Oh by the way, don’t think I forgot about your lil comment.
I’d drive a passenger van like the farmers before I drive a minivan.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Wagons are going to make a comeback. I know I'm doing my part. Car chassis SUVs are the new soccer mom car.
Audi is bringing their RS6 Avant here to the states. Avant means wagon in Audi-ese, and RS6 = almost 600hp and ft-lbs of torque. That's the car I have picked out for old-man-Swish.
What were we talking about again?
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
That new RS6 is so freaking nasty I’d drive one NOW
I’ve always had a soft spot for what we call super wagons.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Oh, I'd drive one too.... it's the 'paying for' part that keeps tripping me up.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
Oh, I'd drive one too.... it's the 'paying for' part that keeps tripping me up.
Euro luxury cars depreciate like crazy. Wait a couple years after they drop and buy one then. The RS lines are super reliable like BMW M cars.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So you're saying that they'll have their catastrophic issues to watch out for, and they're a giant pain in the butt to work on?
add: I've heard horror stories about Audi's design decisions in the S-lines.
also add: There's a petition to bring the M3 Touring to the US (it won't help).
Last edited by oobernoober; 01/25/2101:19 PM. Reason: this thread needs to be taken further off-topic, imo
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
i dunno about all that. my M6 is pretty easy to work on, and i never had any major issues that needed to be fixed.
but i also do regular maintenance on it. i see a lot of people complaining about their ride quality til you realize they dont keep up with regular services like oil changes and such.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I’m looking at Mega cap blend companies like Exxon Mobil, and holy crap what a bunch of freaking dinosaurs.
They could’ve taken their profits, invested heavily into renewables and other sources of clean energy, marketed themselves as global leaders in clean energy innovation, and continued rolling in the cash and donating to republicans like they always do.
They could have but you have to consider the many billions of dollars they have invested in infrastructure to make and distribute their products, plus the brand recognition... I agree with you that they have had 20 years or so to formulate a transition plan where they could have used their vast resources and vast global network to basically dominate the clean energy business while they phased out their fossil fuel business.... maybe that plan exists somewhere deep in their vault, I don't know.
Quote:
Why should society be held hostage by those who refuse to adapt? We always talk about survival of the fittest and let the market decide.
Well the market decided to go the way of clean energy, and yet instead of embracing it, we got half the country clinging to dying industries.
Has the market really embraced it though? I think some people have embraced it, I think the market embraces it as some future inevitability... There were 6.3 million new vehicles sold in 2020 in the United States, only about 87K of them were electric.. that's like 1.4%. How many homes near you have solar panels on them? For me, less than 1%.
Almost every construction project I work on has a nice size gas line to it for heating, water heating, etc.. Sure, some of them also have some solar or geothermal.. but not many are going 100% away from fossil fuels.
Right now it's just not that cost effective and the market will really want it, when it's cost effective.
People always use the horse and buggy as an example.. many people rode horse and buggy for a LONG time after the invention of the automobile.. because they couldn't afford one and there was less than 150 miles of paved road in America, so it wasn't all that practical for most people. In 1908, the Model T was $850.. the average income was $200-400 a year per family... By 1924, the price of a Model T dropped to $265 thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line process in 1913. Still almost an entire years income but not 4 times it.. so improvement.
The largest solar farm in the world generates 580 MW of power, which is about the output of a standard coal fired power plant, but the solar farm is about 10% the size of cleveland city limits. Where are we going to put all of these things that won't also destroy large swaths of the environment and the ecosystem?
It will. Just as the example of the Model T was brought up, as time goes on technology will improve. It's been trending that way for quite some time now.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Replacing the costliest 500 GW of coal with solar PV and onshore wind next year would cut power system costs by up to USD 23 billion every year and reduce annual emissions by around 1.8 gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to 5% of total global CO2 emissions in 2019. It would also yield an investment stimulus of USD 940 billion, which is equal to around 1% of global GDP.
Nowhere in the article does it state where the 6000 acres of land is supposed to come from or what other environmental side-effects would occur from clear cutting 6000 acres to put in the solar farm that would generate that 500 MW of power to replace each of 240 coal power plants in the United States...
