[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by dfox

independently owned dealerships just need to go away altogether. stupid middleman that makes the car buying experience terrible for all involved.

This isn’t going to happen. I’m pretty sure every single state has dealer franchise laws that would take way more effort to change than anyone has the motivation for. AND, manufacturers don’t want to sell cars at retail. They want to do what they were created for, which is to design and build cars/vehicles. They want someone else to handle the retail operations. Just as McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Chick Fil A, and all the others don’t want to sell their food at retail, but want their franchisees to handle the retail part of the business.

As much complaining as retail customers do they don’t really want it either. It turns out when it comes to spending tens of thousands of dollars on complicated machines that also evoke a lot of emotional responses for many people, they want to have a hands-on experience and they want to try to save as much money as they can. This is the exact reason Saturn failed. It was almost impossible for GM to keep their Saturn dealers in line with the no haggle pricing policy. Saturn customers may have been drawn into the dealership by the policy, but when it came to actually buying the car they wanted to negotiate.

I worked for a no haggle Nissan dealer for a short time in Fort Worth, Texas. Everyone who bought a car from them got a pretty good deal. But, there weren’t enough buyers who bought into the concept. The ones who wanted to haggle went ten miles down the highway to the next Nissan dealership and, since the no haggle prices were published for everyone to see, they would beat the price by $100 or $200 and get the sale. The Fort Worth dealer made it for about three years with the no haggle pricing structure and they had to capitulate to the market forces.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by dfox

quite the circle jerk going on in here. Keep it up.

You should try not to the the pivot man.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

This is your response to the above post?? Can’t manage a single counterpoint to support your views?

My views are pretty much right down the middle, so no, I'm not going to spend my time trying to rebut an extreme viewpoint. I just laugh at it because of how ridiculous it sounds, on both sides. I also know that I'm not changing anyone's mind here, so again, not wasting my time.

Want to discuss the merits of each system and how we can better utilize our natural resources to minimize human's impact on the world? Sure, I'll be in for a discussion there. But if it's just, lithium bad, oil bad... nah. I'll let the rest of you hash that out.

I drive both EV and ICE. I don't see a time when I won't have both in my life. It's about picking the right tool for the situation.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Torgus

50% of the us land mass? WTF? Whoever wrote that book is an idiot then. Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables but that stat is 100$ made up to fearmonger you and your wife and anyone who reads it.

Personally I had hoped that Solar Panels would be a better solution than it is by now. 21,250 square miles of solar panels or roughly the size of West Virginia.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there were about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. For this reason, the whole solar panel is considered hazardous by many experts and governments, including the state of California, which is trying to prevent the flow of old solar panels to landfills.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/if...h-toxic-waste/

This is the problem in a nut shell. Government pushing technologies with out seeing the big picture. One would think that if people were really interested in the environment they would be concerned about the big picture?

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Car-Addicted

Personally I had hoped that Solar Panels would be a better solution than it is by now. 21,250 square miles of solar panels or roughly the size of West Virginia.

If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) in 2016 estimated there were about 250,000 metric tonnes of solar panel waste in the world at the end of that year. IRENA projected that this amount could reach 78 million metric tonnes by 2050.

Solar panels often contain lead, cadmium, and other toxic chemicals that cannot be removed without breaking apart the entire panel. For this reason, the whole solar panel is considered hazardous by many experts and governments, including the state of California, which is trying to prevent the flow of old solar panels to landfills.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/if...h-toxic-waste/

This is the problem in a nut shell. Government pushing technologies with out seeing the big picture. One would think that if people were really interested in the environment they would be concerned about the big picture?

Are you spreading FUD on purpose?

https://www.freeingenergy.com/are-so...mium-and-lead/ <--Most solar modules are NOT thin flim.

You can recycle thin film solar modules just fine: https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-r...20and%20copper

https://www.greentechrenewables.com/...s%20quantities. <-- Solar panels are recycled in mass quantities and most of them are recyclable.






