements and innovation with technology that will make these products more efficient and practicle. As an example:
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008...ssover-mpv.php

    "So far, all we know is that the E6 will be a 5 seater with an acceleration of 0 to 100 kph of around 10 seconds. Top speed should be top speed of 160 kph (100 mph), and the battery pack, which is located under the rear passenger seats, will be based on BYD's own lithium-ion iron phosphate technology. Range per charge is expected to be 300 km (186 miles)."

    "BYD projected the battery had a life of 2,000 cycles, for a lifetime range of about 600,000 km (373,000 miles)"

    "Charging of the battery will take the night with 220V, but the E6 electric car can also take a fast charge that can bring the battery to 80% SOC in about 15 minutes."


    In addition this company is making great progress with the efficiency of collecting and storing solar energy that will severely limit the need for coal as a means to generate the electricity to power these cars.

    By this point it's pretty obvious you are going to stick to your point of view and I am going to stick to mine. Time will tell who is more correct. I'll let you have the last word and will let this thread die on my end.
    Last edited by jimboe7373; 11-30-2010 at 08:09 PM.

  14. #39
    Featured Member
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,731
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 161 Times in 135 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    As mentioned the technology will continue to increase and will chip away at these issues.
    How can it continue if it never started?

    Here is something that is already out regarding the batteries:http://www.physorg.com/news155569564.html "As Sadoway explained in a recent article in MIT's Technology Review, the liquid
    is a promising candidate for solar energy storage for several reasons. For one thing, it costs less than a third of the cost of today's batteries, since the materials are inexpensive and the design allows for simple manufacturing. Further, the liquid battery has a longer lifetime than conventional batteries, since there are no solid active materials to degrade."
    Still expensive.

    As to the parking lot, it's up to the owner how many panels they use. It's wasted space above the parking lot anyway and the more panels you put in the more energy you generate, with being able to sell the excess energy it makes sense to cover the entire lot. Estimates are that the panels pay for themselves in 3-5 years. Also as a benefit it offers covers for people parking there when there is rain or snow.
    It's not a matter of wasted space, but wasting money on buying the panels. And they are not going go to that expense to get more power than they actually need, just so they can sell it to someone else. Who could afford it? It's an expensive way to provide cover from rain and you'll have to shovel the snow off anyway to keep them working.

    They've been trying to develop it very half heartedly over the last 50 years. Insentives and funding have frequently been cut short.
    Why? It had commercial uses, like the space program (powering satellites and space probes). Again, the incentive is the potential of the technology itself. If there is no incentive, it means the technology is of no possible use. What other incentive would their be? The only sensible reason to fund it is if it is effective and therefore commercially viable. If it were useful, those nasty oil tycoons would be investing in it instead of oil. What's to stop them from making a buck from solar? They are making big money from it now, even though it is not effective, because despite that (and because of that) it is being heavily subsidized.

    Gas was also under $1 for much of that period and there was almost no concern over the environment. The other very large factor was that huge multi-national U.S. companies controlled most of worldwide technology development and mass production. Big oil and gas have been able to politically squash research and development of "new" technologies for decades.
    How do a few private companies control everybody else's technology? They control it with the help of big government. In a free market, nobody controls anybody else and any company, no matter how large, is at the mercy of the customer.

    For much of that time if innovation wasn't coming from the U.S., it wasn't coming. It is a much different world today and between the price of gas, the publics perception of environmental peril and the "flat earth" of technology and innovation mean that if we don't innovate and develop these technologies someone else will, as they already are.
    It's a different story today? So big oil companies don't control our technology now? Why didn't they squash environmental awareness the same way they squashed solar, so they can keep the lid on that too? Suddenly now "someone else" threatens the tight monopolistic grip the oil magnates have been up to now using to squash solar?

    First clip - says the moving, focusing mirror system is useless without sunlight, as with any solar power scheme. Also says it is too large for household use - only useful for businesses. The whole assembly is so elaborate and large that it probably won't be much less expensive than buying the large solar panels. Those things are going to be prone to break- down in numerous ways.

    Second clip - it doesn't say that company has actually achieved the things it is talking about. It says they intend to. Even with your house and pool covered with that stuff you still can't power heavy electrical appliances (like hotplates and hot water systems) without storage batteries.

    Batteries are a safety hazard because if the gases from them are flammable and could egnite if they are not properly ventilated from the room they are kept in. They are also a big expense for a single household.

