Now you're bringing up wasting money? I can't imagine the amount you've wasted on your new Tesla compared to buying something gas powered. This guy...
EVs have a much lower total cost of ownership. That fact is well documented.
Until the batteries go out. In ten years or 100,000 miles (if they are lucky), there is about a $15,000 battery replacement cost one has to anticipate. Additionally, that cost of ownership is predicated on current electric prices. If we do go to an electric grid full of renewables and battery storage, the cost of that electricity will likely triple or more (more as a result of the batteries than the wind / solar). The reason renewables are so "cheap" today is because they are complemented by natural gas turbines that fill in the voids in the power production. Most people (yourself included and politicians on the left who are approving the 100% renewable standards) do not understand the insanely high costs associated with reliance on batteries to provide storage. When those two factors are taken into account, the economics of EVs are not quite as shiny as you imply.
The "green movement" hasn't shunned Nuclear Power any more or less than everyone else.
Nuclear power, in it's current state, is expensive and impossible to build. As such it gets brought up as a talking point to score points against the "greenies" while anyone worth listening to knows it isn't viable.
It's a way for the "anti-green movement" parties to act like they care solving the emissions problem while shifting the blame for it not getting solved onto "the others".
Laughably false, what a load of BS you just spewed, only 39% of Democrats support Nuclear Power vs 60% of R's and 53% of Independents. Which party do you think green movement members belong to? Germany's Green Party has been at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement, going from around 25% of power generation from Nuclear to 10% (How is that working out?). Its patently false to say the green movement hasn't opposed nuclear more than other groups.
Talking about "expensive to build" like we don't massively subsidize renewable energy and didn't just pass a $750B bill to further subsidize them. Nuclear power is 100% a viable solution to some of our energy issues, but idiots like you continue to parrot these asinine talking points which are not even remotely correct. Do a modicum of research before spreading this garbage.
4 in 10 Democrats support nuclear power. 6 in 10 Republicans support nuclear power.
That's a lot closer to agreement than you get on most issues. I think your poll supports Monkey's thesis.
Also, the environmental community has a more subtle view than just "for" and "against". I think it's fair to say that most are "for" nuclear energy only for as long as the only alternative is fossil fuel. When renewables can take over, it will be time to phase out our current nuclear technology.
There are many all along the political spectrum who say that nuclear energy is so dangerous we should shut it all down immediately. While I don't share this position, it's easy to see why both Republicans and Democrats would share this point of view.
You must have a reading comprehension problem. I addressed that several posts ago.
And if you are concerned so much about wasting money, you should have gotten a Mach-e. You get a much better vehicle for your money. Are you aware of the profit margin on your model y? Tesla fleeced you out of a lot of money AND you got an inferior vehicle compared to the Mach-e.
But the spec sheets, dammit!!!!
I bought my Model Y when it was $16,000 cheaper than today. And it's worth infinitely more than a Mach-e. FSD alone is worth more than the cost of a Mach-e.
Your failure to grasp time of use charging gives me no confidence in your ability to understand anything else about EVs.
You can’t be this stupid. Not only did you overpay for a vehicle that is inferior to the Mach-e, you then doubled down on stupid and paid for FSD?
And you want to tell me how I could save a few bucks? Lol
Go and drive a Mach-e. You’ll want to get rid of that model y as soon as you can. It’s that much better of a vehicle.
Talking about "expensive to build" like we don't massively subsidize renewable energy and didn't just pass a $750B bill to further subsidize them. Nuclear power is 100% a viable solution to some of our energy issues, but idiots like you continue to parrot these asinine talking points which are not even remotely correct. Do a modicum of research before spreading this garbage.
EVs have a much lower total cost of ownership. That fact is well documented.
Until the batteries go out. In ten years or 100,000 miles (if they are lucky), there is about a $15,000 battery replacement cost one has to anticipate. Additionally, that cost of ownership is predicated on current electric prices. If we do go to an electric grid full of renewables and battery storage, the cost of that electricity will likely triple or more (more as a result of the batteries than the wind / solar). The reason renewables are so "cheap" today is because they are complemented by natural gas turbines that fill in the voids in the power production. Most people (yourself included and politicians on the left who are approving the 100% renewable standards) do not understand the insanely high costs associated with reliance on batteries to provide storage. When those two factors are taken into account, the economics of EVs are not quite as shiny as you imply.
