U.S. Politics Thread

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

LOL! I have to "prove" to you that I'm not anti-EV by believing in your scenario which have no basis in reality? Go ask Vexx, or any engineer that didn't flunk out of college algebra what they think about the idea of the US switching over to EV within 10-15 years.

Which would require you to ignore the fact that quick charging (or turbocharging as Tesla calls it) is harmful to the battery (according again to Tesla), or the fun fact that the only commercial EV atm even capable of a range of "200 miles" is the top end Model S, starting at a cool $72,400.

If you know anything about Tesla's business model, it is easy to see where they are going. They start with a high end model for the rich, the Roadster. Then, using the income from that, they work up economies of scale and produce a lower version, the model S (which can be had for a bit over $50k). What they are working on now, is an electric car for the rest of us, somewhere around $30k. Eventually, they'll have one for cheaper than that. As they work the technology, develop the manufacturing base, and improve the process, they can offer these cars for cheaper and cheaper.

So yes, 10-15 years. It is happening. There are more and more cars out there being charged by the stations being installed. Why is it so hard to accept the reality of what is already happening? Even if you don't believe 10-15 years (and to be honest, that is the timeframe I would set if I were in charge using my plans), you have to at least realize that there are more and more electric cars on the road all the time. Tesla is making money hand over fist. Elon Musk is the Tony Stark of our times, almost. Not quite as rich yet, but a genius who knows how to make things and knows how to make money from it.

More like WA have a paltry population of 6.8 million, while CA has over 38 million, which also have a much harsher summer weather which causes severe strain on the grid.

Poorly designed grid. We have hydroelectric power coming from several dams in the east. This is power that has to make it over the mountains, which are subject to yearly snowfall issues. We have our own nasty weather here from time to time, too. Look, California's electric grid was fine, until they deregulated the industry. Apparently the Californians decided that they'd rather have private industry in charge, instead of the government.

Unless it's car with crap built quality, the car will almost certainly last longer than the battery pack. Batteries loses capacities over time, it's a rather commonly known fact. The EV would start losing range long before the battery packs becomes non-functional. And no, your hybrid is not an EV. And if you're claiming that you've done only one oil change since 2005... I'm sorry, I'm raising the giant BS flag, unless your car has been in storage the whole time.

Then you don't drive very far at all. It doesn't matter how long it is between your fill ups, what matters is the distance you traveled. A guy with a Hummer H2 can also give his car 12 gallons or so once every 3-4 weeks, but that doesn't mean shit.

You're partially right, in that I've had the oil/filter done probably 3 times since I had the car. But other than the tire change a few weeks ago, that's all I've had done on it. And I probably drive my car a bit lighter and less than most people, but I still easily get 50+ MPG on it. That covers to and from work (helps that I live within 30 mins driving time of work), and also longer trips to friend's houses for anime meetups, parties, and other stuff on the weekends, and even weekdays.

I <3 my hybrid. Plan to have it for at least another 12 years (I initially envisioned having it 20 years), before I think I about getting something new. Kinda hoping it lasts long enough for Tesla's low-end electric car (unless someone comes out with something good before/by then).

Only possible if their daily commute is less than 38 miles round trip, and that charging is always available.

You do realize that because they are still refilling the tank every so often, they are using gas? That they can use electricity for most of the trip yet still use some gas, and that means they can still go months without refueling? Most people charge at home at least, and a lot of work places have charging spots. At least, in Seattle, all the parking garages have them, so people can charge up there.

Now you're presuming to know why my sister went with the Mazda instead of the Volt? you're a real piece of work you know that?

Not at all. I don't know her financial situation. I can only say that, from a general standpoint, electric cars and hybrids have gotten good enough that they pay for themselves after about 5 years, depending on how you use them.

At this point my argument is that you should go back and learn basic math.

Had a brain fart in that regard, but that's also why I adjusted to the top 5%, which you haven't responded to yet. 7 million people x 160,000 = $1.12 trillion. Your argument was that we couldn't erase the deficit if we taxed the rich at 100%. You're splitting hairs.

Also, the fact that the rich are hiding trillions of dollars worth of cash that could be taxed. $518 billion is still only what they admit to. If they were to admit the rest of their income, I'd still say you could cover the deficit with the top 1% alone. Of course, that is again using your 100% number.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

This is the real difference between the two parties right now.

We agree.
Both parties are spendaholics and neither one is pushing for re-industrialization of the country nor keeping jobs in the US.
So while the Dems want to raise taxes and the Republicans just want to spend, neither is a real solution to our economic problems.

As long as the NRA messaging gets overwhelmed by constant calls for gun safety, then things will definitely change. Until then, yes, it's the same old crap. So, that's all there is to that.

No Kyuu, that's not what is happening because the majority of people who care about this issue are in fact against new gun control measures.
Also, the labeling of "gun safety" is being overshadowing by the truth that this is in reality a 2nd amendment infringement campaign so this effort by the Hoplophobic idiots pushing for gun control has actually backfired.

So, shoving the gun issue aside, there is actually an even bigger fight. The fight against unchecked Corporatocracy. Unfortunately, issues like guns and abortion are tied into it, because the corporate need common people with garnished support via social issues. I'm sure many of us here are aware of this.

Putting the issue of gun control aside as well, I do agree with you that we need to fight against corporatism in the US. It needs to be torn down, though I'd go after the Federal Reserve system first and foremost, and place the power of moneymaking back into the hands of the US treasury. That's what JFK wanted to do in the 1960s and he was right.
Take away the power of the government to lend out corporate welfare to big corporate monopolies and we take the first steps in ridding ourselves of them.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel. Think about it for a second, keeping in mind that everytime you convert energy from one form to another, you lose something. If you have electricity from solar power which is perfectly capable of powering things... why would you convert it into hydrogen and thus lose some measure of energy in the process? Why not just use the electricity? Hydrogen can be a storage mechanism, but it is very problematic to store at the moment. As a gas or a liquid, it seeps out of your tank, so you lose fuel just by sitting there, without very costly and energy-intensive storage considerations.

Solar power will not meet the needs of a large scale mass transit system using electric vehicles. It simply cannot provide the power needed. Nuclear power would be required to meet that level of demand.

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel now due to the amount of energy required to crack it.
Electrical is also a horrible choice due to the cost of the batteries, the degredation of the batteries (only get 150,000 miles maximum, whereas a combustion engine can get 500,000 miles), has a short range (150-300 miles per charge), requires a 220 or 440 volt charging outlet at home or a station, and if everyone had one the entire power grid infrastructure would have to be rebuilt and nuclear power would become a must. The environmental impact of the nuclear power and toxic battery disposal alone nullifies the benefits.

Hydrogen isn't any better in the short term. It will need the same amount of capital investment into a new infrastructure for fueling stations, disposal of its toxic fuel cell chemicals (unless the artificial leaf actually works), and may require the use of nuclear power plants to "crack" the hydrogen from water since extracting it from methane is just as bad as hydrocarbon based fuels. Containment and storage of hydrogen as a compressed gas is also a problem, so the technology is certainly rife with issues that need to be resolved.

The primary difference between the two is that Hydrogen can produce the torque and horsepower needed for industrial use whereas an electric battery cannot. Trucks, tractor-trailers, construction vehicles, and earth moving equipment will require a power source that can handle long, arduous workloads. Electrical vehicles have yet to prove their ability to do that, whereas hydrogen (having horse power and torque equivalent to gasoline/disel engines) will perform.

However, that said, what we may see as the replacement for both is the Hydrogen-Electric hybrid. That is a rather interesting concept from Hyndai.

And I'll note that since you didn't respond to my honest question of "how many people die to guns before you think there is a problem", then apparently you don't care how many people die to guns. 100,000 or 1,000,000, it doesn't matter. And well, at least that's an honest opinion.

