Discussion:
Tesla’s Model 3 Is Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans
Add Reply
Unum
2018-10-05 04:03:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans

First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.

Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
R Kym Horsell
2018-10-05 05:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America's best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.'s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
--
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla,_Inc.#Production_and_sales>

Quarter Total Model S Model X Model 3 Total In transit Source
prod sales sales sales sales
Q1 2015 11,160 10,045 10,045 [97]
Q2 2015 12,807 11,532 11,532 [98]
Q3 2015 13,091 11,597 6 11,603 [99]
Q4 2015 14,037 17,272 206 17,478 [100]
Q1 2016 15,510 12,420 2,400 14,820 2,615 [68]
Q2 2016 18,345 9,764 4,638 14,402 5,150 [101][102]
Q3 2016 25,185 16,047 8,774 24,821 5,065 [103]
Q4 2016[c] 24,882 12,700 9,500 22,254 6,450 [104][105]
Q1 2017 25,418 ~13,450 ~11,550 25,051 ~4,650 [106]
Q2 2017 25,708 ~12,000 ~10,000 22,026 ~3,500 [107][108]
Q3 2017 25,336 14,065 11,865 222 26,137 4,820 [109][110]
Q4 2017 24,565 ~15,200 ~13,120 1,542 29,967 3,380 [111][112]
Q1 2018 34,494 11,730 10,070 8,182 29,997 6,100 [113]
Q2 2018 53,339 10,930 11,370 18,440 40,740 15,058 [114]
Q3 2018 80,142 14,470 13,190 55,840 83,500 11,824 [115]


97. Tesla Motors (May 6, 2015). "Tesla Motors - First Quarter 2015 Shareholder Letter" (PDF). Tesla Motors. Retrieved August 4, 2016. A total of 10,045 Model S cars were delivered globaly during the first quarter of 2015.
98. Tesla Motors (August 5, 2015). "Tesla Motors - Second Quarter 2015 Shareholder Letter" (PDF). Tesla Motors. Retrieved August 4, 2016. A total of 11,532 Model S cars were delivered globally during the second quarter of 2015.
99. Tesla Motors (August 4, 2016). "Tesla Motors - Third Quarter 2015 Shareholder Letter" (PDF) (Press release). Palo Alto, California: Tesla Motors. Retrieved November 3, 2015. Tesla global electric car sales totaled 11,603 units during the third quarter of 2015, including six Tesla Model X units.
100. "Tesla Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2015 Update" (PDF). Tesla Motors. February 10, 2016. Retrieved February 10, 2016.
101. "Tesla Second Quarter 2016 Update" (PDF) (Press release). Palo Alto: Tesla Motors. August 3, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016. During the second quarter of 2016 Tesla Motors delivered 14,402 new vehicles consisting of 9,764 Model S and 4,638 Model X. Production during 2Q 2016 totaled 18,345 vehicles.
102. "Tesla Q2 2016 Vehicle Production and Deliveries" (Press release). Palo Alto: Tesla Motors. July 3, 2016. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
103. "Tesla Third Quarter 2016 Update" (PDF). Tesla Motors. Palo Alto. October 26, 2016. Retrieved October 27, 2016.
104. "Tesla Q4 2016 Production and Deliveries". Tesla Motors. Palo Alto. January 3, 2017. Retrieved January 3, 2017.
105. "Tesla Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2016 Update" (PDF). Tesla Inc. Palo Alto. February 22, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017. Production totaled 24,882 vehicles in 4Q 2016 and vehicle deliveries totaled 22,252 units. No breakdown by model was provided.
106. "Tesla Q1 2017 Vehicle Production and Deliveries". Tesla Motors (Press release). Palo Alto: Market Wired. April 2, 2017. Retrieved April 4, 2017. "Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA) delivered just over 25,000 vehicles in Q1, of which approx 13,450 were Model S and approx 11,550 were Model X. "
107. "UPDATE - Tesla Q2 2017 Vehicle Production and Deliveries". Tesla. July 7, 2017. Retrieved July 10, 2017.
108. "Tesla Second Quarter 2017 Update (Letter to shareholders)" (PDF). Tesla. August 2, 2017. Retrieved August 5, 2017. "We delivered 22,026 Model S and Model X vehicles in Q2, for a total of 47,077 in the first half of the year."
109. "Tesla Q3 2017 Vehicle Deliveries and Production". Tesla. October 2, 2017.
110. "_Update_Letter_2017-3Q.pdf Tesla Third Quarter 2017 Update". Tesla. November 1, 2017. Retrieved January 10, 2018.
111. "Tesla Q4 2017 Vehicle Production and Deliveries". Tesla. January 3, 2018.
112. "Tesla Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2017 Update" (PDF). Tesla (Press release). Palo Alto: Tesla. February 7, 2017. Retrieved February 7, 2018. "In Q4, we delivered 28,425 Model S and Model X vehicles and 1,542 Model 3 vehicles, totaling 29,967 deliveries."
113. "Tesla First Quarter 2018 Update" (PDF). Tesla. Retrieved May 27, 2018.
114. "Tesla Second Quarter 2018 Delivery". Tesla. Retrieved July 22, 2018.
115. "Tesla Third Quarter 2018 Delivery". Tesla. Retrieved October 2, 2018.
John Smith
2018-10-05 16:08:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America's best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.'s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
WTF?