Nope. Not "until the batteries go out". The idea that there is this looming battery replacement cost at the end of the warranty is a myth. It is not uncommon to get 300,000 miles out of an old Tesla battery. And the batteries have just gotten better and better since then. Tesla says you should expect 300,000 to 500,000 miles from the battery.
EVs have a lower total cost of ownership. End of story.
Renewables and storage make electricity cheaper. It's the cheapest form of power generation there is. And the cost keeps going lower.
I bought my Model Y when it was $16,000 cheaper than today. And it's worth infinitely more than a Mach-e. FSD alone is worth more than the cost of a Mach-e.
Your failure to grasp time of use charging gives me no confidence in your ability to understand anything else about EVs.
You can’t be this stupid. Not only did you overpay for a vehicle that is inferior to the Mach-e, you then doubled down on stupid and paid for FSD?
And you want to tell me how I could save a few bucks? Lol
Go and drive a Mach-e. You’ll want to get rid of that model y as soon as you can. It’s that much better of a vehicle.
But the spec sheets, dammit!!!!
FSD is amazing and worth several times what I paid.
The Mach-e will never be able to drive itself. And because it doesn't have the FSD computer or FSD software, it can't avoid accidents like a Tesla.
A Tesla is already the safest car you can buy. But over time, it just gets safer and safer as FSD improves.
Laughably false, what a load of BS you just spewed, only 39% of Democrats support Nuclear Power vs 60% of R's and 53% of Independents. Which party do you think green movement members belong to? Germany's Green Party has been at the forefront of the anti-nuclear movement, going from around 25% of power generation from Nuclear to 10% (How is that working out?). Its patently false to say the green movement hasn't opposed nuclear more than other groups.
Talking about "expensive to build" like we don't massively subsidize renewable energy and didn't just pass a $750B bill to further subsidize them. Nuclear power is 100% a viable solution to some of our energy issues, but idiots like you continue to parrot these asinine talking points which are not even remotely correct. Do a modicum of research before spreading this garbage.
4 in 10 Democrats support nuclear power. 6 in 10 Republicans support nuclear power.
That's a lot closer to agreement than you get on most issues. I think your poll supports Monkey's thesis.
Also, the environmental community has a more subtle view than just "for" and "against". I think it's fair to say that most are "for" nuclear energy only for as long as the only alternative is fossil fuel. When renewables can take over, it will be time to phase out our current nuclear technology.
There are many all along the political spectrum who say that nuclear energy is so dangerous we should shut it all down immediately. While I don't share this position, it's easy to see why both Republicans and Democrats would share this point of view.
If one were to compare the environmental impact of nuclear versus renewables plus battery storage, they would likely be blown away by the impact and scale of things like lithium mining, cobalt mining, rare earth element mining and their impact on the environment. Uranium mining is not exactly clean, but the scale required is where the big difference arises. You can get a massive amount of energy out of a small amount of uranium. On the flip side, you need a massive amount of lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements in order to get the equivalent amount of power from something like solar plus storage.
A 1,000MW nuclear power plant generates about 3 cubic meters of enriched uranium waste per year (about 62 tons). To get a comparable amount of energy, you would need a 4,000 MW solar plant (since solar only produces energy about 1/4 of the day) and 72,000MWh of storage. A 380-watt solar panel weighs about 18 pounds and has an expected life of 20 years (at which time it becomes hazardous e-waste due to the cadmium and other elements it is typically manufactured with). Given those parameters, the solar plant would produce an average of 5,263 tons of hazardous waste panels and 59,400 tons of lithium-ion battery waste per year (expected life of 8 years, weight of approximately 6 kg per kWh). So, you are looking at 64,663 tons of hazardous waste from solar plus storage per year (and the associated mining waste to produce those materials) versus 62 tons of hazardous waste (and the associated mining waste to produce those materials) to produce an equivalent amount of power from nuclear. So, basically about a thousand times as much hazardous waste from the "clean" power solution.
Renewables and storage make electricity cheaper. It's the cheapest form of power generation there is. And the cost keeps going lower.
Boy. You really are drinking the kool-aid aren't you? Renewables make electricity cheaper so long as there is an additional natural gas turbine plant to back them up. The storage projects they have today provide a minimal amount of storage (think along the lines of 90 minutes of back-up for a fraction of the total plant power). In order to truly backup a solar or wind project in a manner that would provide meaningful round the clock power (like a coal or nuclear plant) requires significantly more back-up than your beloved solar plus storage projects (which are heavily subsidized). The misunderstanding stems from guys that get a subsidized 1 kW Tesla power wall on their house. The power wall will provide backup for their refrigerator for about 3 hours. Meanwhile, a natural gas generator with 25 times the capacity can back-up every load in their house for an unlimited amount of time and costs about half the price (other than the massive subsidy that the local utility may give the power wall).
