We are on a path to human extinction, says former Microsoft exec

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

10 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You proved that one wrong. By the end of the lifespan of that asset it has practically no residual value, the cost of maintaining it overtakes the value of the asset itself makes it become a total loss, requiring the re-purchase of an asset. 

 

It's a wonderful theory that it pays you back the money you invested, but it doesn't, it's a permanent expense that loses value and requires more investment to maintain, ultimately having to pay for the investment all over again. What's far better is either completely going off the grid, or learning better ways to utilize grid time.

 

This kind of thing separates us, those who know how to use their money, versus those that prefer to use others' money.

Like your precious and rare froggy pictures, more than that separates us.

[IAMX 3,055]

13 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Like your precious and rare froggy pictures, more than that separates us.

My apologies, I'll speak meme so you can follow along.

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

15 minutes ago, IAMX said:

My apologies, I'll speak meme so you can follow along.

 

 

Thanks , I am good.

Edited June 17, 2017 by ccneat

[Dashinka 25,890]

3 hours ago, ccneat said:

No it's not. 

My understanding from reading a sustainable cradle to grave analysis of the Leaf (may have been the Tesla, but I think it was the Leaf) is that it had the equivalent of about 60-70k miles of energy input when built compared with a gasoline car with reasonable fuel economy.  Most of that input is in the battery which may have to be replaced in 100-150k.

[IAMX 3,055]

37 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

My understanding from reading a sustainable cradle to grave analysis of the Leaf (may have been the Tesla, but I think it was the Leaf) is that it had the equivalent of about 60-70k miles of energy input when built compared with a gasoline car with reasonable fuel economy.  Most of that input is in the battery which may have to be replaced in 100-150k.

Something like that.

 

As long as we live in the big cities, I much prefer electric.. efficiency and torque of electric (full electric, not hybrid engine) vehicles far surpasses the inefficiency of ICE (combustion engines), I've been waiting for a full BEV truck to haul a 5th wheel with -- supposedly around 2020 Ford is coming out with a F150 EV. I'm excited for what the future holds on the near horizon for electric, also to give the finger to OPEC and the archaic combustion auto industry that wants to keep people on inefficient vehicles when they could have moved forward with the EV1 instead of fellating the oil industry.

 

I just don't drive and enjoy these types of vehicles because of some perceived "eco-friendliness", although the lack of smog in the big cities from idling cars is a huge bonus for people like me with lingering respiratory issues.

 

I think of EV's a lot like I think of computers (from more of a personal level since I have a long history with building computers and computer parts that already use this technology).. they run extremely efficient, especially as we combine magnetism with moving parts (full electric vehicles, Maglev trains, etc.).

Edited June 17, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

My understanding from reading a sustainable cradle to grave analysis of the Leaf (may have been the Tesla, but I think it was the Leaf) is that it had the equivalent of about 60-70k miles of energy input when built compared with a gasoline car with reasonable fuel economy.  Most of that input is in the battery which may have to be replaced in 100-150k.

I have not done much research on the EV so I cannot speak to that.

 

I have researched solar panels and wind and they are far from being a resource drain based on the materials or money invested. By 2020 solar will be cheaper than coal and is cheaper than $50 oil today.

[IAMX 3,055]

17 minutes ago, ccneat said:

they are far from being a resource drain based on the materials or money invested

They are a permanent drain. At best, they save some money, but they are forever a depreciating asset that both costs to maintain and replace. You never get back your investment. So.. you're wrong.

 

The opportunity cost of using that money to invest in solar project is losing money you could actually make profit to pay off the extra electricity/hydro and still wind up with more money in your pocket than this sham perma-loss investment you tout.

 

When I worked for Google, they were doing a solar project throughout their Mountain View campuses, I talked to the project manager myself to ask, from one businessman to another, if Google would ever make their money back.. he showed me at best they stand to save some money on peak usage, would never even remotely come close to offsetting their investment. This of course was 2006-2007'ish.. nothing has changed in 10 years.