    Those items merely show how much trouble we have to go to for solar power to be even half as cost effective as those we can actually use.

    We currently have millions of high paying jobs related to developing, manufacturing, installing, marketing etc. renewable fuel sources. There are thousands of companies in the U.S. involved in this, $billions of private dollars are being invested and it constitutes one of the few areas of our economy that is both in the growth stage and also the creation of high paying jobs.
    Of course people are going to invest their own money in something which is subsidized. For instance, solar power supply/installation companies can sell their products to home-owners at affordable prices because the government is picking up the rest of the actual cost. And those subsidies come out of your pocket and mine.

    This is not true, as mentioned $billions is being invested from private sources for potential gain and the benefits likely to be realized. Subsidies from government speed that process up and create innovation and more importantly jobs at a quicker rate.
    The subsidies don't just speed that investment up, they are the only thing which makes it profitable.

    They did the same thing with the internet technology.
    http://www.greenbaba.com/2008031321/...big-money.html
    Again, the government subsidizes everything, just for the sake of being able to have control over industry and also to shower money on favored corporations. The internet began as military technology, so initially it was funded for that reason.

    "Worldwide sales for companies specializing in biofuels, wind farms, solar panels and fuel cells grew 40 percent in 2007 to reach $77.3 billion,"

    "Solar photovoltaic sales grew 30 percent, totaling $20.3 billion."

    http://cleantechnica.com/2008/05/28/...-coal-by-2020/
    Right - sales, but only because the cost to the buyer was reduced via subsidization, because on its own it is an economically unviable power source, i.e. an ineffective one.

    "Big Money Bets Solar Cheaper than Coal by 2020"

    “Chevron, Goldman Sachs, FPL, PG&E and other companies have filed more than 50 applications with the Bureau of Land Management to lease government-owned desert property for solar power systems. Google’s philantropic division put $10 million into eSolar, a start-up"
    Cheaper to the buyer, but not lower in real cost.

    This is the funniest part of the whole post. Oil companies are subsidized because of lobbying by the oil industry and large political campaign contributions in return.
    That's one of the reasons the government likes to do it.

    http://cleantech.com/news/node/554 "For instance, nuclear power wouldn't be viable without subsidies - most governments pay between 60 and 90 percent of the cost of construction of new plants"
    The high cost of nuclear power is mainly due to excessive government regulations (a massive number - hundreds of books full) and red tape which are costly to comply with and costly also in terms of the delays it causes in establishing a plant. Nuclear power must be built so that it is as safe as possible, but the regulations on it are far in excess of what is even actually reasonably required, and this means extra cost in building and running the plant.

    Besides this, it takes a lot of manpower to run a nuclear plant, the insurance rates are astonomical because of the risk involved. While there aren't a lot of safety incidents with a nuclear plant, there is the potential of having another Chernobyl or 3 Mile-Island, in addition the waste product is hazardous, cost money to store and will have to be dealt with for thousands of years.
    What risk? Nuclear power plants are so elaborately safeguarded it's funny. Three-mile island was just a faulty water-coolant valve which was quickly addressed by manually operating the valve. There was no risk to personnel. Subsequently more elaborate safeguards were built in plants to avoid such malfunctions being a problem.

    Even in the event of a meltdown, there is no nuclear blast. A nuclear explosion is impossible with the fuel used for generating power, Weapons grade material must be enriched with a far higher percentage of te right isotopes than that which is required for fuel. All that would happens in the event of a meltdown at a power plant is that the fuel would overheat, melt, and sink to the bottom of the reactor chamber and it would have to be scraped out and disposed of.

    Chernobyl was not a nuclear blast, it was a chemical blast which spread some of the radioactive material in the plant, and it was due to a careless experiment being conducted at the plant, not routine operation for the purpose of supplying energy. Also, the Soviets did not build blast containment shields on their reactors. You know why? Because they were certain that the risks of a blast were too minimal. If the Chernobyl plant had had a shield, the blast would easily have been contained. On YouTube there is a video of a fighter jet being flown into a blast containment shield - that's how effective they are. Only 55 people died from the Chernobyl blast - people working in the plant.