Says the guy who can't even understand the charging features of his own car.
I would never expect you to understand cutting edge technology like FSD.
I have a friend who is a beta tester for FSD. He’s selling his Tesla when his Mach-e is delivered. That’s how much better of a vehicle the Mach-e is. If you want a computer, sure, get a Tesla. If you want a superior vehicle to a Tesla, get a Mach-e. There are even better EVs out there than the Mach-e. So, it’s not like I’m even a Mach-e fanboy.
4 in 10 Democrats support nuclear power. 6 in 10 Republicans support nuclear power.
That's a lot closer to agreement than you get on most issues. I think your poll supports Monkey's thesis.
Also, the environmental community has a more subtle view than just "for" and "against". I think it's fair to say that most are "for" nuclear energy only for as long as the only alternative is fossil fuel. When renewables can take over, it will be time to phase out our current nuclear technology.
There are many all along the political spectrum who say that nuclear energy is so dangerous we should shut it all down immediately. While I don't share this position, it's easy to see why both Republicans and Democrats would share this point of view.
If one were to compare the environmental impact of nuclear versus renewables plus battery storage, they would likely be blown away by the impact and scale of things like lithium mining, cobalt mining, rare earth element mining and their impact on the environment. Uranium mining is not exactly clean, but the scale required is where the big difference arises. You can get a massive amount of energy out of a small amount of uranium. On the flip side, you need a massive amount of lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements in order to get the equivalent amount of power from something like solar plus storage.
A 1,000MW nuclear power plant generates about 3 cubic meters of enriched uranium waste per year (about 62 tons). To get a comparable amount of energy, you would need a 4,000 MW solar plant (since solar only produces energy about 1/4 of the day) and 72,000MWh of storage. A 380-watt solar panel weighs about 18 pounds and has an expected life of 20 years (at which time it becomes hazardous e-waste due to the cadmium and other elements it is typically manufactured with). Given those parameters, the solar plant would produce an average of 5,263 tons of hazardous waste panels and 59,400 tons of lithium-ion battery waste per year (expected life of 8 years, weight of approximately 6 kg per kWh). So, you are looking at 64,663 tons of hazardous waste from solar plus storage per year (and the associated mining waste to produce those materials) versus 62 tons of hazardous waste (and the associated mining waste to produce those materials) to produce an equivalent amount of power from nuclear. So, basically about a thousand times as much hazardous waste from the "clean" power solution.
You are mostly preaching to the choir. Nuclear is great except for the cost and the fact that nobody wants to live within many miles of a nuclear power plant. And you shouldn't put them in places prone to natural disasters or wars.
Battery storage actually compliments nuclear very well as nuclear is used for base load and battery storage replaces gas peaker plants.
Solar panels last longer than 20 years these days. 25 to 30 years is normal.
Lithium batteries are 100% recyclable. So there is no waste associated with that.
Solar panels are difficult to recycle, but companies are springing up to tackle that problem.
Renewables and storage make electricity cheaper. It's the cheapest form of power generation there is. And the cost keeps going lower.
Boy. You really are drinking the kool-aid aren't you? Renewables make electricity cheaper so long as there is an additional natural gas turbine plant to back them up. The storage projects they have today provide a minimal amount of storage (think along the lines of 90 minutes of back-up for a fraction of the total plant power). In order to truly backup a solar or wind project in a manner that would provide meaningful round the clock power (like a coal or nuclear plant) requires significantly more back-up than your beloved solar plus storage projects (which are heavily subsidized). The misunderstanding stems from guys that get a subsidized 1 kW Tesla power wall on their house. The power wall will provide backup for their refrigerator for about 3 hours. Meanwhile, a natural gas generator with 25 times the capacity can back-up every load in their house for an unlimited amount of time and costs about half the price (other than the massive subsidy that the local utility may give the power wall).
Solar and wind plus storage doesn't need any gas backup. It's still the cheapest. We just need to build a lot more batteries and deploy a lot more solar and wind. And this is exactly what is happening. I'm not talking about the projects of today. I'm talking about the projects of tomorrow.
Says the guy who can't even understand the charging features of his own car.