That's because it was a non-sequitur.
The problem with the murder rate in the US has nothing to do with guns, or knives, or poisons, or whatever the method is that is used to commit the act.
The problem is with the murderer and that problem can be traced back to the recidivism of the penal system, the lack of harsh punishment for murderers (i.e. we need the death penalty for those that murder), the lack of a strong anti-gang effort to break up and disband gangs like the MS-13, Cripes, Bloods, etc, and the failure to end the drug war which finances the drug gangs.
Since of the 11,000 murders, some 48-60% (depending on whose figures you use) are gang related by repeat offenders if we eliminate those we could bring the number of murders down to only 5760.
The bulk of the remaining murders are primarily of a domestic nature, and that is a cultural problem involving adultery, anger issues, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, mental illness and other issues that require attention to bring that number down.
If gun control was going to work to lessen the violent crime rate, it would have already done so with all the gun laws passed since 1968 and the start of the major push to disarm Americans.
It hasn't, so we now know that as gun ownership has risen since 1993 and the number of guns in private hands has gone way up, the overall violent crime rate and murder in general has gone down.

As for the hyped up incidents of mass shootings, since mass shooters make up an infinitesimal number of murders (.006% in 2012), they are irrelevant to the larger problem of violent crime, which is overall dropping according to the FBI.
If congress was serious about solving the issue they'd end the Gun Free Zones Act of 1995.

Thus, when you asked me that inane question, I ignored it due to it not addressing the real issues that effect murder in the United States.

Now, I've addressed your inquiry, I do not intend on entertaining any more questions about gun control since we have been asked to move on from that issue by the mods.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___________________________

Just when you think US Politics can't get any dumber.

Bloomberg's ban prohibits 2-liter soda with your pizza and some nightclub mixers
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...vo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

If you know anything about Tesla's business model, it is easy to see where they are going. They start with a high end model for the rich, the Roadster. Then, using the income from that, they work up economies of scale and produce a lower version, the model S (which can be had for a bit over $50k). What they are working on now, is an electric car for the rest of us, somewhere around $30k. Eventually, they'll have one for cheaper than that. As they work the technology, develop the manufacturing base, and improve the process, they can offer these cars for cheaper and cheaper.

I do, as I'm a big fan of Tesla, or anything Musk do these days tbh. That being said, you have to realize that Tesla has yet to become profitable(the rumor is that it may happen this year), and that's with the $7,500 per vehicle subsidy. The Model S just barely begin volume manufacturing, the company has a ways to go yet, and Musk would be the first one to tell you himself.

So yes, 10-15 years. It is happening. There are more and more cars out there being charged by the stations being installed. Why is it so hard to accept the reality of what is already happening? Even if you don't believe 10-15 years (and to be honest, that is the timeframe I would set if I were in charge using my plans), you have to at least realize that there are more and more electric cars on the road all the time. Tesla is making money hand over fist. Elon Musk is the Tony Stark of our times, almost. Not quite as rich yet, but a genius who knows how to make things and knows how to make money from it.

You're missing the point, probably because you for some reason have decided that I'm some sort of anti-EV crusader. Do I think there will be more EVs on the road in 10-15 years? hell yes, and that's the way it should be. What I'm not, is being overly enthusiastic to the point where I can no longer see what's realistic.

Tesla is not making money hand over fist, like I said earlier, the company isn't even profitable yet (in fact they just had a 4th Qtr loss of $89.9 million), nor is Musk all THAT rich in comparison. I'd say he'd probably stand to make more from SpaceX than Tesla atm.

You're partially right, in that I've had the oil/filter done probably 3 times since I had the car. But other than the tire change a few weeks ago, that's all I've had done on it. And I probably drive my car a bit lighter and less than most people, but I still easily get 50+ MPG on it. That covers to and from work (helps that I live within 30 mins driving time of work), and also longer trips to friend's houses for anime meetups, parties, and other stuff on the weekends, and even weekdays.

Sorry, still not buying it. You've had the car for what, 8 years now? A hybrid is still powered by a ICE at its core, which is no more advanced than any other ICE, nor lubricated differently. While people certainly doesn't need to change their oil every 3k miles, you still can't go 10k miles without changing oil, not unless you don't want your engine to live very long.

You do realize that because they are still refilling the tank every so often, they are using gas? That they can use electricity for most of the trip yet still use some gas, and that means they can still go months without refueling?

Uh yes? you realize you're just agreeing with me? According to the EPA ratings, the Volt has an all-electric range of 35 miles, with a total range of 379 miles, which means the gas provides 344 miles of travel. To be able to go months without refueling, the Volt drivers would have to limit their travels to within the 35 miles round trip, or travel only to places within 35 miles, and then spend 10 hours there while the battery recharges. A special 240v charger will shorten the charge time to 4 hours, but that requires hard wiring modification to the house, and is something that'll have to come out of your pocket.

Not at all. I don't know her financial situation. I can only say that, from a general standpoint, electric cars and hybrids have gotten good enough that they pay for themselves after about 5 years, depending on how you use them.

It depends on what you're comparing them to. There are plenty of fuel efficient ICE cars these days as well that nets upwards of 30-40s MPG, which significantly cuts down on the efficiency advantages of hybrids. EVs holds a much better advantage in this department, but also have significant drawbacks in other areas, range remains the most prominent one.

Had a brain fart in that regard, but that's also why I adjusted to the top 5%, which you haven't responded to yet. 7 million people x 160,000 = $1.12 trillion. Your argument was that we couldn't erase the deficit if we taxed the rich at 100%. You're splitting hairs.

Nevermind the fact that you're doing the move-the-goal-post thing, you're also making the mistake where you're not counting the fact that you can't use the whole of the $160,000, as part of that is already set aside for taxes, which according to the IRS chart is approx. 20%. This means if you raise the tax on the top 5% to 100%, you'll only be raising 7 million x $128,000 instead, which comes out to $896 billion. A bigger dent for sure, but still won't eliminate the deficit, and like you said, a totally impractical and impossible scenario, hence my original point that you can't simply tax your way out of the problem in the US. Should the tax code be fixed? absolutely, there's no reason why people making multiple 6 figures should be paying just 20% when most middle class family pays a higher percentage while taking in far less. But what's mathematically impossible is just that, impossible.

Also, the fact that the rich are hiding trillions of dollars worth of cash that could be taxed. $518 billion is still only what they admit to. If they were to admit the rest of their income, I'd still say you could cover the deficit with the top 1% alone. Of course, that is again using your 100% number.

Is that fact or conjecture? I'd imagine the IRS would love to know where those trillions of taxable incomes are hiding. And are you alleging illegal conducts, or practices that are morally shady, but legally sound? Like how Apple, or for that matter every multinational corporation keeps their cash overseas in order to avoid paying taxes on them?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Just when you think US Politics can't get any dumber.

Bloomberg's ban prohibits 2-liter soda with your pizza and some nightclub mixers
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...vo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

I think it is not much of a choice - if people abuse their freedom of choice to the detriment of society, these bans are inevitable. If it reduces the state's payouts on healthcare caused by excesses of unhealthy lifestyle, why not?

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think it is not much of a choice - if people abuse their freedom of choice to the detriment of society, these bans are inevitable. If it reduces the state's payouts on healthcare caused by excesses of unhealthy lifestyle, why not?

It is a quagmire IMO. On the one hand you don't want to limit personal freedom without good cause, on the other hand too many people lack the awareness or self-control to not cause undue burden on society, to which we also can't just say "lol too bad kthxbi". It's like a lose-lose-lose scenario.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Solar power will not meet the needs of a large scale mass transit system using electric vehicles. It simply cannot provide the power needed. Nuclear power would be required to meet that level of demand.

Take a good look at that picture, and realize that we can power the world through 2030 if we covered the small squares above in solar panels. To further understand, "the Earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times."

Conclusion: Plenty of solar power.

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel now due to the amount of energy required to crack it.
Electrical is also a horrible choice due to the cost of the batteries, the degredation of the batteries (only get 150,000 miles maximum, whereas a combustion engine can get 500,000 miles), has a short range (150-300 miles per charge), requires a 220 or 440 volt charging outlet at home or a station, and if everyone had one the entire power grid infrastructure would have to be rebuilt and nuclear power would become a must. The environmental impact of the nuclear power and toxic battery disposal alone nullifies the benefits.

False. In actuality, with the improvements made to batteries over the years, they are now 100% recyclable, and an economy gas car would have to get 117mpg in order to be on equal environmental terms. So, considering the batteries are 100% recyclable, swapping batteries out every 150,000 miles isn't a big deal.

