Fossil Fuel industry trying to shut down electric vehicles

WHAT is all THAT? You might want to proof your posts after posting.

Your first link in post #46 is a conservative pro-business, pro-fossil fuel website. AND its comments say they are for the period ending 2011. The Wikipedia article I posted begins in 2015.

And more importantly, you are reporting a problem that occurred in one country. Other countries, like Denmark and Germany, have not had these problems (which seem to have mostly to do with policies). So your objections amount to cherry-picking.

 

This is somewhat old news, as many of these wind farms have now been built by the Goldman-Sachs subsidiary, Horizon Wind Energy. They are all over the plains, including Colorado, West Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, etc. Drive I-70 through my state of Colorado, and you'll pass two roughly 30-mile stretches, with turbines, as far as the eye can see.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/02/goldman-sachs-clean-energy/

Financial giant Goldman Sachs announced on Monday that it plans to invest $150 billion in clean energy projects and technology like solar and wind farms, energy efficiency upgrades for buildings, and power grid infrastructure.
...

In September, Goldman Sachs managing director and head of the environmental markets group, Kyung-Ah Park, said at Fortune's Brainstorm E conference that the renewable energy sector has “reached an inflection point” with more renewable energy systems installed this year than conventional systems.

 

The cost of battery deterioration is fixed and regularly taking it out and testing it is better anyway. A slide in and out mechanism is easy, after all we invented the wheel a long time ago so big and heavy doesn't matter as much since what, 5000 BC?
It doesn't take me 20 minutes to fill up at the gas station.

 

GS investing is contingent on gov subsidies.

At the same time, the market for solar and wind technologies could take a hit in the U.S. in 2017. An important federal initiative that gives residents and businesses a 30% tax credit for installing renewable energy systems is set to expire at the end of 2016 and will be replaced by a 10% credit. While the tax credit could be extended by Congress, it's still causing uncertainty in the clean energy markets in the U.S.

If the credit does expire, investors like Goldman Sachs will just focus more on financing projects outside of the U.S. solar companies, similar to how alternative energy companies like SunPower (SPWR, -2.41%) and First Solar (FSLR, -0.94%) are starting to look more at booming overseas markets like China.

 

You can't figure out that a % sign is the same as a space ?? The link has the information.

What errors are included in the links ?? The second link is for Germany. They have significantly more problems than Spain.

 

And you really think paying for a battery swap which includes RECHARGING IT plus labor installing it will be cheaper than charging the battery and take less time? LOL!!!

 

Question: why would Fossil Fuel Industry or any other industry shut down anything which can bring money to it?
Question: do you really think Fossil Fuel Industry or any other industry is not working to make all calculated as possible profit out the global warming hoax?

 

............

 

The fossil fuel industry has shown great reluctance to embrace alternative energy for profit. It seems inflexibly dedicated to fossil fuels alone.

 

Question: Can you explain why do you think that out of all industries only the The fossil fuel industry is not working to make all calculated as possible profit out of anything?
Question: would not shareholders abandon a lone industry that is not working to make all calculated as possible profit out of anything and rather invest in any other industry which is?
Question: would not an industry abandoned by shareholders fail immediately?

 

Who are the majority shareholders?

 

It does not help either when you have people so incredibly ignorant of basic science that......

Just today i read a post that said, in part, "what will happen to the electricity when we all plug our batteries in"

Kellyanne has competition

 

I don't see the word majority in the text you quoted.
I don't see one question but three in the text you quoted.
All I see is that you see things which are not there.
No further questions.

 

From renewable sources, yes. Mainly because the adverse re-charge downtime (night time, low wind) can be efficiently managed (renewable straight to car battery, as opposed to renewable to storage battery to car battery)
I imagine the battery vessel management would run similar to the mechanism for sea containers (ie Maersk). Cars are already registered so its really just a matter of contract.
Battery exchange would certainly take less time, click and go. Potentially faster than fossil fuel.

Plus technological improvements to the batteries can be made without replacing the entire car....

 

Although it would assume a level of commercial coordination that would astound me, so I consider the proposition unlikely, the threats of renewables far outweigh the opportunities for the existing energy giants:
1. Balance sheet: a viable renewable energy source would reduce the value of their companies, which is mainly determined as the present value of the oil they are going to extract from their properties, to zero. Exxon alone is worth $337 bln, and the commercials are miniscule compared to the state oil companies
2. Revenue: fossil fuels are extracted and burned. The money is therefore continually flowing. Renewables consist of a single purchase of an asset and thereafter (mostly) access to free common goods (solar, wind). It is a once-only purchase. Therefore the size of the entire energy industry will shrink. Fossil fuels are economic opium, Renewables are economic freedom.

