Dirty Tesla covers all Cybertruck updates after Investor day...

[FutureBoy]

Fossils are actually "renewable" if you apply the appropriate timescale or technology.

Wow...

If you think about it, extinction is also renewable given the appropriate timescale or technology. Don't mind all the death and destruction... Life will return at some point.

Sponsored

 

[Scott Beall]

Replacing a used car with a new one is not bad environmentally, unless the used car is thrown into a volcano. When sold, it’s residual lifespan satiates demand for more newer cars elsewhere.

That's what I never understood about the "Cash for Clunkers" program a while back.

You could only get the rebate on a new car if you destroyed the old one. It seemed like a lot of wasted residual resources that went into manufacturing the clunker vs the improved fuel efficiency of the new car.

I wonder how many miles driven in the new car (which at that time was a hybrid, or ICE) broke even the resources used to manufacture it vs keeping the clunker going with lower MPG.

A lot of folks thought this was a good idea but I could never figure it.

 

[CyberGus]

the decision to buy new is “not bad environmentally” only if it causes someone else to not buy a new one?

To suggest that buying a new jean jacket is environmentally neutral against buying one of the thousands of jean jackets in second hand stores because someone else will buy the ones in second hand stores is a confusing take.

I’m not trying to morally indict anyone here, as I just bought a new Lightning and if things go as planned will buy a new CT when offered.

But I’m not confused about the consumption involved.

Excess and wasteful consumption is environmentally unfriendly, true.

In your counter-example of a jean jacket, there is a net increase of jackets in the universe, since the hypothetical shopper is not replacing an old jacket, but expanding their closet.

Conversely, if I buy a brand-new car every week because I'm OCD and rich, that puts like-new used cars into the market, impacting supply-and-demand. If I just let them accumulate in my yard, well that's total shit.

Most car purchasers are buying a replacement. Unless their old car is no longer drivable, it will find use.

 

[CyberGus]

Wow...

If you think about it, extinction is also renewable given the appropriate timescale or technology. Don't mind all the death and destruction... Life will return at some point.

I've been watching "The Last of Us", and now I'm frantically searching Amazon for anti-fungal toothpaste

 

[CyberGus]

That's what I never understood about the "Cash for Clunkers" program a while back.

You could only get the rebate on a new car if you destroyed the old one. It seemed like a lot of wasted residual resources that went into manufacturing the clunker vs the improved fuel efficiency of the new car.

I wonder how many miles driven in the new car (which at that time was a hybrid, or ICE) broke even the resources used to manufacture it vs keeping the clunker going with lower MPG.

A lot of folks thought this was a good idea but I could never figure it.

The Cash-For-Clunkers program targeted vehicles near the end of their expected lifespan. Therefore, some of the energy used to build them was "wasted", but such cars also have the worst emissions, so it was probably a wash.

It was actually a stimulus program, meant to induce the sales of new cars by constraining the supply of used cars.

 

[Kahpernicus]

That's what I never understood about the "Cash for Clunkers" program a while back.

You could only get the rebate on a new car if you destroyed the old one. It seemed like a lot of wasted residual resources that went into manufacturing the clunker vs the improved fuel efficiency of the new car.

I wonder how many miles driven in the new car (which at that time was a hybrid, or ICE) broke even the resources used to manufacture it vs keeping the clunker going with lower MPG.

A lot of folks thought this was a good idea but I could never figure it.

The intent of cash for clunkers was about removing inefficient cars of the road, point blank.

Can't go back in time to fix the inefficiencies of the past.

 

[Crissa]

The Cash-For-Clunkers program targeted vehicles near the end of their expected lifespan. Therefore, some of the energy used to build them was "wasted", but such cars also have the worst emissions, so it was probably a wash.

It was actually a stimulus program, meant to induce the sales of new cars by constraining the supply of used cars.

Exactly. Its weakness is that it often took vehicles off the road which weren't... Actually on the road.

But the idea to take off vehicles that had worst (but still qualifying emissions) wasn't without reason.

It also created a base line to make sure that old hunks of steel weren't rotting around the state, either.

-Crissa

 

[JBee]

Wow...

If you think about it, extinction is also renewable given the appropriate timescale or technology. Don't mind all the death and destruction... Life will return at some point.

So long you take that in context of that we will all die someday anyway, it's just a question of when, then at least it's a closer approximation of the truth, than saying that we can have a sustainable energy economy without using fossil fuels to get there.

This does not mean there are not shorter ways to get rid of fossil use, or that we should not reduce their use overall, it just means we can't keep on demonizing fossils for all the ills of being unsustainable, whilst at the same time forgetting that we have a very long, and hard way to go, to get there at all. And probably can't do it without using fossils, to bring fossil consumption to zero. It's just like the whole "carbon is bad" for the environment fallacy. It's dumb and many don't actually believe it anyway, and have no reason too, but it still causes people to believe, recite and base decisions based on those fears, that is then the opposite of helpful. Just like the whole "how dare you" mantra. I'd rather subscribe to the "future is bright" and get on with creating that future.

Highlighting a problem and screaming it from the rooftops, is far and away, not the same thing as understanding a problem and having a solution for it. After all, all problems only exist in the minds of mankind.

 

[FutureBoy]

I'm not making comment on your general argument. Just on the one sentence I quoted. Seemed like your sentence was glossing over some major details.