Do you guys not read? I said DERs are not the solution alone. They are PART of the solution. EVs work well in CERTAIN situations, not all, not most. EVs are also not a solution for all cars just like solar and wind is not a solution for all electrical generation. This is a simple concept. DERs and EVs are part of the solution. Just like Nuclear is, just like SHVDC is, Just like Hydro is, etc. They can all work together just fine. EVs don't work for me. I think they rate they are being pushed for adoption is stupid. The market will correct itself like we are already seeing.



I don't care if you hate solar, want to make some money? Want to invest in an industry that is growing extremely fast? Solar in the U.S. is forecast to triple in five years:




Is Oil going to triple? Gas? Nuke? Make some money while you can because the FED is spending your tax money regardless on renewables. Take advantage of a growing industry. You guys did invest and make money on Tesla I hope, right? I am still amazed they acquired SolarShitty years ago.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by XutvJet

The best answer I have to the EV vs ICE debate is it's complicated, we need to have open minds, be open to compromise, and humans can and should do better when it comes to the environment through reduced emissions, reduce/reuse/recycle, etc.

Agreed I have always found it is easier to save energy than to make it. We suck at energy efficiency. The fact that this is not the main thrust of globalists and governments speaks volumes.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Humans are not completely responsible for climate change, but we have certainly contributed to it. How much? That can never be determined but we should definitely do better which we are for the most part. The biggest environmental hurdles will be China and other developing countries

Agreed but there is no political interest in telling China and India that they need to go green. They have people to feed and at the end of the day they can sign all the agreements in the world and go right on burning coal with out the improve emissions and efficiency available today.

Originally Posted by XutvJet

weaning US buyers from inefficient, heavily polluting trucks and SUVs or at getting those buyers to pay more of their share with gas guzzler taxes by removing the CAFE loopholes regarding light trucks/SUVs.

Here we disagree. These vehicles pay more in gas tax so they are paying their fair share and the share of EV's that don't pay ther fair share. If you think they should pay more, raise the gas tax? Best not to do that in an election year. The CAFE standards and the "loop holes" are a out growth of absurd CAFE standards imposed by government. Last week I posted the 2024-2026 CAFE standards and they are unobtainable unless we all switch to mopeds. 66mpg for cars is only there to force EV compliance. I hope you have a issue with Tesla’s record carbon credit sales? These are as far away from the free market as you can get and the losers are the folks who need transportation and don't have a trust fund.

I absolutely love your Signature.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Completely serious.

Then you have no understanding of DERs and our electrical grid. Solar is part of the solution, not the solution. Making the stupid statement about Solar and night time is so played out and uneducated in this point in time it is comical. No one takes that statement seriously because they know how juvenile of a response/reaction it is. I know it was witty in the 90s to say that maybe even the early 2000s. Its a bit played out now, don't you think?

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Are you spreading FUD on purpose?

No why are you? Generally I don't look to solar panel CO for anything but rose colored information.
Solar Panels Popularity Generates Concerns About Recycling
Nov 28, 2023
Solar panels consist of sheets of glass and plastic polymer covered in silicon rectangles—the semiconductors that do the work of converting sunlight to electricity. Held together by an aluminum frame, these panels may also contain copper, silver or other metals, such as lead, which makes disposal difficult. Because of that, most solar panels end up in landfills; only about 10% are recycled.

Without federal guidelines for recycling solar panels, each state has designed its own regulations. On top of the inconsistency in recycling rules is the cost: according to a March 2021 report from the NREL, the cost to recycle a panel ranges from $15 to $45, while the cost to throw it away amounts to just a few dollars.
https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/artic...bout-recycling

As for the rest of your post I don't see we are in much disagreement.

[Torgus]

[QUOTE=Car-Addicted;30715157][QUOTE=Torgus;30715100]Are you spreading FUD on purpose?

