Posted on 04/08/2015 10:54:33 AM PDT by C19fan
Tesla has just introduced a new entry level car, but before you fire up your laptop to order one, you should know it's even more expensive than Tesla's current starter vehicle. The car it announced on Wednesday is called the Tesla Model S 70D and it'll start at $75,000, although buyers are eligible for a federal tax credit that brings the price down to $67,500. The Model S starts at $70,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
“Tesla has at least produced a product, made some innovations, and employed some people. “
True.
It seems obvious now that E-cars should be marketed as luxury items since they are uneconomical.
But Musk was the one who actually did it.
It compares favorably to Ford’s concept of a “common man’s car”.
I did not say that abiotic hydrocarbons don't exist. In fact, the Earth is theorized to have had an atmosphere similar to Titan's once upon a time.
None of that changes the fact that, on Earth, the vast majority of hydrocarbons we pump from the ground are abiotic. Theories stating otherwise have not been borne out by the science.
Were you similarly outraged when the federal government confiscated electric cars out of their owner’s driveways?
Forgetting his politics, Musk is a true innovator and a true capitalist, and he has a remarkable product.
Liar:
“ The abiogenic petroleum theory that you are referencing was bandied about the Soviet Union for a several decades until it showed up in the West via Thomas Gold later in the 20th century.
I has long since been discredited. “Fossil fuels” is the correct term; or more specifically “remains of ancient plankton fuels””
Show where the plankton came from on titan.
You are referring to the EV1 that was lent to the user and was not actually owned by them as they were agreeing to test it?
Musk is not a capialist.
Taking taxpayer money and putting the risk onto the taxpayer is not capitalism.
Not even in the same country as capitalism.
Capitalism: risking hour own money with investor backing and accepting the risk yourself.
What musk did was put the risk onto the taxpayer so that he could walk away clean in the event of failure.
He is real good at getting getting taxpayer money.
Plus he is an obamabot.
You cannot separate that out as it is pertinent to his getting handouts.
All you do is make straw man arguments. Does it ever get old?
I guess I should be reassured by the fact that you can't come up with anything better.
I has long since been discredited. “Fossil fuels” is the correct term; or more specifically “remains of ancient plankton fuels” if you prefer."
.
Please show us where the plankton on Titan came from.
YOU said it, then you claimed you did not. "I did not say that abiotic hydrocarbons don't exist." <=======Contradicts your post at 76 by the way.
Try again.
SHOW US WHERE THE PLANKTON/FOSSILS/WHat have you came form on Titan.
http://www.universetoday.com/12800/titan-has-hundreds-of-times-more-liquid-hydrocarbons-than-earth/
lol, all that effort.
Such a simple reading comprehension problem.
Abiotic hydrocarbons vs. abiogenic petroleum theory
The first is what is in Titan’s atmosphere as well as what was in the atmosphere of Earth in its primordial stages.
The second is the discredited theory that this is where our oil comes from that we pump out of the ground today.
Of course, you already knew the difference between the two, as well as everyone else that has read this back-and-forth between us. But go ahead and continue blatantly distorting what I said. You are the King of the Straw Man after all.
NO, it is you trying to walk back what you said.
I quoted you, and provided links.
Nice to know you won’t admit to what you stated.
And, again, you contradict yourself in this post.
You did state that abiogenic oil doesn’t exist and has been discredited, then you turn around and state that it exists or at least did in “primordial earth” like on Titan.
SO which is it?
Nobody has proved that the majority of oil on Earth is from biological sources. This is a matter for debate. But one thing we DO know is that the Earth simply isn’t old enough to have produced oil the way liberal, secular scientists suggest.