There is one other environmental factor you have to consider: the water itself. We are actually using up drinking water faster than nature is replacing it. By that I mean that underground wells and aquifers are being tapped out, faster than nature can replace them. When that happens, expect wars to happen over water. Desalination plants for drinking water are expensive and tend to poison the area around them by taking out the water but leaving the salt. The high concentrations of salt become toxic to sea life. Given that, using our water for fuel is generally a bad idea.

Lastly, electric cars are "fuel-neutral" and by that I mean, they don't care how the electricity is generated. We can start powering them by coal and gas-fired plants now (and it is easier to contain pollutants at a central plant, then hundreds of thousands of small cars). But then move on to geothermal, solar, nuclear, fusion, etc. Instead of upgrading millions of cars, we can simply upgrade a power plant, or switch to a new power plant. We can even generate that electricity with your hydrogen, if we want to, but in a central location.

And to more simply state the problem you are proposing, let me break it down for you this way: which way is simpler?

Sun > electricity > car power
or
Sun > electricity > hydrogen > car power

Keep in mind, each transformation involves energy loss. The first method loses less energy than the latter.

The primary difference between the two is that Hydrogen can produce the torque and horsepower needed for industrial use whereas an electric battery cannot. Trucks, tractor-trailers, construction vehicles, and earth moving equipment will require a power source that can handle long, arduous workloads. Electrical vehicles have yet to prove their ability to do that, whereas hydrogen (having horse power and torque equivalent to gasoline/disel engines) will perform.

But as you noted, we still have very real problems with hydrogen. Electricity is proven today, and we can still use oil, natural gas, and diesel to power the vehicles that need greater horsepower. By the time we solve hydrogen's issues, battery technology will have developed enough to provide the torque and horsepower needed.

In short hydrogen, while interesting, is ultimately a non-starter. Hell, we are already getting air-powered cars, which should be ready about the time hydrogen is!

That's because it was a non-sequitur....

Thus, when you asked me that inane question, I ignored it due to it not addressing the real issues that effect murder in the United States.

Ah, okay, so I was right. It doesn't matter how many people are killed, as far as you are concerned. You could have just said so in a short simple sentence. But that makes it odd, since it almost seemed you did, given that you took issue with Jon's numbers... then again, maybe you're just worried that if enough men, women, and children are killed, enough other people might begin to think otherwise on guns?

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Bloomberg's ban prohibits 2-liter soda with your pizza and some nightclub mixers
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/s...vo3PoNZEBOdZ2L

TBT it is too little (but not too late), the tax should be applied to all carbonated drinks (otherwise people just buy higher amounts of 1 liter or smaller soda) at the federal level and revenue applied directly to health care. Same should be done to junk food, that would be an stimulus for healthy eating, the better you eat the less taxes you pay.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think it is not much of a choice - if people abuse their freedom of choice to the detriment of society, these bans are inevitable. If it reduces the state's payouts on healthcare caused by excesses of unhealthy lifestyle, why not?

Shouldn't Bloomberg be going after the quality of the product which is making people fat in the first place?
Soda has been around for a long time (100+ years), but it was made with REAL sugar, not Corn Syrup until recently (well 1980).
Real sugar is not necessarily better health wise than HFCS, but it is a lot more expensive and thus would limit the amount of soda by price if only "Real/Raw Sugar" sodas were allowed.
Limiting the size of the soda is not going to be effective since people will just order more of the smaller sizes, it's stupid.
Change the law and outlaw HFCS in the city of New York, and force manufacturers/vendors to only sell real and/or raw sugar products.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by kyp275

It is a quagmire IMO. On the one hand you don't want to limit personal freedom without good cause, on the other hand too many people lack the awareness or self-control to not cause undue burden on society, to which we also can't just say "lol too bad kthxbi". It's like a lose-lose-lose scenario.

Run any bad plan long enough, and the implements to fix it will ALWAYS result in a lose-lose scenario. The maxim "Better be late than never" is an allusion to such a scenario, at least something is done to stop the snowball from growing bigger, even if we have a firebomb one that is 6-floors high rolling down from a mountain as high as Mt Everest.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Shouldn't Bloomberg be going after the quality of the product which is making people fat in the first place?
Soda has been around for a long time (100+ years), but it was made with REAL sugar, not Corn Syrup until recently (well 1980).
Real sugar is not necessarily better health wise than HFCS, but it is a lot more expensive and thus would limit the amount of soda by price if only "Real/Raw Sugar" sodas were allowed.
Limiting the size of the soda is not going to be effective since people will just order more of the smaller sizes, it's stupid.
Change the law and outlaw HFCS in the city of New York, and force manufacturers/vendors to only sell real and/or raw sugar products.

I think the reason why HFCS replaced real sugar is because it doubled in price between 1979 and 1980, and the production was unable to keep up with the demands. Sugar has become a part of the developed society's lives that it became a necessity that cannot be easily booted or replaced.

Unless we find a way to get as much sugar to be on par with the sweetness in HFCS, the latter will be the way to go. Maybe Talin?

[willx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Shouldn't Bloomberg be going after the quality of the product which is making people fat in the first place?
Soda has been around for a long time (100+ years), but it was made with REAL sugar, not Corn Syrup until recently (well 1980).
Real sugar is not necessarily better health wise than HFCS, but it is a lot more expensive and thus would limit the amount of soda by price if only "Real/Raw Sugar" sodas were allowed.
Limiting the size of the soda is not going to be effective since people will just order more of the smaller sizes, it's stupid.
Change the law and outlaw HFCS in the city of New York, and force manufacturers/vendors to only sell real and/or raw sugar products.

Er, so you want to increase the price of all sodas? Even the price of a can of soda will rise ..

I was musing the other day with one of my friends on regulation and self-control. I'm on the side that fundamentally believes that from a statistical perspective, large swathes of the population simply cannot control themselves. My friend disagrees.

I point out that the "average person" from a statistical perspective has inadequate self-control. There are plenty of things that are not physiologically addictive but mentally addictive. Alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, heck.. Debt Addiction! etc. These things must be regulated. So where do we start and where do we stop?

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by willx

Er, so you want to increase the price of all sodas? Even the price of a can of soda will rise ..

I was musing the other day with one of my friends on regulation and self-control. I'm on the side that fundamentally believes that from a statistical perspective, large swathes of the population simply cannot control themselves. My friend disagrees.

I point out that the "average person" from a statistical perspective has inadequate self-control. There are plenty of things that are not physiologically addictive but mentally addictive. Alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, heck.. Debt Addiction! etc. These things must be regulated. So where do we start and where do we stop?

Education? I think more emphasis must be put into math and its utility rather than simply teaching the kids formula after formula, application after application. There isn't much effort put into making kids understand that those numbers can change lives.

[mangamuscle]

@GundamFan0083 I am no smoker but it is no secret that the price of the cigarettes has increased above inflation without decreasing the user base, just increasing the price of soda by forcing them to use a different ingredient would solve nothing since most people would still buy them (and some people would increase their consumption thinking they are fighting the government by doing so)..

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Take a good look at that picture, and realize that we can power the world through 2030 if we covered the small squares above in solar panels.

Looks small compared to the planet yea, but don't forget that's still a shit ton of area to cover with nothing but PV cells

To further understand, "the Earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times."

Conclusion: Plenty of solar power.

Indeed, but the problem is in how to efficiently capture, convert, store, and transfer those energy. Just because it's there doesn't mean much until we have figure out how to effectively utilize it. In some ways this is akin to fusion, we know it's there and how it works, but not how to use it effectively as an energy source yet.

Now solar power is obviously far ahead of fusion, since it actually works, but solar power technology at today's level are not yet capable of taking over as a primary energy production source.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Of course, but you also can't argue under the assumption that the majority of people are driving gas-guzzling SUVs/trucks/sports car. I believe the original line of argument was that gas tax should be raised to make EV more palatable, which IMO is the wrong approach, as it'd be a regressive tax raise that will hit the poor the hardest, as they are the people who are least financially capable of adapting to the change. Do no forget that raising the price of a basic commodity like fuel is likely going to lead to increased general inflation, including basic goods such as food, potentially leading to a double-whammy against the poor.