No why are you? Generally I don't look to solar panel CO for anything but rose colored information.
Solar Panels Popularity Generates Concerns About Recycling
Nov 28, 2023
Solar panels consist of sheets of glass and plastic polymer covered in silicon rectangles—the semiconductors that do the work of converting sunlight to electricity. Held together by an aluminum frame, these panels may also contain copper, silver or other metals, such as lead, which makes disposal difficult. Because of that, most solar panels end up in landfills; only about 10% are recycled.

Without federal guidelines for recycling solar panels, each state has designed its own regulations. On top of the inconsistency in recycling rules is the cost: according to a March 2021 report from the NREL, the cost to recycle a panel ranges from $15 to $45, while the cost to throw it away amounts to just a few dollars.
https://www.ecmag.com/magazine/artic...bout-recycling

As for the rest of your post I don't see we are in much disagreement.

The good news is solar panels still produce 70% of their rated power after 25-30 years, all while under warranty. Unlike lithium batteries which degrade very fast. They don't need to be recycled for a VERY long time. 50+ years is pretty damn good for an energy generating resource. There are old ass modules in North Cali which still make 40% of their nameplate and are 40+ years old and were built to much worse standards than they are today.

If it currently costs 15-45 those cost will lower in the future because of economies of scale.

What I meant about FUD was that solar modules are so toxic. I really don't think they are, everything I have read is they can all be recycled and solar 'waste' is a very small concern in the grand scheme of things. Their 3 main components are some of the most commonly found elements on earth which is why they are attractive as an energy generating resource. We will literally never run out of material to make solar panels(or nukes in a time line that matters). Same can not be said of oil or lithium.

Now the fact so many are made with literal slave labor of the uyghurs in China is horrible.


People put solar modules in DUMB places. Like like people want to use EVs in dumb applications.


A great use case for EVs are school buses. The buses mainly run a few times a day. The rest of the time they are sitting idle or turned off. They generally sit all weekend. They mainly only drive around town. Plenty of time to charge them up while not in use. You can also use the 50+ massive batteries as a resource at night or during the weekend when the buses are not being used. Each town has a fleet of school buses. A good use of EVs IMO.

Plenty of dumb places to try and push EVs like semi long distance travel or for 18 wheelers for instance etc. EVs work in certain use cases just like many other technologies. The future will be a combination of many technologies coming together.


But...we really need to build a bunch of nuke plants and strengthen on grid ASAP IMO.

[Torgus]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Your diatribe on solar after your second sentence spoke only to solar. Renewables make up about 15% of the grid, carbon makes up about 80%. So it was assumed some 80% of the grid you believe should be converted to solar (by land area). And actually wind speeds decrease at night due to the properties of solar convection. Wind turbines are maintenance intensive making consistent power output of wind farms somewhat unreliable.

If you believe nuclear is the solution then we're on the same page. Nuclear plants produce consistent, reliable power using a small footprint. Nuclear power waste storage is a political issue, rather than an engineering problem. Talk to Sen. Harry Ried (RIP). Environmental groups such as The Sierra Club push back on nuclear energy all through the 1970s until all this anthropogenic climate change shit came up to bite them in the ass. That's when they at a 180 deg. reversal circa 2005 or so. But it was too late by then. Solar and wind are not a good enginsolution either.

But my position is BEV are antiquated EV architecture and chemistry and physics are not going to deliver the cost-effective battery proponents believe will appear out of the technological soup.

A gas/diesel powered pure serial hybrid EV is the correct solution from an engineering and societal perspective. No mandates nor billions in taxpayer funds are required. The market will accept a gas powered 85 MPG pure serial hybrid that refuels in 5 minutes and has unlimited range. ICE carbon emissions mandates and EPA regs prevent development of them.

Ok, I see your point now, I apologize for my over reation to your post. I was responding to someone's claim that solar would take of 50% of the US land mass which is just so bat shit wrong it is insane. I was posting proof that author is an idiot.

100% solar is stupid and will never work. You can look at Cali and see the ramifications of having so much PV on their grid and the massive duck bill curve and the effects it has on generation.

Installing that much solar could still be useful, if we wanted to export via SHVDC to other countries.