    Nuclear waste disposal is also so elaborate that leakage is very unlikely. Also, nuclear power plants only produce a very small amount of waste. That's the whole point of nuclear power - you only need a little material for a lot of power. Nuclear plants produce about one cubic meter of waste per year. Not hard to store. And it doesn't take thousands of years to decrease to safe level of radioactivity. If it is highly radioactive, it has a short half-life, which means it decays quickly.

    I'm not saying at all not to use nuclear, I think over time though it will become obsolete as the other technologies with less negatives get cheaper and more efficient.
    When will they start to do that?

    There is still plenty of money for subsidies and investment into nuclear power. In the case listed below, the government was in favor of the project and was negotiating with the company when they pulled out. In answer to your question about using both till solar is a winner, there are a lot of reasons. For one, the technology won't improve without practical application.
    It can't be practically applied until it becomes practical, and it is not.

    Also, there are $billions in private funding going to start-ups and renewable energy firms, what are you going to do- make that illegal and force the companies to send the money back?.
    That's what happens in other cases of theft. I'd be happy with sentencing the politicians and bureaucrats who gave away the money each to a lifetime of community service. The fact that some money has been given away is not a reason not to stop more being given away now.

    A shopping center owner can install the parking lot panels like Google, Dell and Kyocera have done and save millions on their electric bills, they can't install a mini-nuclear plant behind the building and get those savings.
    They would not need to build their own nuclear plant to save money - it would still be cheaper than buying their own solar panels if they bought power from a big nuclear plant.

    Here were the exact reasons that I saw listed. I highlighted the one revelent to this conversation:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...155178010.html
    "The economics of building a multibillion-dollar nuclear reactor have deteriorated with a sharp drop in the price of natural gas—a common power-plant fuel—and a pullback in electricity demand during the recession."

    "A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget said it was surprised by Constellation's decision, adding the federal government was working with the company up until being notified of its withdrawal. The office urged Constellation to look at a new set of terms and continue working on the project."

    "A fight also has developed between Constellation and EDF over whether the French company is required to buy 12 power plants"
    I mentioned earlier in this post the main reason for the high cost and non-viability of nuclear power plants, which is nothing to do with the plants themselves.
    Last edited by Hopper; 12-01-2010 at 05:13 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenathefabulous View Post
    we are all perverts in the SC in my opinion. Hes a pervert, you're a pervert, I'm a pervert.

  15. #40
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    493
    Thanks
    32
    Thanked 211 Times in 137 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    ^^^I had said to Melonie I wouldn't reply any more in this thread. The back and forth is way past tiring, I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

    I'm not going to take the time to counter all your comments in the previous post (although I could).Bottom line is that there are going to be subsidies in oil, gas or nuclear either way. Giving them to stimulate renewable energies gets a lot more bang for the buck than any other industry. There are how many oil companies?, how many nuclear companies?. There are tens of thousands of renewable firms, they are hiring like crazy and average pay is a few times that of the national average. At a time like this in regards to unemployment, is it better to pull back and discourage the private investment, innovation and hiring?. Would it make sense to take away the tens of $billions in subsidies and refuse the hundreds of $billions that result from the economic activity that is produced as a result?. We'd then just have to pay that same money out in unemployment benefits to the workers who would have lost their jobs.

    No offense, but I'll follow the lead of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Google, Dell, Chevron, Panasonic etc. who are investing very large sums of money in this technology over people posting on a stripper forum.

    This will now be my real last post in this thread.

  16. #41
    Featured Member
    Joined
    May 2009
    Posts
    1,731
    Thanks
    232
    Thanked 161 Times in 135 Posts

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by jimboe7373 View Post
    ^^^I had said to Melonie I wouldn't reply any more in this thread. The back and forth is way past tiring, I won't convince you and you won't convince me.
    Looks like you did reply.

    I'm not going to take the time to counter all your comments in the previous post (although I could).Bottom line is that there are going to be subsidies in oil, gas or nuclear either way.
    That's because the government likes to subsidize everything, whether it works or not.

    Giving them to stimulate renewable energies gets a lot more bang for the buck than any other industry. There are how many oil companies?, how many nuclear companies?. There are tens of thousands of renewable firms, they are hiring like crazy and average pay is a few times that of the national average.
    So you measure "bang" not in actual cost effectiveness and efficiency, but in how many people scramble for the money when the government throws it around?

    At a time like this in regards to unemployment, is it better to pull back and discourage the private investment, innovation and hiring?.
    If the investment, innovation and employment were in a productive line of enterprise, no.

