It IS a solution of significance. Imagine if everyone did it. Thanks, meantime. It's hard work, but well worth it for the independence and health benefits.
Ref; https://www.motortrend.com/features/how-much-is-a-tesla/ Tesla Model 3...$44,690 to $59,190 base price Tesla Model S...$91,190 to $142,990 Tesla Model X...$96,190 to $121,190 Tesla Model Y...$56,190 to $63,190 Tesla Roadster...$200,000 to $250,000 Tesla Cybertruck...$39,900 to $69,900 There is no question about the technology but my comments have been about Tesla's lack of affordability to the average car buyer. Based on these prices it is difficult to see how Tesla relates to average car buyers? And IMO when a company like Tesla dominates the airwaves, and when average people understand the prices, this sets a bad tone to average buyers and therefore reduces some of the forward motion of the EV industry. IMO Tesla operates in a niche market...not a market for average car buyers. Most people are not going to calculate fuel and maintenance if they can't afford the base price of the EV. Someone needs to produce EV's that average car buyers will compare with their fossil fuel car prices which average ~$37,000. More competition aimed at the broader consumer markets will hopefully make this happen.
First of all, Tesla is absolutely NOT the cheapest ev on sale today. Tesla competes in the luxury car market. Tesla moved ev technology forward in a major way. They showed auto manufacturers what can be accomplished and how to accomplish it. So, now EVERY significant auto maker from Maserati to Chevy is announcing an electric future. That is a STUPENDOUS advance over a short period of time that can legitimately be claimed by Tesla. There aren't very many advances of that magnitude where the first offering was cheap.
I agree with that last sentence. I'm at my CA home right now, and the lemons I get in my yard are WAY better than the "harvested while green" versions in the mainstream grocery stores. However, I don't see any chance of a significant number of people learning and practicing urban agriculture to anywhere near the degree that you are doing.
Ahh ... one of my all time favourite crops - lemons! They're so essential to any kind of decent cookery. That's the thing - it doesn't need to be to the same degree I do. We're dedicated off-gridders, and that's really not for everyone. Even producing salad greens and cherry tomatoes (which anyone can do, even indoors) sufficient to supplement a few meals a week, would reduce carbon footprints, AND improve mental and physical health. Thus reducing the healthcare burden - which is yet another reduction in that person's carbon footprint. It's a win no matter how small. It should be mandatory, IMO. It was during WWII, in parts of the UK. Every household had to produce vegetables.
The problem is not co2. There is a real problem with too many humans consuming too much fresh water. Desalination is a band aid. Population growth needs to stop.
Again...no question about technology advancements. Fact remains, EV's represent ~2% of the US car market and this has been developing since 1997 when the Prius was introduced. And as I stated, IMO, in the past few years, Tesla with it's high prices and elitism marketing, soured average Americans from EV's. Tesla is a niche product...not a broader market product. Tesla has some claim to fame for all they have done but it's not registering with average American car buyers. My point is the EV market needs to appeal to the average car buyers before EV's ever reach 25-50% of the market. And this will happen when battery technology improves, prices are competitive with fossil fuel vehicles, and when EV charging stations are located everywhere...
I'd say part of the problem is CO2 but I agree the root problem is population growth. It's logical that more population means more consumption of Earth's resources with crisis already happening in regional areas of the world. Not sure what can slow population growth so it's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy that we're all headed towards some nasty tipping points...
Did you expect Tesla to move EV technology forward for FREE? It's just plain not Tesla's job to solve what you want that company to solve. I think I've said exactly what you have said about what is required for EVs to proliferate. We've seen this with phones. The first iPhone was sold in 2007. It sold for $500, the batteries weren't long lasting and their weren't enough towers to cover places you probably want to go. It was considered a luxury. Today, 85% of Americans own a smart phone!! My major disagreement is with the CRAP heaped on Tesla for solving some of the hardest parts of the ev challenge. Without Tesla, nobody would care about charging stations. Nobody would be interested in the pathetic mileage limits that existed before Tesla - where Tesla is advancing beyond 300 miles per full charge, demonstrating that the technology needed is here today. And, the entire rest of the auto industry wouldn't be working on EV offerings of their own, reaching markets for trucks, SUVs, small cars, cheap cars, etc. You just can not crap on Tesla for what that company has accomplished any more than you can crap on Apple for expensive smart phones.
Well yeah, less new humans would be good. As for water, all nations should have legislation in place which mandates rainwater collection tanks for all new builds. We've had it in my country for many years, and no one has a problem with it now. It's as automatic as putting in a kitchen - just part of what goes into a house.
That's a good one. We have that here, too. But what about rainwater tanks? Is that mandatory anywhere in America? It's a national policy here ... you can't avoid it.