We agree on a lot.

I will vote for the candidate that lets me have my freedoms as published in the constitution and its amendments and who wants MORE NUKES!


Edit: The last year ICE cars can be bought I am buying two brand new. One truck for me, one SUV for the wife. They will last me until I perish.

[Car-Addicted]

Originally Posted by Torgus

We agree on a lot.

I will vote for the candidate that lets me have my freedoms as published in the constitution and its amendments and who wants MORE NUKES!

I don't see that we are in disagreement on anything. The biggest issue is it is too cheap to dispose of solar panels in a land fill than is it to recycle then. This needs to be addressed.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

If you believe nuclear is the solution then we're on the same page. Nuclear plants produce consistent, reliable power using a small footprint. Nuclear power waste storage is a political issue, rather than an engineering problem. Talk to Sen. Harry Ried (RIP). Environmental groups such as The Sierra Club push back on nuclear energy all through the 1970s until all this anthropogenic climate change shit came up to bite them in the ass. That's when they at a 180 deg. reversal circa 2005 or so. But it was too late by then. Solar and wind are not a good enginsolution either.

But my position is BEV are antiquated EV architecture and chemistry and physics are not going to deliver the cost-effective battery proponents believe will appear out of the technological soup.

A gas/diesel powered pure serial hybrid EV is the correct solution from an engineering and societal perspective. No mandates nor billions in taxpayer funds are required. The market will accept a gas powered 85 MPG pure serial hybrid that refuels in 5 minutes and has unlimited range. ICE carbon emissions mandates and EPA regs prevent development of them.

Nuclear is the way forward, imo. We need more of it. Everyone's scared of what happened in Japan, but the reality is those were dinosaurs compared to what we can build now. A modern nuke facility is so much more safe than what those things were.

For ICE/EV - the path forward should be focused on plug-in hybrids, imo. That's where 75% of the vehicles should be. Put 50 mile EV range into every car with a gas engine that can handle the high load situations and regen power on longer trips. But when stuck in stop and go traffic on the daily commute, it's all EV. Everyone gets to save on gas, we save on pollution, and EV is a great experience in stop and go traffic, pretty much made for it. Instead of gas to go and brake dust to slow, it's electricity to go and regen to slow... you're recovering at least some of that energy you just spent.

But I also think full EV has a place, particularly in short distance higher density areas like cities. ICE has it's place too, like sports cars, towing, and long distance travel. I think I said it earlier in this thread, but I'd like to see a realistic goal of 25% EV, 50% plug-in, 25% ICE. Maybe eventually that can change as the electrical grid changes, battery tech changes, etc.

[XutvJet]

Nuclear is an extremely high risk vs reward source of power. Man has proven time and time again that serious accidents can and do happen at nuclear powerplants even with all the safeguards and protocols. We all know the obvious nuclear accidents, but there are also tons of near misses and minor accidents at plants which could have been catastrophic and would have made Chernobyl look like look like a minor accident.

I know the argument is for much smaller nuclear powerplants to mitigate risk, but even a meltdown at a tiny powerplant could render hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Also, I can't think of anyone that would want a nuclear powerplant in their backyard either knowing what we know now about the accidents.

Lastly, as others noted, and the management of waste is an expensive and risky thing. Many of these wastes are essentially perpetually hazardous and radioactive.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by dfox

Nuclear is the way forward, imo. We need more of it. Everyone's scared of what happened in Japan, but the reality is those were dinosaurs compared to what we can build now. A modern nuke facility is so much more safe than what those things were.

For ICE/EV - the path forward should be focused on plug-in hybrids, imo. That's where 75% of the vehicles should be. Put 50 mile EV range into every car with a gas engine that can handle the high load situations and regen power on longer trips. But when stuck in stop and go traffic on the daily commute, it's all EV. Everyone gets to save on gas, we save on pollution, and EV is a great experience in stop and go traffic, pretty much made for it. Instead of gas to go and brake dust to slow, it's electricity to go and regen to slow... you're recovering at least some of that energy you just spent.