    Would it make sense to take away the tens of $billions in subsidies and refuse the hundreds of $billions that result from the economic activity that is produced as a result?.
    You call throwing your money into the toilet economic activity? Those billions of dollars should be either invested inproductive enterprises or saved. The best way to ensure that is for the taxpayer to keep it and spend or save it as he wishes, instead of giving it to the government to squander. Then you will have real economic activity.

    We'd then just have to pay that same money out in unemployment benefits to the workers who would have lost their jobs.
    No, if the people who the government confiscated that subsidy money from in the first place, the people who actually worked to earn it, were allowed to keep it instead, they would use it to create more jobs and we would have less unemployment.

    No offense, but I'll follow the lead of Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Google, Dell, Chevron, Panasonic etc. who are investing very large sums of money in this technology over people posting on a stripper forum.
    Well if corporations profit from it, it must be okay. They wouldn't be involved in anything crooked. Don't forget, though, the only reason it is profitable for them to invest in it is that the government covers most of the real costs to their customers. In other words, the government is giving away your money to those big corporations.

    This will now be my real last post in this thread.
    Then this is my last reply to you in this thread.
    Last edited by Hopper; 12-02-2010 at 05:30 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Athenathefabulous View Post
    we are all perverts in the SC in my opinion. Hes a pervert, you're a pervert, I'm a pervert.

  17. #42
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    and here's some interesting subsidy facts re the Nissan Leaf ... from

    (snip)"The Leaf has a 100 mile range, can be recharged at home in eight hours, or at a public parking lot in 30 minutes. A GPS system constantly displays your remaining range on a real time map, as well as the locations of the nearest charging stations. If you run out of juice on the freeway, Nissan offers free roadside service with an immediate recharge. With a 600 pound lithium ion battery lining the bottom of the chassis, it has tremendous stability, and corners like it is on rails. The battery comes with an eight year warranty and a ten year life.

    My local utility was there cheering from the sidelines. PG&E is offering a special Plug-in-Vehicle rate of only 3 cent per kilowatt hour rate from 12:00 am to 7:00 am, compared to the standard top tier rate of 40 cents per hour, a 92% discount. That means the leaf’s 100 mile drip will cost me 72 cents. This is the same as buying all the gasoline I want at 15 cents per gallon! In other words, the fuel is basically free.

    When I asked the chief engineer about maintenance costs, I got a blank stare. Then he answered in a deadpan fashion, “there is no maintenance”. During the first 100,000, the only expenses will be for brake pads and tires, as the 107 horsepower electric induction engine only has five moving parts.

    You can get all of this for $33,000, which after a federal subsidy of $7,500 and a California state subsidy of $5,000, nets out to $20,500. Giveaway price, free fuel, free maintenance. Hmmmmm.

    The car will only be sold initially in eight states, and I will be one of the first to get one in California. The entire US production run of 25,000, or 50,000 globally, has been sold out for next year, so you will have to wait until 2012 to get one. Nissan plans to ramp production in Tennessee up to 250,000 by the end of 2012, or 500,000 globally."(snip)


    so if you set aside the corporate tax credits, taxpayer funded infrastructure and 'green energy' grants that Toyota received for their new plant in Tennessee, and just concentrate on the 'customer' side ...

    Every Nissan Leaf sold in California involves $12,500 in direct subsidies from US federal taxpayers plus California state taxpayers ... ( which provides a higher subsidy to Nissan than to Tesla on a percentage basis )

    The 3 cent per kWh special electric vehicle charging rate from PG&E ( which is well below actual cost of service ) is subsidized by overcharging all of PG&E's residential, commercial and industrial electricity customers for their 'normal' electricity consumption. ( which provides an equal subsidy to Tesla owners )

    The warrantee repair costs associated with the Nissan Leaf will be subsidized by charging higher than necessary prices for all Nissan gas / diesel engine vehicles. ( which is not possible for Tesla since they don't have a conventional vehicle line to share pooled warrantee repair / replacement costs with ).


    IMHO at least, this is very similar to 'doorbuster' loss leader economics at big box retailers in terms of real world economics. As long as the percentage of electric vehicles remains very small, the economic impact of subsidizing the sale, operation and maintenance of these electric vehicles is more or less manageable ... or at least is able to fly below the radar of taxpayers / utility rate payers / Nissan stockholders. However, if and when electric vehicles do actually take over a significant percentage of total new vehicle sales, such that the total dollar amount of subsidy / cost shifting increases greatly while the number of taxpayers, electric rate payers, Nissan stockholders etc remains the same, flying below the radar can no longer be the case !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 12-02-2010 at 10:56 AM.