I don't know if that is required anywhere or not. There are places where that would be a sound addition. There are others as well. In construction, there are ideas such as passive heat retention, insulation, etc. Gray water systems have been ILLEGAL in wide areas, too!!! Plus, there are behavior related ideas, of course. For example, we should consider conservation when determining speed limits. And, there should be serious regulation on vehicle mileage performance - not the pathetic crap that Michigan so long demanded. Every one of these ideas drives right wing Americans ABSOLUTELY BATTY. This stuff makes sense, even if you ignore the environment, yet the fact of Republicans in congress blocks sensible ideas almost entirely.
1) It must at least be ENCOURAGED by your federal govt though, surely? Even if not mandatory. 2) Yes, solar passive housing design is crucial. But it doesn't need to be restricted to new builds. Most dwellings can be retrofitted to be far more energy efficient. If building from scratch though, it's possible to get the building to a point where heating/cooling isn't required at all. Add in judicious tree plantings around dwellings, and you gain even further. 3) It's not a Left/Right thing here. It's more people who like their comforts vs people who can adapt to less comfort. The comfort lovers are just as numerous on the Left, despite their claims of concern about the environment.
Do We Have The Electricity To Power Everyone's EV? When will the cost per mile equal a gasoline powered vehicle? STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES Greta, an ugly ADHD kid has some powerful "managers"? Moi Hydrogen Power! BLAME
It makes no difference why Tesla prices are so high...what is important is how they are perceived by average car buyers who are the buyers required to push EV sales out of it's single-digit numbers. I don't want Tesla to solve anything? My comment was simply that Tesla is a niche product and has not yet related to the broader markets. Apple and Tesla are apples and oranges...iPhones are either free with long term contracts or people pay a small installment fee monthly for 2-3 years. It's the deals the carriers provide that is growing iPhone sales. Yes Apple, and Tesla, have both invested in technology and each deserves credit for this. Tesla is like 14% of all EV's so lots of others around the world have been involved in EV development and sales...
You suggest the government could do something. THAT is what the US right wing objects to. It is not "comfort". The last thing they want is for the government to do something, as they see government as totally incapable of encouraging or directly implementing solutions of any kind - except military, of course. So, the right wing actively opposes air, food and water safety standards and opposes science based medicine, for example. That leads to being SICK, not comfortable. In fact, the right wing blocks funding for testing agricultural products when agricultural producers wish the government WOULD do this. When some product contamination occurs, a whole agricultural product can be lost until the problem is identified and public confidence is restored. That can be devastating to individual producers, so it is no wonder that they want the protection of testing of all producers. The cheap and totally irresponsible energy handling of Texas that led to winter disaster is EXACTLY what their right wing demanded.
There really is no evidence co2 does anything. The satellites and balloons showed no warming in the atmosphere in highly correlated fashion up to 2005, when the warmers decided to fudge both with bull "corrections" rather than admit co2 went up and temperature did not. In 1998, the first "warmest year ever" according to Clinton and gore, both the satellites and the balloons showed a cooler than normal atmosphere. The warming is all from the surface of growing urban areas.
I’m sure these guys have no idea what they are talking about: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page5.php I’m not sure where you get your info, but you may want to find a better source.
Worse than that, the irrefutable evidence is that during the last 8 Inter-Glacial Periods, CO2 levels never exceed 298 ppm and average global temperatures were 7.5°F to 15.3°F warmer than now and sea levels were 4 meters to 14 meters higher than now. So, we play their stupid little games and drink their Kool-Aid® and what happens? Global temperatures increase another 7.5°F to 15.3°F and sea levels rise another 4 meters to 14 meters. And not one of them can refute that. So, what did we win? All we got was a purple mustache and higher temperatures and sea levels.
Lmfao.... Try this on for size.... North American ice age (notice it is continent specific) = all of Canada down to Indiana covered with glacier 1 million years ago Search for ancient Greenland green Pine cones etc, under the thickest part of greenland's ice carbon date 400-800k years ago. 1 million years ago, Greenland was all green. Repeat after me During the past million years, Greenland froze while North America thawed all at the same time on the same planet with the same atmosphere with the same amount of co2 in the atmosphere.... There is the truth about the bullshit "interglacials."
Rather than have spot places that are warmer given CO2 is a gas, the warming should be detected everywhere and not just at some places. I like to see how well Death Valley is holding it's own. It was the hottest all time of record back in 1913. And that was well ahead of the industrial age we now have. Alarmists say that is bunk since warming does not have to be spread all over. I call bunk to that since CO2 is a gas and moves where the hell it wants to move.