Overall though I am experiencing some trepidation about the path we (humanity) need to tread going forward. If we don't get fossil fuels under control there will be severe death and destruction due to climate effects. If we try to get fossil fuels under control there is a non-zero probability that WWIII will break out. Even if WWIII itself does not occur, there are serious economic problems around the world that need to be solved. Not solving those situations could themselves cause serious dangerous situations.

But if we do everything just perfectly right (has humanity ever done this?) we can switch over to renewable energy and build it out big enough to address many of the issues plaguing humanity since forever.

What are the chances?

 

[anionic1]

It's not run away or irreversible, that's a fallacy. A lot of the damage to ecology is not directly because of fossil emissions, rather over consumption. But without fossils we would also have 4-5billion starving people, and we wouldn't be able to increase the productivity and capacity of our land. You could also produce virtually none of the renewables we have today without the fossil derived processes and resources. So you need to also consider the flip side of your argument as well.

You really need to take the wool off your eyes. Its a fact that the earth has entered its 6th mass extinction event caused by humans use of fossil fuels and global warming. 1,000,000 year old permafrost and glaciers are melting and its well known that the greenhouse gasses being released from the permafrost will significantly increase the greenhouse effect

It's not run away or irreversible, that's a fallacy. A lot of the damage to ecology is not directly because of fossil emissions, rather over consumption. But without fossils we would also have 4-5billion starving people, and we wouldn't be able to increase the productivity and capacity of our land. You could also produce virtually none of the renewables we have today without the fossil derived processes and resources. So you need to also consider the flip side of your argument as well.

At this point its estimated that in our recent history animal and insect populations are down 40 to 60%. Million year old permafrost and glaciers are melting and as the ocean, which traps about 1/3 of greenhouse gasses, warms it becomes exponentially less able to trap the gasses. That’s why scientist call it a tipping point. Life on this planet is a fairly balanced carbon cycle. The plants and

I don't think the prices will increase. Tesla would have had to make allowances for inflation, and inflation overall hasn't been as bad as people keep insinuating.

Even your suggested bottom price is an increase of over 30%!

And since the Semi came in with three, single motor axles, people have changed their estimation on whether the tri-motor would exist or not. Which is odd, since, as I pointed out, the Semi is using single-motor axles.

The reason to use *more* motors in the Semi is to avoid using *bigger* motors, but if you can get bigger, well, that's better. But the use case of the Cybertruck is more finesse than the Semi; as Ogre has repeatedly pointed out.

Either way, there's lots of space and use cases where different motor configurations are useful. That said, we're only going to see one or two at launch.

-Crissa

Elon has made it very clear that they will raise the price until demand waivers. Lets just see how it goes.

 

[JBee]

You really need to take the wool off your eyes. Its a fact that the earth has entered its 6th mass extinction event caused by humans use of fossil fuels and global warming. 1,000,000 year old permafrost and glaciers are melting and its well known that the greenhouse gasses being released from the permafrost will significantly increase the greenhouse effect

At this point its estimated that in our recent history animal and insect populations are down 40 to 60%. Million year old permafrost and glaciers are melting and as the ocean, which traps about 1/3 of greenhouse gasses, warms it becomes exponentially less able to trap the gasses. That’s why scientist call it a tipping point. Life on this planet is a fairly balanced carbon cycle. The plants and

Elon has made it very clear that they will raise the price until demand waivers. Lets just see how it goes.

You haven't finished you sentence there, maybe you can add a fact still to your non-scientific media induced rant?

Also I have no wool over my eyes, because it's nice and mildly sunny and warm in Australia thanks to Covid (of all things!) and the reduction in radiative forcing caused by less aircraft flying and making chemtrails, ahem I mean vapour trails. I joke not. Temps are down! The glaciers on the south pole are getting bigger to boot! It's crazy how the weather changes over millennia!

Sorry too easy to troll. Have a look at global dimming, or how they do temperature measurement extrpolation, especially over the ocean with next to no depth variables, or carbon equivalent sensitivities and how much heat is retained by water vapour alone in comparison. So long you don't come with the 95% of scientists agree arguement, I'm sure we can figure out what's going on in the climate modelling, right here on the very pages of this forum...

If you would read my posts properly you would understand that I am only motivated for sustainablity to reduce my footprint, so others can also thrive, but not in any way by a fear mongering narrative of lies and pseudo science perpetuated by the same actors that are currently giving you GFC 2.0, so they can retain control over your mind and wallets, and with it your lives.

Besides aren't we going to all die out before it even comes to that or even matter? Japan already has twice as many deaths as births.

 

[Crissa]

Elon has made it very clear that they will raise the price until demand waivers. Lets just see how it goes.

Tesla doesn't have a history of doing price increases to people who are already waiting in line, tho.

-Crissa

 

[Trucky]

I dont remember where i heard it, but i am pretty sure it was like, for every 5000 you increase a price, you cut the amount of likely buyers in half

Maybe for a Toyota Corolla but not for a product like this…

 

[Gurule92]

Maybe for a Toyota Corolla but not for a product like this…

I don't think that's how it works.

 

[Propwash]

Pretty comprehensive, honestly. Probably a good one to show your spouse ^-^

-Crissa

I got tired of listening to your B/S , you dont even own a EV , Who made you the go to guy. I think your mor like " That Guy"

Sponsored