It's not really an assumption. I made my statements off of observations of what I see on the road, but here's some data to back it up. Look at that first graph, comparing sales of cars with light trucks over the course of two years (start of 2011 to start of 2013): they're about equal. The table below it shows actual sales numbers, but unfortunately it's limited to January 2013; regardless, if you make the assumption that one month's sales data is roughly the same as for other months (which is a very poor assumption to make), you'll see that cars (of all classes - midsize, small, luxury, and large) barely outsold light-duty trucks. Add in sales of SUVs and crossover vehicles (still SUVs) and you come out well ahead of cars. That actually places cars in the minority. So...

Regarding the taxes, it's a tough issue. I supported the idea of slowly raising taxes to make gasoline less appealing and then using those taxes to help develop its replacement because it's a controlled scenario. The alternative is that gas prices are going to rise on their own and then we'll be forced to scramble with the replacement when that time comes. The market would sort it out, but the latter scenario has the potential to be very chaotic. The former minimizes the pain, but it makes people upset because we're creating a scenario of discomfort for ourselves.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Sorry, it may be inspiring in a "oh, that's kinda neat" way, it's a different story when you're the one doing it, and have no choice but to do it.

Sure, but I think those stories are valuable to read over regardless. Inspiration was the wrong thing to emphasize - it shows what's possible. I never would have thought that using a bicycle to get over hills, ride 20 miles one-way, to get to work all while physically out of shape was possible at all, but I've read stories of people doing it. Now I know that it's possible. Many of them report feeling better, noting health benefits, etc. as well - not unexpected.

The point I was trying to make is that it's very easy to immediately dismiss the idea as being too much work, if not completely impossible. See what others are doing and realize that it may not be as much work or as impossible as you thought. (Again, this won't work for everyone, but there are many, many people who are using cars when they could very easily be using a bicycle.)

Originally Posted by Solace

My belief is that if you were to show people how advantageous something like high speed rail could be, it would go a long way toward pushing to develop serious public transportation across the country. I think there will always be value for cars, even for recreation, but in a lot of instances where you need transportation having a car is overkill.

I think that part of the problem is what people have become used to. A car is almost like a second home for many people; it's their own personal space. They can customize it as they like, they can blast their own music, they can sing at the top of their lungs if they want to. Convertibles aside, they're in their own little isolated bubble, moving through the world and only opening the windows and doors when they want, to the things that they want. On a train or bus there are other people. You're in a public space. You can't do what ever you want, you can't adjust the seat, and you have no control over how fast or slow you're going along your route. It is arguably not as comfortable as if you were in your own vehicle. Unless public transportation were much cheaper, I think many people would reject it for those reasons alone.

Originally Posted by kyp275

There are currently barely over 5,000 charging stations in the entire US, as opposed to over 110,000 gas stations. A gas station can also serve a significantly higher number of vehicles than a comparable charging station, as it takes only a few minutes to refuel a car as opposed to the hours it'd take to charge up a single EV.

Charging stations are only really an issue for long-distance travelers. Home-owners can charge at their house; apartment dwellers would need to lobby their management to get a solution set up for their building. I don't mean to downplay the importance of road-side charging stations, but the majority of people run a commute between their home and their place of work, and that is it.

Your concerns about being able to power electric vehicles is valid. I'm a fan of nuclear energy, personally...

Originally Posted by kyp275

Try years and you'll be closer. The battery pack also don't last forever, and their replacement cost certainly is anything but cheap.

This is a big myth against hybrids. Some studies were carried out examining the first-generation Priuses, now over ten years old, comparing their battery statistics to what was expected when they were new, and compared to newer Priuses. They found that the batteries had lost surprisingly little of their maximum capacity, and that they were still going strong. This isn't to say that batteries never fail, but the old idea that the batteries would be dead within five years has been disproven.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Limiting the size of the soda is not going to be effective since people will just order more of the smaller sizes, it's stupid.

It's not a silver bullet, but forcing smaller portions - even when there's the possibility of ordering or buying second servings - is a proven method for limiting consumption. This isn't a stupid idea at all.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

I do, as I'm a big fan of Tesla, or anything Musk do these days tbh. That being said, you have to realize that Tesla has yet to become profitable(the rumor is that it may happen this year), and that's with the $7,500 per vehicle subsidy. The Model S just barely begin volume manufacturing, the company has a ways to go yet, and Musk would be the first one to tell you himself.

Of course. But it's not just Musk, either, as other companies have been producing good-selling hybrid and electric cars. If the Volt didn't make Chevy money, they wouldn't be selling it.

You're missing the point, probably because you for some reason have decided that I'm some sort of anti-EV crusader. Do I think there will be more EVs on the road in 10-15 years? hell yes, and that's the way it should be. What I'm not, is being overly enthusiastic to the point where I can no longer see what's realistic.

It is your right to see negative things about the future. Perhaps I am being a bit optimistic, but that is grounded in the reality of what we have seen. Even 10 years ago, an electric car would have been seen as impossible. And now we have many different types and models, and charging stations are going up all over the place. I also compare it the transition from horse to gas car. That happened, and you can draw many parallels with today.

Sorry, still not buying it. You've had the car for what, 8 years now? A hybrid is still powered by a ICE at its core, which is no more advanced than any other ICE, nor lubricated differently. While people certainly doesn't need to change their oil every 3k miles, you still can't go 10k miles without changing oil, not unless you don't want your engine to live very long.

How Often do you really need to change your oil?

Summary: you can go as long as 15,000 miles before changing it. 2012 models are 10k minimum, and that's the manufacturer's suggestion. 3k was a 1970 standard, but technology has improved. And that article only covers purely gas cars. Part of the efficiency in a hybrid, is being able to run the engine at a steady tempo, using the electric battery to add power. That means the engine doesn't need to rev up and down so much(though it can), but stays running at a steady pace. Some of it is plain driving style, and I've gotten quite good and slowly speeding up or slowing down, so the engine remains constant. Thus, there is less wear and tear on the engine.

Summary: a hybrid's engine is a wee bit different. Each person will have to consult with a mechanic they trust to evaluate the engine and when it needs oil. But changing every 3k or 5k miles, is just wasting oil and bad for the environment.

Hybrid cars: Common Maintenance Issues

Uh yes? you realize you're just agreeing with me? According to the EPA ratings, the Volt has an all-electric range of 35 miles, with a total range of 379 miles, which means the gas provides 344 miles of travel. To be able to go months without refueling, the Volt drivers would have to limit their travels to within the 35 miles round trip, or travel only to places within 35 miles, and then spend 10 hours there while the battery recharges. A special 240v charger will shorten the charge time to 4 hours, but that requires hard wiring modification to the house, and is something that'll have to come out of your pocket.

...or use the 240V chargers spread about. Keep in mind something else about batteries, too: it's almost better to NOT fully charge them. The first 50% charges fairly quickly, but it gets slower and and slower to charge as you go higher and higher. The last 10% takes the longest. So, if you come home from work for the night, plugging in for 10 hours to have a full charge in the morning is no big deal. As I said, there are plenty of chargers around here, and using regenerative braking gives you a lot of electricity back (hybrids have it as well, so I've seen the effect first hand). Thus, even when out and about, it is easy to extend your charge, if you're not too worries about a 100% charge, which you shouldn't be. Charge up to 70% or so, and with regenerative braking, you can go past the 35 mile limit.

I'd encourage you to find a hybrid, electric, or volt and drive it for awhile. It really is a different experience, and the driving habits you develop while driving one, translate to better gas mileage for your regular car, too.

It depends on what you're comparing them to. There are plenty of fuel efficient ICE cars these days as well that nets upwards of 30-40s MPG, which significantly cuts down on the efficiency advantages of hybrids. EVs holds a much better advantage in this department, but also have significant drawbacks in other areas, range remains the most prominent one.

The vast majority of people use their cars in short hops, less than 50 miles. It is rare that you run up against a 200 mile range. Even if you drive for that amount of length, it is usually recommended that you stop and get out for 30 minutes or so to stretch and relax, so you have time to charge then. And if you're talking range, my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid gets 536 - 673 miles. And you could pick one up for $7,000 nowadays.