  18. #43
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Welfare Case Companies - #1 Tesla Motors

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    (snip)"— The Leaf is powered entirely by electricity, and therefore has a much bigger battery. Nissan says the Leaf can go about 100 miles on a full charge. It will take 20 hours to do this with a standard outlet [ built-in 120v 15 amp battery charger - sic ], and eight hours with a [ separately purchased 220 volt 30 amp - sic ] charger. Nissan strongly recommends a charger.

    Installing a home charging station could take anywhere from a few days to a couple of months. It depends on the time it takes to get a local work permit and to have the charging station inspected after installation. The installation itself should only take a few hours.

    Whether you go for a charging station or not, carmakers and utilities want your home checked out to make sure the wiring in your house and in your neighborhood can handle the extra load. Plugging [ the built in 120v 15amp 20 hour charger - sic] into a regular socket that serves other appliances will almost certainly trip your circuit breaker. The extra electricity demand from a [ 220v 30 amp 8 hour - sic ] home charger can overwhelm small neighborhood transformers and kill power to a whole block.

    Utilities and carmakers may have a tough time getting the first wave of buyers to heed their advice. These early adopters are used to wrestling with new technology, and they like to do things their own way.

    Scott Little, 62, an experimental physicist from Austin, Texas, has reserved a Nissan Leaf, but he's not going to install the charger because of what he calls its "ridiculous" price. "The idea of paying $2,000 for what amounts to a dryer plug irritates a guy like me," he says. Instead, he's going to use his wall socket for a while, and eventually install chargers himself at his home and his farm, 40 miles away.(snip)

    Of course, the article doesn't mention that the battery capacity and thus the battery charging power requirement of the Tesla Roadster is about twice that of the Nissan Leaf !
    A little perspective in useful here....

    Every residential and commercial US location served by an electric utility has BOTH 120 and 240 volts installed or available. Example your electric stove or clothes dryer is likely connected to your 250 volt supply. I installed a 240 volt tanning bed in a conventional house in the last few years. It took a 240 GFI interrupter and another 240 volt breaker (120 amp capacity box) in the circuit breaker box already in the house, a little cable and about $100 in parts to do it. It took me about a day to install and make it look nice. (Probably like the guy in Austin TX did.) The inspector passed it with no problem, but it took him 3 days to show up for 5 minutes work. Likely the electric vehicle charger will take this equipment plus a little bit more for specialized monitoring equipment (like overcharging prevention etc). That theirs costs $2000 is a bit shocking.

    Utilities will have no more problem with this equipment than they did when electric heat was in vogue. Yes they will have to install a few new transformers to replaces ones that are already likely "off the books." At the rate these devices will be installed, it will be just normal business for them, which is always changing out equipment anyhow. If anything else is needed, it will be equipment to cause more random charge-on times, that just at the end of the commute days. Something along the likes of "smart grid" which is becoming the new "in" thing for electric utilities these days to get more effective capacity out of their installed plant for many other reasons as well.

    I can dwell on this ad nauseum, but this is the gist of my comments.


    As for this deviant posting.....
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    ...And its $7500 per car Federal subsidy thanks to Obama, our Automotive Engineer in Chief, and his fellow modern day Edsel Fords in the Congress. Plus the $2000 tax credit for 50% of the cost of a proper ( 240 volt) charger. Normal house current is only 115....
    That is just WRONG. See above.
    Obama and crew is at most a temporary CFO/COO, not a chief engineer. Yes, these people make decisions that affect the design but only because of financial considerations. You think one can become an engineer by fiat? MALARKEY, It just shows how untechnical you are.
    Last edited by threlayer; 12-10-2010 at 10:11 AM.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Welfare Case Companies - Kalamazoo Solar
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 02:43 AM
  2. Welfare Case Companies - General Motors
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-08-2011, 07:52 AM
  3. Welfare Case Companies - revisiting GM
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2011, 09:00 AM
  4. Welfare Case Companies #3 - General Electric
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 04:00 AM
  5. Welfare Case Companies - # 2 Evergreen Solar
    By Melonie in forum Dollar Den
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2011, 03:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •