We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Tesla electric cars look pretty cool. The owners of a Tesla (assuming it's an owner whose car didn't catch fire) love their cars and evangelize them.
I'm not sure I'm a Tesla guy. Nothing against the technology, but they are expensive to buy and maintain. They take too long to 'refuel'.
Regardless, these are cars that more or less sell themselves. So why in the world do they need to engage in false advertising and hyperbole? My father, a surgeon, never advertised even after the law was changed and he was allowed to. Why, I asked? His response was that good product and good service sells itself. His business was always strong. Sometimes, however, it pays to advertise if your product is very good. But it doesn't pay to create your own standards when you do it.
You must be joking. Silent and swift? A performance car is driven by an internal combustion engine twisting at 6 grand plus. It is straining, howling, mechanical busy-ness that is heard and felt. THAT moves the soul. This thing is a chrome plated golf car for rich folks who fancy a drive in the country lane. Geez, a Fiat 500 will beat this thing in a 2000 mile race. What a joke!
If I could afford it, I'd buy one. The review magazines generally give them very high marks. The fire business is way over stated compared with gas-powered car problems. And they're just cool. 250+ miles on a charge, very quick, a full sized car that is much sleeker in person than it looks in the picture - just the thing to get me to the golf course and back. I also suspect the technology is a dead end. There is still too much gas and natural gas to make coal powered cars like these economically viable. Too bad, because to build Tesla 101 this good is an amazing feat.
Actually, a friend of mine made the same assertion about fires and internal combustion engines, then he looked it up.
Given the number of Teslas on the road, and the number which have caught fire over a 5 week period, if you extrapolate the %, Teslas are more likely to catch fire than an IC engine, as long as you exclude the arson portion of the IC calculation.
It's not a huge % difference, but enough to consider if you're paying that much for a car, because higher-priced IC autos have very low 'caught fire' statistics (they are much safer in that regard).
Teslas ARE very safe. I wasn't suggesting they aren't. They are also terrific technology. The article I link to, however, shows them to be standard sleazebags when they market their autos. Which should be unnecessary.
I don't want one, as I pointed out. I like them, though.
I think the technology is cutting edge (for now), though I suspect fuel cells will blow the Tesla away in the long run. Elon Musk had a recent rant against the fuel cell, which says to me it may be time to look into them. He's a smart guy, he should know better.
Sure, if you have got the bucks to drop on a hobby car that you never intend to drive for distance in inclement weather, no problem. For practical use, when you need to get from A to B in zero temperatures, a cheap used gas vehicle will reliably get you further faster.
And it's not like Teslas are green vehicles. None of the new electric vehicles are green vehicles when the green accounting takes in all the details of construction and material.
If I won one of these cars in a lottery, I'd probably keep it for short commutes, at least for a couple of years. If I just wanted a bit more fun, I'd buy a 4-wheel drive SUV that would be better suited to the unpaved back roads in the surrounding mountains.
All of the alternatives to our current mix of energy are scams. Wind, solar, ethanol, hybrid cars, etc. Just like the alternatives to science based medicine they are scams. The sole purpose of all these scams is to extract billons from the public coffers. It will continue until enough voters object.
No argument from me on any of that. However, I have looked into geothermal, and that's actually quite a good investment. The problem, of course, is that it's an upfront payment which has to be amortized over about 10-15 year period.
Since most people don't stay in their homes that long, it doesn't look like a good investment.
It is, though, since you actually add $10,000 in value to your home for each reduction of $1,000 per year saved in utility costs. Technically, geothermal can repay the investment in about 5-6 years.
That depends on where you live, of course. Works quite well here in NJ.
Wind and solar are undoubtedly bad investments here in the NJ region. I've seen them pile up savings in some more hospitable regions, though. If I lived in the southwest, solar wouldn't be a bad investment.
There is a city not far from me where a lot of homes use geothermal heat so apparently it does work. One electric utility that I worked for investigated it for generating commercial power. The problem is the water contains high corrosive chemicals so the cost is excessive. It is feasible but it has some serious drawbacks. Mostly they use it around here where it creates hot pools of water. This geothermal hot spring water seems to have some natural powers. I understand it makes women take off their clothes (men too but who cares about that).