And, just because I'm snarky.. the study was done by the International Renewable Energy Agency... would you believe a report put out by OPEC that said oil and gas was cheaper? Just sayin'..
does clear cutting and putting up 6000 acres of solar panels result in 2 years later, any jobs created? I think no. So, Left must love it, anything that tears down the lives of people in the long run, the Left loves.
does clear cutting and putting up 6000 acres of solar panels result in 2 years later, any jobs created? I think no. So, Left must love it, anything that tears down the lives of people in the long run, the Left loves.
In a way you are right. They want people reliant on the government.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
does clear cutting and putting up 6000 acres of solar panels result in 2 years later, any jobs created? I think no. So, Left must love it, anything that tears down the lives of people in the long run, the Left loves.
Whatever. Point fingers all you want like that will help anything. I’m not a fan of clear cutting for anything. But the choice is clear. Coal and oil are dirty, messy, and hard to transfer, The rich want to keep people dependent on it. But the people have spoken, and want clean reliable renewable energy and want to live in a clean environment. Deal.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
does clear cutting and putting up 6000 acres of solar panels result in 2 years later, any jobs created? I think no. So, Left must love it, anything that tears down the lives of people in the long run, the Left loves.
In a way you are right. They want people reliant on the government.
How does using cleaner energy make anyone "reliant on the government". Man. you are off the charts these days.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
And, just because I'm snarky.. the study was done by the International Renewable Energy Agency... would you believe a report put out by OPEC that said oil and gas was cheaper? Just sayin'..
I'll call your snarky and raise. I don't know why not DC, we just had a former oil lobbyist as the head of the EPA.
And who says you have to locate solar and wind farms in areas where you have to "clear cut trees"? You don't seem to take issue with running a pipeline all the way from Canada to pipe in the nastiest form of energy there is but claim you can only put solar and wind farms in areas you would have to clear cut trees? Hmmmm....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
Not germane to the topic, but I did have to laugh at how there was some study that was put out by Boeing and a few of the airlines that says people are at extremely low risk of catching COVID on an airline. Some dude responded with "It's Okay to Leave Your Door Cracked Open" ~ a study performed by Mosquitos and Flies.
Anyhow, don't you guys remember that wind turbine noise causes cancer?
As far as where to place them, wasn't there some discussion as to the Great Lakes? I'm not advocating for that, but I just thought there was some mention of it somewhere. Could be going crazy.
How hard would it be to integrate them with farm land? Just spitballing.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Not germane to the topic, but I did have to laugh at how there was some study that was put out by Boeing and a few of the airlines that says people are at extremely low risk of catching COVID on an airline. Some dude responded with "It's Okay to Leave Your Door Cracked Open" ~ a study performed by Mosquitos and Flies.
Anyhow, don't you guys remember that wind turbine noise causes cancer?
As far as where to place them, wasn't there some discussion as to the Great Lakes? I'm not advocating for that, but I just thought there was some mention of it somewhere. Could be going crazy.
How hard would it be to integrate them with farm land? Just spitballing.
Maybe we can put them where the ICE used to be? We've created space for them !!
Suspended solar panels on wires above the Great lakes.
look out over that beautiful water, kids, What are all of those wires? those wires extend 214 miles across the lake to the other side, but they have solar panels between each wire, it is ingenuity at it's peak.
202 million people ahead of you in the Vaccine line, 2 doses per person.
I have to say that it is pretty cool passing that solar field out in the Mojave Desert as you head up the I-15 to Las Vegas.
Putting solar generation in the middle of the desert makes a lot more sense than the nonsense that is being pontificated.
"Clear cutting" was done in a matter of hours...
Exactly. Central Oregon is vast open high prairie desert. Sage brush for miles. No clear cutting needed. Central Oregon gets a ton of sunshine year round. It’s not the rainy coast to Cascades. Once you clear the Cascade mountains it’s no longer the Oregon most people think if when they think Oregon.
It seems like Cali and some of the desert states may be good resources to put solar energy. I think one of the issues is going to be getting that renewable energy into areas that are heavily forested, populated, etc.
Is there a good way to transfer that energy efficiently from a remote, desert area into a place like Seattle, for instance? Honestly asking.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
And who says you have to locate solar and wind farms in areas where you have to "clear cut trees"? You don't seem to take issue with running a pipeline all the way from Canada to pipe in the nastiest form of energy there is but claim you can only put solar and wind farms in areas you would have to clear cut trees? Hmmmm....