 

I also asked him about a home project, and I was quoted 30k on it, back then. Monumental waste.

Edited June 17, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

18 minutes ago, IAMX said:

They are a permanent drain. At best, they save some money, but they are forever a depreciating asset that both costs to maintain and replace. You never get back your investment. So.. you're wrong.

 

The opportunity cost of using that money to invest in solar project is losing money you could actually make profit to pay off the extra electricity/hydro and still wind up with more money in your pocket than this sham perma-loss investment you tout.

 

When I worked for Google, they were doing a solar project throughout their Mountain View campuses, I talked to the project manager myself to ask, from one businessman to another, if Google would ever make their money back.. he showed me at best they stand to save some money on peak usage, would never even remotely come close to offsetting their investment. This of course was 2006-2007'ish.. nothing has changed in 10 years.

 

I also asked him about a home project, and I was quoted 30k on it, back then. Monumental waste.

The home projects are a different beast as very few are selling back power to the grid. I have no idea what type of project Google was undertaking and for what purpose. Last year it was cheaper to invest in solar and wind than to buy oil. That is a fact that is only going to accelerate with economies of scale.

 

If you plan on rebutting my quotes , be sure to follow our norms and quote me fully.

[Dashinka 25,890]

2 hours ago, IAMX said:

Something like that.

 

As long as we live in the big cities, I much prefer electric.. efficiency and torque of electric (full electric, not hybrid engine) vehicles far surpasses the inefficiency of ICE (combustion engines), I've been waiting for a full BEV truck to haul a 5th wheel with -- supposedly around 2020 Ford is coming out with a F150 EV. I'm excited for what the future holds on the near horizon for electric, also to give the finger to OPEC and the archaic combustion auto industry that wants to keep people on inefficient vehicles when they could have moved forward with the EV1 instead of fellating the oil industry.

 

I just don't drive and enjoy these types of vehicles because of some perceived "eco-friendliness", although the lack of smog in the big cities from idling cars is a huge bonus for people like me with lingering respiratory issues.

 

I think of EV's a lot like I think of computers (from more of a personal level since I have a long history with building computers and computer parts that already use this technology).. they run extremely efficient, especially as we combine magnetism with moving parts (full electric vehicles, Maglev trains, etc.).

Not sure you are going to pull a full sized 5th wheel with an F150, I think you may need at least an F250, or most likely an F350.  I did some testing once while driving a Chevy 3500 with a fully loaded trailer 17 miles up the hill from Stovepipe Wells (Death Valley) to Towne Pass.  We burned about 13 gallons of fuel in that tow, so I wonder how an electric would do.  I am all for EVs, but I still think they will always be a niche vehicle as they will not be convenient for many people whether they live in high rise apartments without assigned parking, or regularly drive many miles and don't have the time to wait for a charge every 300-400 miles.  The Model 3 will be a big test for Tesla as many people that buy that car will have it as a single vehicle unlike many of the people that purchased the S or the X.  Tesla may need to greatly expand its proprietary charging stations as well as their maintence facilities, as contrary to popular belief, EVs still have issues that will need repair.

[Dashinka 25,890]

58 minutes ago, ccneat said:

I have not done much research on the EV so I cannot speak to that.

 

I have researched solar panels and wind and they are far from being a resource drain based on the materials or money invested. By 2020 solar will be cheaper than coal and is cheaper than $50 oil today.

I am fine with solar and wind, but the with those it is the intermittency of their power generation which either requires a somewhat elaborate storage system, or something else ready to manintain a base load on the grid.  From what I have seen, all energy sources have pluses and minuses, so a good mix of all of them seems to be the best course.  This can moderate the supply or the raw materials (remember all the rare earths required for wind generators, and the elements/plastics necessary for solar) and maintain a continuous supply of energy.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Bill & Katya