Some of it could be organic, but it’s not “millions of years old.”
http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_fuel
“Deposits of Oil are normally located in sedimentary rocks. These sediment layers were formed as rocks such as silt, sand, and clay grains were washed away and carried by water to a new location where they were then deposited in layers. These layers dried up and the sediment grains where bound together by a natural cement that previously formed from the chemicals that where in the water. Vast amounts of oil are found trapped underground is porous sedimentary rock. The oil amasses together in the the small spaces between the sediment grains. Oil is not formed in sedimentary rock but moves through the layers of rock until it becomes trapped. Oil is said to have formed organically from the fossilized remains of plants and animal but there are those who say it could have been created inorganically. The chemical makeup of oil shows that it is an organic substance. The chemical, porphyrin, is found in animal blood, plants, and also oil. Porphyrins are, “Any of various organic compounds containing four pyrrole rings, occurring universally in protoplasm, and functioning as a metal-binding cofactor in hemoglobin, chlorophyll, and certain enzymes.”[1] Crude oil is said to form from plants and large beds of coals but because of the presence of porphyrins in the chemical makeup of oil there is a chance that crude oil can be extracted from the fossilized remains of animals. The remains of slaughterhouse animals can be transformed into high-quality oil in less than two hours. They can be formed rather quickly if made from the proper organic materials. The source of oil comes from the many forests of trees and the vast numbers of diatoms that inhabited the pre-Flood world. When God sent the Flood the trees were washed away and buried with other large groups of plant remains. These large groups of buried plants became the coal beds that we have now and as the Flood continued to happen these coal beds were buried even further down into the earth. The temperatures of these coal beds increased and crude oil and natural gases were created. The oil began to disperse throughout the porous sedimentary rock until trapped and are now the oil beds and natural gas deposits that we have now.”
I know.
Even more, the Kola Superdeep Borehole discovered that if you drill deep enough, the well starts boiling with hydrogen and hydrogen isotopes from very deep in the crust.
The EV1 was leased like lots of other cars. It was stolen from the people who had them because big oil was displeased.
Lots of American companies get way more government help than Tesla has, but you won’t or can’t see that. You neglected to address this point in regards to the oil companies.
I have three friends with Tesla. All three say it’s the best car they have ever driven.
Unless government crushes electric again, electric will eventually prevail over gas. That’s just a fact.
First off, a lease is not ownership.
WHen you lease something, you do not own it.
It is similar to renting.
It is use for a set amount of time.
That out of the way: The EV1 program was a car testing program much like the Chrysler Turbine Car.
The program was exactly the same, after a period of testing, the cars were reclaimed and all but 9 were destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car
http://www.turbinecar.com/introduction.htm
The cars, after a period of actual use by real people, were taken back at the end of program.
Same thing with the EV1.
Those people did not own the cars in either case.
And in both cases, cars were destroyed.
So by taking assorted deductions on your 1040, you’re fungibly redistributing my taxes? What a _____ by your own terms.
I believe here was a thread on “common core” that said they were teaching that 3-1=3.
So I give up.
I can’t take on the whole education establishment single handedly!
Of course if deductions were paid for by reduced spending I’d be more sympathetic to them even if they had no social good.
But that never happens.
First off, and most importantly, what was the reason the cars were confiscated?
If you have an answer that consists of anything other than powers that did not not want the electric car to succeed because of fear of loss of revenue, halted the program, than you would be lying.
If that is your understanding of capitalism or a free market, then you are clueless.
The government takes property from people who want it and you back the government’s actions. Sounds more like a liberal position than a conservative one.
The jump from prototype testing to full production was not cost effective.
The program, and thus the leases, ended.
No grand conspiracy, no magic reason beyond cost analysis.
No, the cars weren’t stolen as GM already owned them.
The only ev1 derived vehicles that were actually sold were S10 EV pickups.
And no matter what you claim, capitalism is not getting taxpayer teat funds so that the risk is shoved onto the taxpayer.
The US federal government under the George W. Bush Administration joined the auto industry suit against California in 2002 - pushing California to finally abandon its ZEV mandate regulation. Bush’s chief of staff Andrew Card had recently been head of the American Automobile Manufacturers Alliance in California and then joined the White House with Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, and other federal officials who were former executives or board members of oil and auto companies.
Don’t let facts intrude upon your opinion.
I’m not the one ignoring contract law and what leases are.
That, and what you are ranting about in this post has absolutely nothing to do with electric vehicles, the EV1, your claim they were stolen, GM, or the leases being canceled at the termination of program.
Enjoy your tangent!
Call it what you want. It doesn’t make it any more or less available or advantageous. You posited the “perfect fuel” and gasoline is not even close to perfect. It’s close to being the most versatile and highest storage density fuel, but it isn’t...diesel is safer, more versatile in terms of torque and towing needs, and has a higher energy density.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.