Their most profitable route is to forestall renewable energy uptake as much as possible, so as to continue to realise the fossil fuels that they have already discovered and sit on their balance sheet as asset values.

 

That is not in dispute

Absolutely, which is why they must work to suppress renewable energy

 

yep, and they do not need cashiers, we have them here and just need a debt card, even our grocery store has them in the parking lot now

but I will not buy one until batteries improve

 

Might you consider buying one now if the battery would be replaced as technology improves?

 

You mentioned shareholders as a means of controlling corporations. The corporate elite, on average, own 70% of the shares. They have the controlling interest. Shareholders are not going to control the corporate elite.

 

Every time an oil tanker ships crude to the US, from the middle-East, there is a military escort ship. Is this a subsidy? Is the federal cleanup of oil spills and coal tailing ponds a subsidy? An entire US department, the NRC, oversees the nuclear power industry and all of their horrific, long-term waste. Is that a subsidy? Is imposition of the wastes of all these industries, on future generations, and their cost of the future maintenance, for which future earthly inhabitants receive nothing, a subsidy?

This is true, and is directly from the source that I provided. I'm glad to see you read it. I took advantage of that 30% credit, and installed solar panels and a wind turbine at my residence. Now I am a NET power producer. This is where the country needs to be heading. If you discount the above-mentioned subsidies, and consider, that the renewable systems, virtually produce for next-to-nothing, for many-many years, I think you'll find that they are much more cost-feasible.

To me, this is a sad fact. By costs comparisons of other federal expenditures, the 30% tax credit for renewable installations, which more than quadrupled the amount of solar and wind in this country, added up to a miniscule amount.

 

And the shareholders the more the 70% are so stupid?
A quick and lazy search confirms all my statements.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/27/is-one-big-oil-company-giving-up-on-big-oil.aspx
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...il-unexpectedly-backs-newest-non-fossil-fuels
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy-solar-wind

Did not explain you that one needs to burn more coal to produce the same amount and quality of electricity from solar panels than from burning coal?
Do I have to explain again that an electrical 12-wheeler needs to burn more diesel to move the same amount of weight than diesel 12-wheeler?
I am not even mentioning electrical Boeing 747.

In order to make a $100M profit from fossils an oil Co has to do a lot of work starting from extracting it from the ground, while in order to make $100 M from renewable all it has to do is to have connections among politicians and their families and friends and share with them a few $Millions out of hundreds extracted from taxpayers money with one short sweep. A $100M a $100M there are also money, especially when the margin of the profit from extracting it from taxpayers is a lot, a lot greater.

I will wait until coal will cease to be a commodity. So far I see that after putting fossils out of business Soros and and other Obama's bodies are buying coal mines dirt cheap, and accordingly fill have the miners back for less than a half of pay.Who do you think is stupid like a bag of rocks - they investing in brainwashing people who support renewables or those who support reniewables?

And by the way, according one of the thousands myths you have been indoctrinated in instead of education is that fossils were formed by trees falling for millions of years. Do you really think the work of millions of years can be exhausted in a few hundred years?

 

But was many 30% had been. See, I can do that too.

Thee issue is accessible oil. As easily accessed oil is used, the less accessible oil is what's left and it is more difficult to get. One example is oil that is especially dirty and mixed with sand or embedded in shale. It takes extra technology but developing the ability to access it increases the available supply. Same with gas. Fracking pumps millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the ground to crack and dissolve substrate containing gas. I can't figure out, though, why any sane society would allow pumping toxic chemicals into ground water and aquifers. it's insane!.... not to mention the earthquakes.

 

While you have raised no objection to the most significant points I made, I don't polishing some details you have addressed.

I Don't understand the objection referring to 30% . Plz rephrase or explain.
I didn't refer to oil but to fossils, including coal. Plz object to my statements.
Do you see any sign of exhausting and not finding and not developing technology to extract cheaper than solar and accessible oil and other fossils within next few hundred of years, within the realm of my statements and within realms of the observed and experienced nature?
Do not you contradict to the myth about falling for millions of years trees, stating that all the result of such myth has been exhausted in the last 150 years ?

Do you really want me to object to another myth about fracking?

 

No, it is not a subsidy. The price of ME oil is not affected.

Then I'm sure that you thank all the other taxpayers who paid for your installation. Solar and wind are not cost competitive without gov subsidies.

 

There are reserves of fossil fuels which will provide electrical energy for the next 300 years. And more reserves are being found everyday. There is no credible evidence that fracking has or will result in any negative affects on our water supplies.