But I also think full EV has a place, particularly in short distance higher density areas like cities. ICE has it's place too, like sports cars, towing, and long distance travel. I think I said it earlier in this thread, but I'd like to see a realistic goal of 25% EV, 50% plug-in, 25% ICE. Maybe eventually that can change as the electrical grid changes, battery tech changes, etc.

Since you mention full EVs in cities I’m curious what are you thinking with regard to that? As I have mentioned numerous times in this thread, how do you envision city dwellers in apartments and who have only street parking charging their full EVs?

Originally Posted by XutvJet

Nuclear is an extremely high risk vs reward source of power. Man has proven time and time again that serious accidents can and do happen at nuclear powerplants even with all the safeguards and protocols. We all know the obvious nuclear accidents, but there are also tons of near misses and minor accidents at plants which could have been catastrophic and would have made Chernobyl look like look like a minor accident.

I know the argument is for much smaller nuclear powerplants to mitigate risk, but even a meltdown at a tiny powerplant could render hundreds of square miles uninhabitable for hundreds of years. Also, I can't think of anyone that would want a nuclear powerplant in their backyard either knowing what we know now about the accidents.

Lastly, as others noted, and the management of waste is an expensive and risky thing. Many of these wastes are essentially perpetually hazardous and radioactive.

This pretty much describes me with regard to nuclear. In spite of the safety advances the consequences of a failure still have the potential to be utterly catastrophic. I don’t worry so much about the physical plant issues. I worry about the competence of those responsible for the operation. What I see in the world today is an explosion of incompetence with no decrease in sight.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Really buddy? That is the best you could come up with? Did you read my response? 2nd sentence: "Solar is by no means the end all be all for renewables" We all know solar does not produce power at night. The good news is humanity consumes MUCH less power at night generally vs during the daylight hours.

Cue massive wind farms, and wind farms take up a LOT of space per MW. This is where a lot of extra land mass gets used up.

The good news is humanity consumes MUCH less power at night generally vs during the daylight hours.

I work in the power industry and see where the power goes and where it comes from. This statement of yours is a massive exaggeration, especially when we add night time EV charging and electric heating in winter months to it. We are also banning new gas heating, with no answer for where those BTU's will come from.

The grid I work with is in mostly northern states, power peaks are often during winter night time heating.

Also keep in mind, the the wind doesn't always blow... It's less reliable than solar.

[chad86tsi]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Are you spreading FUD on purpose?

https://www.freeingenergy.com/are-so...mium-and-lead/ <--Most solar modules are NOT thin flim.

You can recycle thin film solar modules just fine: https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-r...20and%20copper

https://www.greentechrenewables.com/...s%20quantities. <-- Solar panels are recycled in mass quantities and most of them are recyclable.






Do you guys not read? I said DERs are not the solution alone. They are PART of the solution. EVs work well in CERTAIN situations, not all, not most. EVs are also not a solution for all cars just like solar and wind is not a solution for all electrical generation. This is a simple concept. DERs and EVs are part of the solution. Just like Nuclear is, just like SHVDC is, Just like Hydro is, etc. They can all work together just fine. EVs don't work for me. I think they rate they are being pushed for adoption is stupid. The market will correct itself like we are already seeing.



I don't care if you hate solar, want to make some money? Want to invest in an industry that is growing extremely fast? Solar in the U.S. is forecast to triple in five years:




Is Oil going to triple? Gas? Nuke? Make some money while you can because the FED is spending your tax money regardless on renewables. Take advantage of a growing industry. You guys did invest and make money on Tesla I hope, right? I am still amazed they acquired SolarShitty years ago.

California already regularly makes more solar than it can use, so what does it use at night? It has to buy *other types of power. More solar won't help California solve it's problems. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing, especially when that good thing is only available from 8AM to 6 PM.

Texas sometimes makes more wind power than it can use. They have had to pay to produce power (negative sales value) at times.