Nevermind the fact that you're doing the move-the-goal-post thing, you're also making the mistake where you're not counting the fact that you can't use the whole of the $160,000, as part of that is already set aside for taxes, which according to the IRS chart is approx. 20%, which means if you raise the tax on the top 5% to 100$, you'll only be raising 7 million x 128,000 instead, which comes out to 896 billion. A bigger dent for sure, but still won't eliminate the deficit, and like you said, a totally impractical and impossible scenario, hence my original point that you can't simply tax your way out of the problem in the US. Should the tax code be fixed? absolutely, there's no reason why people making multiple 6 figures should be paying just 20% when most middle class family pays a higher percentage while taking in far less. But what's mathematically impossible is just that, impossible.

The 2013 deficit is projected to be $901 billion. By 2018, $575 billion. By that time, we are getting quite close to the top 10% being able to cover the deficit with taxes. You can call it moving the goalposts if you wish, but as I said, I was merely answering your assertion of whether taxing the rich at 100% could cover the deficit. I've proved it can, with 5%. But if you still think that is enough because it doesn't take into account the taxes paid, we could go with the top 10%, which would generate nearly $1.6 trillion in tax revenue. Taking 30% out of that for current taxes paid(and you just know the super rich aren't paying 30%. *coughRomneycough*), would still net $1.12 trillion, still able to cover the deficit. So, in a sense, you are moving the goalposts, too.

Is that fact or conjecture? I'd imagine the IRS would love to know where those trillions of taxable incomes are hiding. And are you alleging illegal conducts, or practices that are morally shady, but legally sound? Like how Apple, or for that matter every multinational corporation keeps their cash overseas in order to avoid paying taxes on them?

I linked you to the initial article here, but if you want to wade into the financial details of the report, you can go directly to here.

The thing about these offshore accounts, is that we can only estimate. And that is because we can tell they have a certain account, but not how much is in it. However, many accounts have a minimum balance requirement, and there are pros and cons to keeping more money in them. So, if someone has three offshore accounts that require a minimum of a $1 million balance, then we know they have at least $3 million in them. The techniques used here, were the same to estimate how much Romney had in his offshore accounts.

There are variety of techniques, some legal, some illegal, and some merely shady and gray (look up "Son of Boss" to see Romney's infamous tax sheltering scheme) that allow the very rich to take advantage of these. They use financial trickery, and it can be difficult to sort out what they are doing sometimes. Thus, whenever a new scheme pops up, it can take the IRS quite a few years to figure out what is going on and determine wrongdoing. Even more time if a rule or law change is needed because people are violating the spirit of the law even if technically following the letter of the law. I admit, a lot of the financial wizardy that takes place confuses me, but I trust this report by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. And I trust people like Elizabeth Warren who became an expert at it and was able to explain what was going on.

But $20 to $30 trillion is estimated to be out there in tax shelters. Taxing that would go a long way towards fixing our deficit, if not remove it altogether.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Looks small compared to the planet yea, but don't forget that's still a shit ton of area to cover with nothing but PV cells

Indeed, but the problem is in how to efficiently capture, convert, store, and transfer those energy. Just because it's there doesn't mean much until we have figure out how to effectively utilize it. In some ways this is akin to fusion, we know it's there and how it works, but not how to use it effectively as an energy source yet.

Now solar power is obviously far ahead of fusion, since it actually works, but solar power technology at today's level are not yet capable of taking over as a primary energy production source.

The only hindrance, really, is the same one all power sources suffer: the loss of power in transmission. So while we could power the world with a small solar power farm in the Sahara desert, it is not practical to pipe that power across the world... yet. Fortunately, there are plenty of areas across the US that get enough sunlight, so we don't have to do a few large solar farms; we can do many smaller solar farms and treat them as power plants feeding energy to the grid, just like every other power source does.

I should say, the other two mains hindrances are oil and gas companies that don't want solar to come about, and thus fight against it. And, funny enough, there are some environmental groups that feel covering portions of a desert in solar panels are harmful to some of the life there. Makes me facepalm mightily, since the environmental footprint is many times smaller than required by fracking, coil mining, and oil drilling, which we could replace.

But solar power is mature, and the Chinese are making a killing off panels right now; it's actually a bit of a problem, since they are undercutting to corner the market on it. This was largely why Solyndra failed; they couldn't compete. We'd need to tariff Chinese panels if we wanted American solar panels. Or we can let the world be flooded with cheap solar panels to spur adoption.

You might be keen to look into Germany's exploding solar power industry. They don't get near as much sun as the US does, but they've managed to produce between 3 and 10% of their power needs via solar alone.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Take a good look at that picture, and realize that we can power the world through 2030 if we covered the small squares above in solar panels. To further understand, "the Earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times."

Conclusion: Plenty of solar power.

I've seen a map similar to that one before Kaijo, and while interesting it doesn't mean diddley since we don't have solar panels efficient enough to collect even a fraction of it.
The ability of our current Solar Panel technology from ourthe best collectors is only 1/3 of the sunlight energy that hits them.
Solar Panels aren't effecient enough nor cost effective enough to work within that small of an area right now.
Therefore, you're going to need a lot more solar coverage to get the kind of power needed for the increase that would come with a move to electric powered vehicles.
It's a nice idea, but currently its too expensive an ineffective to work.

False. In actuality, with the improvements made to batteries over the years, they are now 100% recyclable, and an economy gas car would have to get 117mpg in order to be on equal environmental terms. So, considering the batteries are 100% recyclable, swapping batteries out every 150,000 miles isn't a big deal.

Did you even read your own link?
Still, when electric car batteries die, they are nearly 100 percent recyclable, so waste isn't much of an issue when compared with conventional batteries

Electric car batteries are 90-96% recyclable, but not without environmental impact due to the process of the recycling.
The copper, lead, and other metals of the battery must be completely shredded and then smelted into billets to be reformed for new batteries. That process is toxic, consumes energy, and uses water. It is hardly environmentally neutral.
A big plus over conventional batteries to be sure, but not better than a hydrogen fuel cell.

There is one other environmental factor you have to consider: the water itself. We are actually using up drinking water faster than nature is replacing it. By that I mean that underground wells and aquifers are being tapped out, faster than nature can replace them. When that happens, expect wars to happen over water. Desalination plants for drinking water are expensive and tend to poison the area around them by taking out the water but leaving the salt. The high concentrations of salt become toxic to sea life. Given that, using our water for fuel is generally a bad idea.

The exhaust from hydrogen vehicles is water vapor thus replenishing the water used after cracking.
Desalination of wastewater for Hydrogen fuel is currently being developed, and thus would not effect drinking water. In fact, it combines reclamation of waste water with fuel production which is an environmental plus.

Lastly, electric cars are "fuel-neutral" and by that I mean, they don't care how the electricity is generated. We can start powering them by coal and gas-fired plants now (and it is easier to contain pollutants at a central plant, then hundreds of thousands of small cars). But then move on to geothermal, solar, nuclear, fusion, etc. Instead of upgrading millions of cars, we can simply upgrade a power plant, or switch to a new power plant. We can even generate that electricity with your hydrogen, if we want to, but in a central location.

Then you have to admit that a hydrogen-electric hybrid would be the best way to go.
Because the hydrogen cell would power the electric vehicle by charging a smaller (less pollutive) battery and not be a major strain on the power grid.
As for upgrading from ICEs to electric, most of the world's fleet of vehicles are ICEs, to go electric or hydrogen is going to require an entirely new infrastructure.
There is no escaping that either way we go.
The difference between electric and hydrogen is simply in the fact that a hydrogen vehicle isn't as much of a drain in power consumption as a total electric vehicle system would be.

And to more simply state the problem you are proposing, let me break it down for you this way: which way is simpler?

Sun > electricity > car power
or
Sun > electricity > hydrogen > car power

Keep in mind, each transformation involves energy loss. The first method loses less energy than the latter.

That's not a reflection of the reality of the sitution.
It is more like this:

Sun > solar energy > poor solar panels > power needed from other sources > electric car

A realistic comparison would be:

Nuclear power > improved power grid > electric car

Water > power needed to crack > hydrogen > hydrogen car

So while your general point of electric being easier is correct, you assumption that Solar Power will provide the energy is wrong. Nuclear power can do it, but the cons outweigh the pros if we're talking environmental impact.