I would never expect you to understand cutting edge technology like FSD.
I have a friend who is a beta tester for FSD. He’s selling his Tesla when his Mach-e is delivered. That’s how much better of a vehicle the Mach-e is. If you want a computer, sure, get a Tesla. If you want a superior vehicle to a Tesla, get a Mach-e. There are even better EVs out there than the Mach-e. So, it’s not like I’m even a Mach-e fanboy.
But the spec sheets, dammit!!!
Your friend will miss out if his Mach-e ever gets delivered. It will be interesting to see if he really makes the switch. FSD is starting to get really good, so it might be a race to see if he realizes what he is missing before he sells.
I am an FSD beta tester as well. And I have a background that lets me understand how the system works and why it will be so transformative.
I have a friend who is a beta tester for FSD. He’s selling his Tesla when his Mach-e is delivered. That’s how much better of a vehicle the Mach-e is. If you want a computer, sure, get a Tesla. If you want a superior vehicle to a Tesla, get a Mach-e. There are even better EVs out there than the Mach-e. So, it’s not like I’m even a Mach-e fanboy.
But the spec sheets, dammit!!!
Your friend will miss out if his Mach-e ever gets delivered. It will be interesting to see if he really makes the switch. FSD is starting to get really good, so it might be a race to see if he realizes what he is missing before he sells.
I am an FSD beta tester as well. And I have a background that lets me understand how the system works and why it will be so transformative.
What makes you think he wouldn’t make the switch. He keeps on making offers to buy mine.
Just think. If you had test driven a Mach-e before overpaying so much for your model y, you’d be driving a Mach-e right now too and you’d be qualified to be in this discussion.
I have no idea why the green movement has shunned Nuclear Power, such a dumb decision.
The "green movement" hasn't shunned Nuclear Power any more or less than everyone else.
Nuclear power, in it's current state, is expensive and impossible to build. As such it gets brought up as a talking point to score points against the "greenies" while anyone worth listening to knows it isn't viable.
It's a way for the "anti-green movement" parties to act like they care solving the emissions problem while shifting the blame for it not getting solved onto "the others".
It’s expensive and takes a long time to build nuclear power plants because people don’t want them built is all.
Yet you don't have anything to back up how reliable they are. Or more reliable than gas cars. Let's see your proof fortune teller.
Just Google some stats on how long the early Teslas have lasted. Then take into account the advances in the technology since then, which will make EVs last even longer. After that, take a look at LFP batteries, which many believe should last a million miles. Over half of Teslas cars are now equipped with LFP batteries.
I've talked about all that stuff before. So yes, I have backed up my assertions.
I see way more cars that are 20-40 years old than 20-40 year old Teslas. Oh they didn't make em back then? Cool. So turns out gas cars are more reliable and depending on which one you buy are more cost effective. 🥱
You can’t be this stupid. Not only did you overpay for a vehicle that is inferior to the Mach-e, you then doubled down on stupid and paid for FSD?
And you want to tell me how I could save a few bucks? Lol
Go and drive a Mach-e. You’ll want to get rid of that model y as soon as you can. It’s that much better of a vehicle.
But the spec sheets, dammit!!!!
FSD is amazing and worth several times what I paid.
The Mach-e will never be able to drive itself. And because it doesn't have the FSD computer or FSD software, it can't avoid accidents like a Tesla.
A Tesla is already the safest car you can buy. But over time, it just gets safer and safer as FSD improves.
Sounds boring. I love driving. Riding my motorcycle too. On the street or on the track both. Driven 170+ in a NASCAR car at Daytona. Taking a few risks in life makes it worth living.
Your friend will miss out if his Mach-e ever gets delivered. It will be interesting to see if he really makes the switch. FSD is starting to get really good, so it might be a race to see if he realizes what he is missing before he sells.
I am an FSD beta tester as well. And I have a background that lets me understand how the system works and why it will be so transformative.
What makes you think he wouldn’t make the switch. He keeps on making offers to buy mine.
Just think. If you had test driven a Mach-e before overpaying so much for your model y, you’d be driving a Mach-e right now too and you’d be qualified to be in this discussion.
After dinner tonight, my wife and I went for ice cream at Bruster's. I brought out our cones out to the car. We sat in air conditioned comfort as we watched one of our favorite shows on the Model Y's big screen. It was a nice little outing and it sure is pleasant to have that streaming service right there in the car.
You should try it some time in your Mach-e. Just tape your phone to the screen and squint.