Some parts of the country like Arizona, Nevada, west Texas I'm sure there is plenty of relatively flat unforested land to put them. Probably not in many other parts of the country. And if you are going to put them in more mountainous areas, you have to be on the correct side of the mountain and construction costs go up significantly... so in the end, there are places where they would work better than others..
My original point was in response to the article that solar/wind is now cheaper... and it may be, but it does present other problems and side effects to overcome before we just race out to replace every coal fired power plant with solar panels or stop moving fossil fuels around the country..
Jennifer Ganholm had her senate committee hearing earlier today to discuss her agenda/policies for the Department of Energy. Many questions asked and answered by the bi-partisan committee and Jennifer Granholm in regards to fossil fuels and clean energy among other issues discussed.
They could have but you have to consider the many billions of dollars they have invested in infrastructure to make and distribute their products, plus the brand recognition... I agree with you that they have had 20 years or so to formulate a transition plan where they could have used their vast resources and vast global network to basically dominate the clean energy business while they phased out their fossil fuel business.... maybe that plan exists somewhere deep in their vault, I don't know.
you can invest however much you want to in remodelling your house, it doesn't change the fact that at some point, you're gonna have to spend more money on it to maintain what you have.
yes, they spent billions. they ALSO openly bragged about making billions more. so they had the money to invest over time - like they did with oil - and keep them profits rolling in.
this isn't a shot at you, but i've heard that excuse so many times as a reason to do nothing...i just doesn't mean anything to me anymore.
Quote:
Has the market really embraced it though? I think some people have embraced it, I think the market embraces it as some future inevitability... There were 6.3 million new vehicles sold in 2020 in the United States, only about 87K of them were electric.. that's like 1.4%. How many homes near you have solar panels on them? For me, less than 1%.
yes they embraced it. but you're trying to look at the percentage of people who bought new rides or solar panels and once again NOT take into account that you have an industry doing everything imaginable to thwart the sales and the movement toward it.
perfect example: when Tesla started opening more direct from manufacturer pricing and such, you had the big car companies and their dealerships (Ford, GM, etc) trying to sue them from doing it. trying to say they HAD to open dealerships first in order to sell the car, not offer it straight from Tesla itself.
you can not underestimate how powerful of a message that sends to a consumer base. when you got the power players stopping others from offering services in whats SUPPOSE to be a free market...it tends to scare people off.
Quote:
People always use the horse and buggy as an example.. many people rode horse and buggy for a LONG time after the invention of the automobile.. because they couldn't afford one and there was less than 150 miles of paved road in America, so it wasn't all that practical for most people. In 1908, the Model T was $850.. the average income was $200-400 a year per family... By 1924, the price of a Model T dropped to $265 thanks to Henry Ford's assembly line process in 1913. Still almost an entire years income but not 4 times it.. so improvement.
The largest solar farm in the world generates 580 MW of power, which is about the output of a standard coal fired power plant, but the solar farm is about 10% the size of cleveland city limits. Where are we going to put all of these things that won't also destroy large swaths of the environment and the ecosystem?
sorry but this doesn't make sense. there's literally no way for us to just turn a light switch on and declare all electric cars are now mandatory. the horse and buggy is a perfect example for every reason you listed, but you got the conclusion and the overall point completely wrong.
the horse and buggy industry didn't want cars in the first place, because EVENTUALLY they knew their business would completely die out. it wasn't some instant transition like a transgender surgery, bro. it happened over time.
and thats whats happening with clean energy, renewables, and electric cars. its happening overtime. its not some instant rice nonsense that the right keeps trying to fear monger away. but its gonna happen a lot slower when you have corporations, lobbyist, and the "let the market decide" crowd actively fighting against it.
isn't that what the free market is anyway? a new car now doesn't generate the same carbon footprint as a car 20 years ago. my M6 has a twin turbo V8, and yet i get better gas mileage and a lower carbon footprint than a pickup truck thats 20 years old.
but the guy with the old busted pickup truck is the one trying to claim that i don't care about the environment. even though again, my newer ride gets better fuel efficiency and a lower carbon footprint. which means buying a newer car is effectively doing your part, while staying with the old crap is doing the opposite.
you don't think solar panels are gonna get more efficient over time? how electric cars? or hell anything else?
do you not pay attention to history at all?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I think a major point - aside from cost - is when EVs like Tesla can make it over 450 legitimate miles on a basic version (Model 3, etc.).