Solar panels aren't good enough, YET, I believe they will be in the future, but right now the technology (like hydrogen) is still too young/underdeveloped.
We need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse and abandon hydrogen (or other alternatives) lest it become an economic mess like Solindra and other mistakes involving Solar Power.
Solar Power will happen, but we're not there just yet.

But as you noted, we still have very real problems with hydrogen. Electricity is proven today, and we can still use oil, natural gas, and diesel to power the vehicles that need greater horsepower. By the time we solve hydrogen's issues, battery technology will have developed enough to provide the torque and horsepower needed.

In short hydrogen, while interesting, is ultimately a non-starter. Hell, we are already getting air-powered cars, which should be ready about the time hydrogen is!

Hydrogen technology is moving very fast right now.
It's hard to keep up with all the new innovations.
So to claim that the fallacious air-powered cars will be developed before hydrogen is silly, since the "air-powered" vehicle is basically a joke/insult.
Electric will be a stop-gap, and I don't see it as being a replacement for ICEs.
The endurance, strength, and overall work capability of ICEs essentially dwarfs electric vehicles right now.
However, EVs will catch up to a point, the question is, will Hydrogen catch up at the same time or surpass them?
If it does, than Hyundai's move into a hybrid of the two makes far more sense than either one being done independently.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against EVs, but I don't see Solar as the means to power them anytime soon. If we go electric, we are going to have to go nuclear unless there is a major breakthrough in Solar Panel tech that allows us to take advantage of the massive amounts of power coming from the Sun.
Before that happens, EVs will have to be powered by conventional means and that means pollution of one sort or another and thus no real net gain from them. We're simply moving the pollution from the road to the power plant.

Ah, okay, so I was right. It doesn't matter how many people are killed, as far as you are concerned. You could have just said so in a short simple sentence. But that makes it odd, since it almost seemed you did, given that you took issue with Jon's numbers... then again, maybe you're just worried that if enough men, women, and children are killed, enough other people might begin to think otherwise on guns?

Your complete disregard for the reality of the situation is why I choose not to discuss it with you.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

TBT it is too little (but not too late), the tax should be applied to all carbonated drinks (otherwise people just buy higher amounts of 1 liter or smaller soda) at the federal level and revenue applied directly to health care. Same should be done to junk food, that would be an stimulus for healthy eating, the better you eat the less taxes you pay.

That was my point.
Restricting the size will do nothing to curb what people want.
It's silly for Bloomberg to do this.
A tax could be applied, that certainly is another way to go about it.
Increasing the price would certainly deter some (though not all) from buying larger sizes.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I think the reason why HFCS replaced real sugar is because it doubled in price between 1979 and 1980, and the production was unable to keep up with the demands. Sugar has become a part of the developed society's lives that it became a necessity that cannot be easily booted or replaced.

Unless we find a way to get as much sugar to be on par with the sweetness in HFCS, the latter will be the way to go. Maybe Talin?

My point is that if soda is made more expensive it will deter some people from buying as much of it.
Sugar being more expensive than HFCS, would certainly help as a deterent especially since sugar is not as sweet.

Originally Posted by willx

Er, so you want to increase the price of all sodas? Even the price of a can of soda will rise ..

That's the point.
If the milk is soured so to speak, then people won't consume as much of it, and that's the point isn't it?

Originally Posted by ogon_bat

@GundamFan0083 I am no smoker but it is no secret that the price of the cigarettes has increased above inflation without decreasing the user base, just increasing the price of soda by forcing them to use a different ingredient would solve nothing since most people would still buy them (and some people would increase their consumption thinking they are fighting the government by doing so)..

Really?
I thought the price increase lessened the number of smokers in the US?
I'll have to go look that up and get back to you on it.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

I should start by saying that I've been poor. I lost my job in the recession and had to cut back and survive on a meager unemployment check. I was also a starving college student at one time, for three years, without a car. I know how hard it can be to get around. And yet I still managed. You'd be surprised what you can accomplish, when you are forced to. Bicycling and the bus was actually good for me, because I saved money that way.

Congrats on the tenacity. I understand that we do underestimate what we can do, however I just don't believe in placing more situations to pressure and force people. Yes, this sounds very anti-capitalistic of me but then again I don't worship the free market as a deity as some would. Furthermore, at the very least, you had the option available. It's fair to say that people have options they don't realize, but at the same time taxing certain choices is also punishing said choices. Even if it does benefit them for the long run, that is still a choice to make.

As for 2 hours to get to work... you're doing it wrong. At the least, that is a small fraction of people. Well, my supervisor does have a 1-2 hour commute, but only because she drives a company vehicle part of the way, and stubborn sticks to rush hour traffic, instead of side streets (and I have not yet convinced her to try side streets, despite trying). I'm employed now, but during the 2 years I wasn't employed, I made efforts to find work within a reasonable range. Had it come to it (and I was close at a few points), I would have moved closer to a more permanent job. But I took some temp assignments that were closer.

Well, I'm just going to leave this out there. I think it's a bit too much to say people are doing it wrong. And these days, many can't pick and choose where they get to live or work.

So, I've been there. I know what is like. Sure, some people will have it rough and will need their car (or truck for moving). But the idea is to get as many people onto the idea of alternate transport as possible, so that only those that really need a gas car, will use one. It might take 100 years to fully get rid of the gas car, but in the meantime, we reduce the use of it where we can.

You do. More than myself for sure. But there's many places and situations where you haven't been, and thus not all solutions are unilateral. Could your suggestions help many? Yes. But that is something that can be thrown out via a campaign of information. I mean campaigns of misinformation (such as anti-nuclear power) are so effective, so combating those would help.

And the gas car will someday become obsolete. But this is just something that just happens on its own with some help from society aka government. (This is why I'm not telegraphing you this forum post.) This isn't about the invisible hand or anything. People are just good at adapting to better tools when they can get their hands on it. That's why we are quite a successful species.

As for a truck, they have places where you can rent them. My parents had a van, and thus they helped me move to and from college, and then into my condo, but they also use it to tow their trailer for their camping trips. So I won't deny that some would like that on a more regular basis. But if you have low means, then renting on the rare occasion you need it (moving), is the most cost-efficient solution. Had my parents not been around, or if they pass away and thus I have no access to their van and need to haul large things, I'll simply rent a truck. Maintaining a truck or van otherwise, is too expensive for me.

Point taken. I understand that we don't always consider the best options and can get really stubborn.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Of course. But it's not just Musk, either, as other companies have been producing good-selling hybrid and electric cars. If the Volt didn't make Chevy money, they wouldn't be selling it.

Fisker is in deep poo-poo atm, while the Volt... yea... Now granted, that Reuter article is flawed, as they included the R&D cost as well, which GM will ideally utilize and built upon in the future for new products as well. That said, the whole Volt project thus far probably hasn't made GM much, if any money.

It is your right to see negative things about the future. Perhaps I am being a bit optimistic, but that is grounded in the reality of what we have seen. Even 10 years ago, an electric car would have been seen as impossible. And now we have many different types and models, and charging stations are going up all over the place. I also compare it the transition from horse to gas car. That happened, and you can draw many parallels with today.

I prefer "realistically". I also wouldn't say that EVs were seen as "impossible" 10 years ago, in fact GM had a rather successful EV program almost 20 years ago. We also only have a few different models of EV atm (hybrids aren't EVs), which remains either too expensive for the general public, or too limited in range. And while charging stations are "going up all over the place", they're not going up THAT quick.

As I said, there are plenty of chargers around here, and using regenerative braking gives you a lot of electricity back (hybrids have it as well, so I've seen the effect first hand). Thus, even when out and about, it is easy to extend your charge, if you're not too worries about a 100% charge, which you shouldn't be. Charge up to 70% or so, and with regenerative braking, you can go past the 35 mile limit.

The law of thermodynamics are not nearly as optimistic as you are. If regenerative braking gives THAT much energy back, Broder wouldn't have so easily ran the Model S out of juice

The vast majority of people use their cars in short hops, less than 50 miles. It is rare that you run up against a 200 mile range. Even if you drive for that amount of length, it is usually recommended that you stop and get out for 30 minutes or so to stretch and relax, so you have time to charge then. And if you're talking range, my 2005 Honda Civic Hybrid gets 536 - 673 miles. And you could pick one up for $7,000 nowadays.