This is the problem: green power isn't a stable 24/7/365 resource like the other sources. Adding more unstable unreliable power to an unstable unreliable grid doesn't make the grid more reliable or more stable.

[dfox]

Originally Posted by tturedraider

Since you mention full EVs in cities I’m curious what are you thinking with regard to that? As I have mentioned numerous times in this thread, how do you envision city dwellers in apartments and who have only street parking charging their full EVs?.

So... They don't buy EV's if they can't charge... What I meant is that full EV cars make a lot of sense in cities, not that all cars in cities need to be EV.

But I work in a city and have seen plenty of people charging their cars parked on the street. They have an outlet run to the side of the road, and plug in. Granted it's in areas with all single family houses, no apartments to overrun street parking, so they're probably always able to park in front of their house.

[tturedraider]

Originally Posted by dfox

So... They don't buy EV's if they can't charge... What I meant is that full EV cars make a lot of sense in cities, not that all cars in cities need to be EV.

But I work in a city and have seen plenty of people charging their cars parked on the street. They have an outlet run to the side of the road, and plug in. Granted it's in areas with all single family houses, no apartments to overrun street parking, so they're probably always able to park in front of their house.

So, just a little more information just for fun and maybe some interest. Chicago proper has a population of 2.7 million people. There are about 1.2 million housing units in Chicago and about 30% of those are single family homes. About 70% are multi-family homes and about 25% of the 1.2 million units have 20 or more units. That’s 300,000 housing structures that have 20 or more units in them. There are a little over 1 million passenger cars/vehicles registered in Chicago proper. I don’t have specific numbers for this, just a ballpark guess based on my observations. I would estimate between 30% - 50% of the vehicles in the city of Chicago park on the street. That’s between 300,000 - 500,000 street parkers. The vast majority of those are not parked in front of a single family home that belongs to the owner. That would be a whole lot of free standing charging stations to figure out how to manage and maintain.

I live in a moderately densely populated neighborhood on the north side of the city. My neighborhood encompasses 1.7 square miles and has a population of about 56,300. That’s 33,000 people per square mile. This is what a typical residential street looks like in my neighborhood.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Torgus

Then you have no understanding of DERs and our electrical grid. Solar is part of the solution, not the solution. Making the stupid statement about Solar and night time is so played out and uneducated in this point in time it is comical. No one takes that statement seriously because they know how juvenile of a response/reaction it is. I know it was witty in the 90s to say that maybe even the early 2000s. Its a bit played out now, don't you think?

What is juvenile and played out is globalwarmingclimatechange. It is literally a Chicken Little story. The people who are uneducated are the ones who believe significantly changing lifestyles by raising energy costs and making energy less reliable is going to "save the planet".

The recent discussion in this thread regarding land use of solar generation is about replacing nearly 80% of power generation now reliability provided by low cost traditional "non-renewable" sources. Because the earth goes dark every 12 hours DER is not reliable unless you think electricity is used to just power your computer and LED lightbulbs, and recharge your tablet and cell phone.

[M5Rick]

What is a 'DER' anybody, all I know is that DER was a tv rental company in the sixties and seventies..

[KRS_SN]

Originally Posted by Torgus

What we should really embrace is NUCLEAR. We have to have a nuclear backbone, we should have GWs more of production. Nuke plants can take 20 years to build. We need to start now. Use SHVDC cables to connect the grids. Problem with Nukes is NIMBY. The reality is our National Grid is EXTREMLY weak. We should redo it with multiple nukes per ISO/RTO region. Then fill out the rest with DERs.

We need to save the OIL! Leave it in the ground. Let everyone else use it all up. The faster we transition to 75% nuke 25% DERs the better.

It'll take 30 years to build a reactor and get it functioning I'm told. The opposition to these is likely to be much more than to EV uptake. An accident one of them will really cause mass extinction while we fight climate change to prevent mass extinction.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by M5Rick

What is a 'DER' anybody, all I know is that DER was a tv rental company in the sixties and seventies..

Distributed Energy Resource, i.e. solar panels on your roof.