Aside from cost, I think another thing that is holding people back is the amount of miles they can travel before charging and the time it takes to charge the vehicle.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
And you raise very valid points. That's why you aren't going to see electric vehicles simply take over the entire automobile market overnight. More advancements will have to be made. Electric charging stations will have to become much more wide spread. Fast charging will have to evolve.
What you will see and are seeing is that multi vehicle families are making one of their vehicles electric. Cars they use for going back and forth to work. Cars they use for local shopping and errands. Small, local businesses that deliver local are making an electric vehicle a choice.
What happens is that over time technology advances. And with each advancement an electric vehicle becomes a far more realistic choice for consumers.
I don't think the actual goal here is to replace fossil fuels overnight. That's a logistical nightmare that will not be quickly or easily accomplished. But over time we should and will be using new technology to cut back our use of fossil fuels. Demands for fossil fuels will decrease as the demand for renewable energy will increase.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I agree with what you're saying, since it reflects what my goal is. To have an EV for local commuting and then keep using our Pacifica for the road trips and long distance travel.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
Climate change is a false cult religion, demanded by the Government, which is in effect an establishment of a state religion, that benefits nobody.
Nobody except the elitest statests? or multi national interests?
Either way, everyone should clearly see, by 2021, that the agenda and result of climate change is:
to demand ever increasing behavior modification until all of life is under control, in the false name of changing would effect a stoppage of harm to the environment.
Swish I appreciate the response but I think we agree far more than you seem to believe.
Quote:
yes, they spent billions. they ALSO openly bragged about making billions more. so they had the money to invest over time - like they did with oil - and keep them profits rolling in.
this isn't a shot at you, but i've heard that excuse so many times as a reason to do nothing...i just doesn't mean anything to me anymore.
I'm not suggesting we "do nothing".. I'm suggesting that those who can afford will move into the market, those who can't will wait for it to become 1. more affordable and 2. have a quicker pay back. And as those who can afford it continue to invest in it, research will continue and it will become cheaper and more efficient. That's the way every new tech works. Remember when a nice flat screen TV was $5,000 and only pretty rich people had one? It wasn't that long ago.
Quote:
yes they embraced it. but you're trying to look at the percentage of people who bought new rides or solar panels and once again NOT take into account that you have an industry doing everything imaginable to thwart the sales and the movement toward it.
No, I'm trying to look at the point that the entry point to the market is still cost prohibitive for most people.
I also agree that the oil and gas industry is doing everything they can to prevent it from taking off.. I can't blame them for it, it's going to crush their business.. I blame the politicians who they own for allowing them to use the government to do it. I also agree that oil and gas has the resources that they should be out in front of this leading the way so as the transition happens, they are ready to take advantage of it..
Quote:
sorry but this doesn't make sense. there's literally no way for us to just turn a light switch on and declare all electric cars are now mandatory. the horse and buggy is a perfect example for every reason you listed, but you got the conclusion and the overall point completely wrong.
the horse and buggy industry didn't want cars in the first place, because EVENTUALLY they knew their business would completely die out. it wasn't some instant transition like a transgender surgery, bro. it happened over time.
If it's wrong then so are you because we are reaching exactly the same conclusion.. this is a transition, I have no idea how long this transition will take.. some people want the transition a whole lot faster, some people are pretty resistant to it.. but it's going to go forward regardless of what anybody "wants"..
Quote:
isn't that what the free market is anyway? a new car now doesn't generate the same carbon footprint as a car 20 years ago. my M6 has a twin turbo V8, and yet i get better gas mileage and a lower carbon footprint than a pickup truck thats 20 years old.
No, that's not really the free market... cars are more efficient now in large part because the government mandated it. It probably would have happened anyway, but I believe it happened faster because of government mandates on fuel efficiency.
I expect the government will make similar mandates on renewable energy and I hope they do, I just hope they do it wisely and in a way that actually facilitates a good transition without killing businesses that don't have time to react. Those in the fossil fuels industry, whether it's producing it, transporting it, selling it, or using it.. better be somewhere planning their transition because sooner or later it's going to happen whether they want it or not. some will be ready and profit nicely from it, others will go down fighting... just the laws of human nature.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