Again, hybrids are hybrids, they're not EV And yes, most people does not travel long distance on a regular basis, but many also can't just keep a second car for when they do need to go far.

The 2013 deficit is projected to be $901 billion. By 2018, $575 billion. By that time, we are getting quite close to the top 10% being able to cover the deficit with taxes. You can call it moving the goalposts if you wish, but as I said, I was merely answering your assertion of whether taxing the rich at 100% could cover the deficit. I've proved it can, with 5%. But if you still think that is enough because it doesn't take into account the taxes paid, we could go with the top 10%, which would generate nearly $1.6 trillion in tax revenue. Taking 30% out of that for current taxes paid(and you just know the super rich aren't paying 30%. *coughRomneycough*), would still net $1.12 trillion, still able to cover the deficit. So, in a sense, you are moving the goalposts, too.

No, you were moving the goal post as in constantly expanding what you were using as the "rich" - you've moved from 1 to 5 and now 10%. Also, it's not a matter of what I "think", it's simple math that you can't count the same money twice - if you've already taxed 20% of $160,000, you can't simply say that you'll get $160,00 by raising the tax up another 80% - you can't eat the same slice of pizza twice.

Well, you could, but it'd be disgusting

Realistically, you'd be insane if you think it'll be possible to do anything remotely close to 50%, much less something higher. The truly rich will simply GTFO of the country. Not to mention you're starting to move dangerously close to people/couples who aren't actually rich. What are you gonna do, tax a couple making 100k combined 50%?

There are variety of techniques, some legal, some illegal, and some merely shady and gray...But $20 to $30 trillion is estimated to be out there in tax shelters. Taxing that would go a long way towards fixing our deficit, if not remove it altogether.

I'm all for going after illegally concealed income. But retroactively seizing funds that for all intents and purposes were not illicitly obtained or hidden? Never going to happen - no ex post facto in the US. What we need to do is pass laws that would prohibit future tax havens.

But solar power is mature, and the Chinese are making a killing off panels right now; it's actually a bit of a problem, since they are undercutting to corner the market on it. This was largely why Solyndra failed; they couldn't compete. We'd need to tariff Chinese panels if we wanted American solar panels. Or we can let the world be flooded with cheap solar panels to spur adoption.

Actually, the Chinese are also killing themselves in the solar panel business. The production side exploded with their government subsidy, but now they find that there actually isn't enough buyers out there even for their cheap panels. Chinese panel manufacturers are also shutting doors along with companies like Solyndra, except for the Chinese firms, they had shot themselves in the foot.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I've seen a map similar to that one before Kaijo, and while interesting it doesn't mean diddley since we don't have solar panels efficient enough to collect even a fraction of it.
The ability of our current Solar Panel technology from ourthe best collectors is only 1/3 of the sunlight energy that hits them.
Solar Panels aren't effecient enough nor cost effective enough to work within that small of an area right now.
Therefore, you're going to need a lot more solar coverage to get the kind of power needed for the increase that would come with a move to electric powered vehicles.
It's a nice idea, but currently its too expensive an ineffective to work.

You do realize that the map I put up, was made with the current limitations of solar panels? That means, today, with today's solar panels, if we covered those areas, we could cover today's energy needs. Solar cells only need to be 10-30% efficient. Why? Because if they absorbed too much sunlight, they'd build up way too much heat, which would necessitate extreme cooling. Keep the efficiency in a certain range, though, and you can go for quantity over quality.

Did you even read your own link?
Still, when electric car batteries die, they are nearly 100 percent recyclable, so waste isn't much of an issue when compared with conventional batteries

Electric car batteries are 90-96% recyclable, but not without environmental impact due to the process of the recycling.
The copper, lead, and other metals of the battery must be completely shredded and then smelted into billets to be reformed for new batteries. That process is toxic, consumes energy, and uses water. It is hardly environmentally neutral.
A big plus over conventional batteries to be sure, but not better than a hydrogen fuel cell.

And gasoline powered cars have batteries, too. And your hydrogen-powered car will have batteries, too. Electric cars are just as "bad" as hydrogen ones, then.

I reminded of the extreme environmentalists, who demand that unless something is 100% not bad for the environment, it can never be done. We literally had boats that could have gone into the gulf and sucked up the oil and water, and cleaned out 97% of the oil while putting the water back into the ocean. We couldn't use them, because of regulations saying you can't dump water into the ocean if it is above a certain small threshold.

Are electric cars 100% nature friendly? No. And neither will hydrogen cars. The fuel cells themselves will require exotic materials like platinum, which will require heavy mining to get enough platinum, will be be bad on the environment. Yet, electric car batteries, which has so far managed to last 10+ without needing to be changed (with evidence they can go 15-20 years), are somehow really bad for the environment. Despite the fact that they can be mostly recycled.

I wonder how you'd feel about fuel cells being used and dumped? What if fuel cells were only 96% recyclable, and left toxic materials and was a dirty process? Because odds are, at least the first fuel cell cars will be.

The exhaust from hydrogen vehicles is water vapor thus replenishing the water used after cracking.
Desalination of wastewater for Hydrogen fuel is currently being developed, and thus would not effect drinking water. In fact, it combines reclamation of waste water with fuel production which is an environmental plus.

Actually, given the way our water supplies are going, we are going to need to start filtering our dirty water to recycle and re-drink it. Astronauts already do this in space. Thus, there WILL be less water available if we try to do hydrogen as well. It's a bit like ethanol, and growing food to burn in our cars, instead of to feed people.

Then you have to admit that a hydrogen-electric hybrid would be the best way to go.
Because the hydrogen cell would power the electric vehicle by charging a smaller (less pollutive) battery and not be a major strain on the power grid.
As for upgrading from ICEs to electric, most of the world's fleet of vehicles are ICEs, to go electric or hydrogen is going to require an entirely new infrastructure.
There is no escaping that either way we go.
The difference between electric and hydrogen is simply in the fact that a hydrogen vehicle isn't as much of a drain in power consumption as a total electric vehicle system would be.

The strain of the grid isn't an option. We'll need to upgrade it here soon anyway (was one of Obama's goals, but he wasn't able to make headway on it due to other issues), so we'll get our smart grid. But even ignoring that, because it is not an issue if you have solar power at home to charge your car. And many of the stations Tesla is putting in, rely on solar power. Sure, it might draw some power from the grid if needed, but it is mostly solar powered.

I'll point you to Google's Solar Power Parking lot of how things will work in this future. Not only does the solar power parking lot charge your car with local power and NOT from the grid, but it also shades your car and keeps it cool for you.

In short: Solar power + electric car = no need to worry much about the grid.

That's not a reflection of the reality of the sitution.
It is more like this:

Sun > solar energy > poor solar panels > power needed from other sources > electric car

Gonna stop you right there. You are making an assumption that solar panels are so bad, that they can't charge your car without help. The issue of charging is not just of power, but how long you leave your car to charge, and how much you want to charge your battery (charging to a 100% is no recommended, as it is too time consuming). If it was so bad, millions of homes and companies(like Google above) would not be installing solar panels.

I mentioned before I am near Seattle, Washington. When you think of this area, what comes to mind? Rain, right? Even with our cloudy situation, we still generate enough power via solar for much of our needs. I've been looking into seeing if I can get panels on my condo. And Germany, which gets LESS sun than my location, can get anywhere from 3% to 40% of their power in any given day from solar.

It works. Today. With today's technology. So remove the "power from other sources" thing up there.

A realistic comparison would be:

Nuclear power > improved power grid > electric car

Water > power needed to crack > hydrogen > hydrogen car

So while your general point of electric being easier is correct, you assumption that Solar Power will provide the energy is wrong. Nuclear power can do it, but the cons outweigh the pros if we're talking environmental impact.

Actually, Nuclear impacts the environment less than many other energy sources. Since the fuel provides so much power, there is minimal mining for uranium or thorium needed. And reprocessing can further use spent rods. Coal plants put out more radioactivity than Nuclear plans do.

