Replies

I'm not going to debate why you're on FR propagandizing Tesla, electric cars, green enerty et al (the only thing you're not touting is the value to the global warming fight). Maybe you're a Tesla rep. Maybe you work in a College and it's rubbing off on you (Telsa is HUGELY subsidized by taxpayers...not Conservative at all). I frankly don't give a rat. But I'm not going to permit your preaching to go one-sided and unchallenged about another part of the story because, to coin a cliche', the 'science is not settled':

Don’t look so smug: Your Tesla might be worse for the environment than a gas car

Smugly citing the lack of coal power plants in SoCal paints you a certain color from more than one point of view.

Furthermore, I never saw it posted here, but here's the rest of the Tesla road-test story after Musk & Tesla's round of propaganda poo-pooing the lousy results that made national media. While the Tesla owners manual warns users about battery damage resulting from draining the battery to 25-0%, it omits mention at all of the damage done to the battery from repeated use of 'quick-charging stations' (that tidbit is rechargeable-battery 101; even Musk can't change physics & chemistry). This story scratches the surface, but mostly exposes the diversion used by Tesla to avoid talking about what will be reported more & more as Tesla users make frequent use of quick-charging stations.

If the government would just release Lithium 6 as a free-market element, this discussion would be completely moot, as hydrogen would replace EVs overnight. I don't dispute that the Tesla is a nice engineering feat all-around; what I dispute is a champion of liberal business model (subsidies) and climate change/global warming being touted in typical liberal/propagandistic fashion (whitewashing for whatever personal bias you have) in a Conservative forum such as FR without being open/honest about the dark side(s) of it.

I barely had the time to write this; I could go on, but neither do I have the time nor the emotional bias to motivate me. Notably, referring to emotional bias: The reality posed by Tesla's stock price and the very real threat to its entire business model by Chinese manufacturers paints a dark picture for Tesla's, and EVs in general made elsewhere, future.

I concur with you on Russia/China, but ignoring certain realities to promote a product...well...

...I don't wear a skirt, but you Tesla proponents (Volt, too) sure blow like we all do...

You didn't mention the rest of the rest of the NY Times road-test story that they published a few days after the one you linked, entitled “Problems With Precision and Judgment, but Not Integrity, in Tesla Test”. The editor admitted the original writer was imprecise in his measurements and used bad judgment during his “test”. Whether or not he did so in order to write a sensational story is up to the reader to decide.

Lithium-6 is a material needed to make thermonuclear bombs, so don't hold your breath waiting for it to be released for public use. Also, I've never heard of how it could be used to make hydrogen cheaply so I'm curious to hear the explanation behind that. Please don't tell me you are referring to that youtube video of the guy who says he uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen and then uses the hydrogen to power his car. There is a certain something called the first law of thermodynamics that prevent such “free energy” machines from working.

As for government help, Tesla has paid back all of their government loans. Also, I don't think the $7,500 tax credit plays a large part in a customer's decision to buy at $100,000 car. Though, I wouldn't mind if they changed the law to only allow the tax credit to be applied for cars under $50,000.