Solar panels aren't good enough, YET, I believe they will be in the future, but right now the technology (like hydrogen) is still too young/underdeveloped.
We need to be careful not to put the cart before the horse and abandon hydrogen (or other alternatives) lest it become an economic mess like Solindra and other mistakes involving Solar Power.
Solar Power will happen, but we're not there just yet.

Soylyndra failed because the Chinese are flooding the market with cheap panels that work decently well. They simply couldn't match the slave labor prices of China (which heavily subsidizes their solar panel companies). China is investing much into wind and solar power. One might begin to wonder why.

Hydrogen technology is moving very fast right now.
It's hard to keep up with all the new innovations.
So to claim that the fallacious air-powered cars will be developed before hydrogen is silly, since the "air-powered" vehicle is basically a joke/insult.[/quote]

So much of a joke, that "French car manufacturer Peugot Citreon has announced that it will release the first air-powered hybrid car in 2016." Ya know, I'm gonna have a real difficult time deciding between the air hybrid, and an electric car, when I eventually retire my gas/electric hybrid in 2025.

I know, not many people hear of things like this, but I follow slashdot a lot (a news for nerds website), so I hear about stuff like this all the time. Air cars are a reality already, as many prototypes have been made. They aren't quite road-worthy yet, which is why this air/gas hybrid car is so interesting; it makes the air car ready for the road, much in the same way gas/electric hybrids did.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not against EVs, but I don't see Solar as the means to power them anytime soon. If we go electric, we are going to have to go nuclear unless there is a major breakthrough in Solar Panel tech that allows us to take advantage of the massive amounts of power coming from the Sun.
Before that happens, EVs will have to be powered by conventional means and that means pollution of one sort or another and thus no real net gain from them. We're simply moving the pollution from the road to the power plant.

The Sun provides the Earth with 20,000 times more energy than the entire human race uses, in a year(ALL energy needs). Even if a solar cell is 1% efficient, that still captures all the energy we need. And we have panels that are approaching 30%, if not already there.

Your complete disregard for the reality of the situation is why I choose not to discuss it with you.

And yet, you continue to do so. Look, I can appreciate honesty and consistency of opinion, so I respect that you don't care how many die in ways that can be prevented. It's a valid position to take, even if I don't agree. But then, you shouldn't have an issue with Jon Stewart's numbers, either.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

Congrats on the tenacity. I understand that we do underestimate what we can do, however I just don't believe in placing more situations to pressure and force people. Yes, this sounds very anti-capitalistic of me but then again I don't worship the free market as a deity as some would. Furthermore, at the very least, you had the option available. It's fair to say that people have options they don't realize, but at the same time taxing certain choices is also punishing said choices. Even if it does benefit them for the long run, that is still a choice to make.

Heh, thanks. And I think we mostly agree, but just to restate: I don't think everyone can do what I was able to do. Some are stuck, yes. But I'd venture to say that many more are not, and if they took the chance to learn bus routes, or look in to moving closer to work, they'd find a solution that doesn't require a car, and would actually save them much money in the long run.

There will always be those who need that cheap car or truck for a commute or a job. But my position is to reduce the number of people who do as much as possible. Reduce our oil consumption as much as possible, saving it for stuff like rubber or plastics, until science develops good alternatives for those, too. (And try to use less plastic and rubber in your daily life, too!)

Edit to add response to Kyp, so as to not double post:

Originally Posted by kyp275

Fisker is in deep poo-poo atm, while the Volt... yea... Now granted, that Reuter article is flawed, as they included the R&D cost as well, which GM will ideally utilize and built upon in the future for new products as well. That said, the whole Volt project thus far probably hasn't made GM much, if any money.

Fisker is an idiot, per the consensus of the nerds on slashdot. And any new technology, especially ones with heavy R&D costs like electric cars, are going to be risky and not pay off too well at first. As more and more cars are sold, though, the R&D gets paid for, and they turn more of a profit.

I prefer "realistically". I also wouldn't say that EVs were seen as "impossible" 10 years ago, in fact GM had a rather successful EV program almost 20 years ago. We also only have a few different models of EV atm (hybrids aren't EVs), which remains either too expensive for the general public, or too limited in range. And while charging stations are "going up all over the place", they're not going up THAT quick.

Interesting that you bring that up, as watching the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" covers that. One of the things they mention, is that after the "experiment" the drivers wanted to keep their electric cars, offering huge money to be able to buy them. GM said no and scrapped them all. Some speculate because they wanted to show the electric car would never work, and was embarrassed that it did. But fault for the "death" of that electric car lies in several areas.

The law of thermodynamics are not nearly as optimistic as you are. If regenerative braking gives THAT much energy back, Broder wouldn't have so easily ran the Model S out of juice

Ooh, you probably shouldn't have brought up Broder. Musk published the data logs on his trip, and it was quite evident Broder lied and deliberately messed with his trip to make the car look bad. Broder has hated electric cars for some time. It should also be noted that CNN and others replicated Broder's trip afterwards, and none of them had any trouble.

Regenerative braking is not the be-all, end-all, but it works very well. I have a gauge on my car that shows the current charge of my hybrid batteries, and I can see how much of a charge I am getting as I brake or even just coast. After a few months of watching them, you get a good idea for how much of a charge you get via braking, and let me tell you, it is no insignificant. If it was, they would have never included it on the car.

Again, hybrids are hybrids, they're not EV And yes, most people does not travel long distance on a regular basis, but many also can't just keep a second car for when they do need to go far.

Because of the TSA nonsense, I have no real plans to travel far via airplane, deciding instead to take the train (if the TSA doesn't install themselves there). But for long distance trips, I could also just decide to rent a car, which would be cheaper in the long run, too.

No, you were moving the goal post as in constantly expanding what you were using as the "rich" - you've moved from 1 to 5 and now 10%. Also, it's not a matter of what I "think", it's simple math that you can't count the same money twice - if you've already taxed 20% of $160,000, you can't simply say that you'll get $160,00 by raising the tax up another 80% - you can't eat the same slice of pizza twice.

Because "rich" is not a definitive word, so it can include 1% or 10%. What I was doing was more of a thought experiment, seeing what it would take within the bounds of your argument. Look, I've already proved the 100% thing false, can we move on? If you think I wasn't subtracting the taxes already given, then I did that with my last calculation, using the 10% richest tax payers. Even subtracting 30% to account for their taxes, it still comes out that they can cover the debt. So we can move on from this argument now, to real solutions which, yes, can come in the form of higher taxes.

Realistically, you'd be insane if you think it'll be possible to do anything remotely close to 50%, much less something higher. The truly rich will simply GTFO of the country. Not to mention you're starting to move dangerously close to people/couples who aren't actually rich. What are you gonna do, tax a couple making 100k combined 50%?

I've heard this line before, about the rich simply leaving. They won't. Oh sure, a few might, but then I'd make sure they lose all benefits. They'd have to give up citizenship, and thus lose all protection from the US system (at least, that's what I'd do if I was in charge). And where are they gonna go? A "socialist" country like Canada or France which will tax them more? Perhaps a country like Russia or Belize where they can simply bribe the local populace. Might be cheaper, but you have to worry that a local crime lord or politician doesn't decide to just seize your stuff.

Where would they go? I think you'll find many would still prefer the US system.

I'm all for going after illegally concealed income. But retroactively seizing funds that for all intents and purposes were not illicitly obtained or hidden? Never going to happen - no ex post facto in the US. What we need to do is pass laws that would prohibit future tax havens.

Prohibiting future tax havens is what I'd do, but the IRS WILL seize funds if someone hides money from Uncle Sam. They don't look too kindly to lying on the tax return. The IRS clawed back half of the $6 billion in taxes evaded using Romney's "Son of BOSS" scheme.

Actually, the Chinese are also killing themselves in the solar panel business. The production side exploded with their government subsidy, but now they find that there actually isn't enough buyers out there even for their cheap panels. Chinese panel manufacturers are also shutting doors along with companies like Solyndra, except for the Chinese firms, they had shot themselves in the foot.

Oh, I know all about that, but it was just to showcase that solar power is still mature enough to use. China may have overestimated the industry and sustained losses because of it, but not everyone is suffering. I'll point you again to Germany, which has a very healthy solar power business, both in production and use.