https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 16:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
WTF?
He's apparently Australian, that's just how they sound.
John Smith
2018-10-05 17:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by R Kym Horsell
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
WTF?
He's apparently Australian, that's just how they sound.
Hair lipped?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 21:18:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by R Kym Horsell
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
WTF?
He's apparently Australian, that's just how they sound.
Hair lipped?
In his case, hair-lipped and harebrained.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:00:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by John Smith
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by R Kym Horsell
Thhh a conthhprithee atweed Bloomberg and Wikipedia!
WTF?
He's apparently Australian, that's just how they sound.
Hair lipped?
In his case, hair-lipped and harebrained.
They do have a national problem with hares, so no surprise at all.


http://www.rabbitfreeaustralia.com.au/rabbits/the-rabbit-problem/
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-05 06:18:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-05 06:44:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
Well, nothing much at all, considering the majority of power in the U.S.
comes from fossil.

The real reason they are moving is because of the lavish incentives.

Take away those lavish incentives and sales would fall off a cliff.

Telsa: The car that poor people buy for rich people!
Bret Cahill
2018-10-05 06:52:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Paul Aubrin
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
Well, nothing much at all, considering the majority of power in the U.S.
comes from fossil.
Grid power is moving so fast away from tar goop Ottawa needs to retink wasting tax payer money subsidizing tar goop.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-05 07:40:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Paul Aubrin
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not
a primary energy source.
Well, nothing much at all, considering the majority of power in the U.S.
comes from fossil.
Grid power is moving so fast away from tar goop Ottawa needs to retink
wasting tax payer money subsidizing tar goop.
According to EIA, nonhydropower renewables provided slightly less than
10% of electricity generation in 2017, hydro 7%, nuclear 20%.
CO2 emissions are down thanks to natural gas.
John Smith
2018-10-05 16:13:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Paul Aubrin
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
Well, nothing much at all, considering the majority of power in the U.S.
comes from fossil.
Grid power is moving so fast away from tar goop Ottawa needs to retink wasting tax payer money subsidizing tar goop.
http://www.worldstopexports.com/canadas-top-exports/

Mineral fuels including oil: US$84.6 billion (20.1% of total exports)
Vehicles: $62.3 billion (14.8%)
Machinery including computers: $32.4 billion (7.7%)
Gems, precious metals: $18.6 billion (4.4%)
Wood: $14.1 billion (3.3%)
Electrical machinery, equipment: $13 billion (3.1%)
Plastics, plastic articles: $12.6 billion (3%)
Aluminum: $9.8 billion (2.3%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $9.7 billion (2.3%)
Oil seeds: $7.9 billion (1.9%)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unum
2018-10-05 21:54:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.

Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
R Kym Horsell
2018-10-06 00:40:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
--
The Monkey Trial 1925:

After Scopes was convicted [and fined $100], creationists throughout
the United States sought similar anti-evolution laws for their states.
By 1927, there were 13 states, both in the North and South, that
considered some form of anti-evolution law. At least 41 bills or
resolutions were introduced into the state legislatures, with some
states facing the issue repeatedly. Nearly all of these efforts were
rejected, but Mississippi and Arkansas did put anti-evolution laws on
the books after the Scopes trial that would outlive the Butler Act.
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:26:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Unum
2018-10-07 01:23:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me. What's wrong with you?
R Kym Horsell
2018-10-07 01:51:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me. What's wrong with you?
I loves da smell of burned socks eben in da afternoon.
--
Upcoming events:
08 Oct Q3 $bn disasters from NOAA
08 Oct IPCC 1.5C report #SR15

Typhoon Kong-Rey to become 9th tropical system to hit Japan this year
AccuWeather.com, 05 Oct 2018 21:49Z
It's been a rough year of typhoons for Japan. If Typhoon Kong-Rey makes
landfall, it will be the 8th typhoon and 9th tropical system to hit the
nation. ...

Funnel-web spiders are not just deadly to you, but to cancer
<Loading Image...>
ABC News, 05 Oct 2018 22:28Z
International researchers discover peptides from the venom gland of an
Australian funnel-web spider could be used to kill melanomas.

Booming deer population causing widespread damage
ABC Rural, 05 Oct 2018 22:29Z
Deer populations in south-east Australia are soaring with an estimated 1
million in Victoria alone, and the introduced animals are wreaking havoc on
farms and the environment.

Wisconsin has its first tornado in October since the 1950's
WSAW, 05 Oct 2018 22:36Z
Shawano County, Wis. According to the National Weather Service, the
tornado that hit on Wednesday in Shawano County was the ...

Man guilty of London Tube push murder attempt
<Loading Image...>
ABC News, 05 Oct 2018 23:49Z
A man is convicted of attempted murder for shoving the 91-year-old former
chairman of cross-Channel tunnel operator Eurotunnel onto London subway tracks.

Dan Leonard @DanLeonard_wx Oct 5
Latest ECMWF dramatically accelerates Nino over the next couple months, more
aggressively than it did previously. SEP run vs OCT run:
pic.twitter.com/IX6LLXGtyY
<Loading Image...>

Skeptical Science @skepticscience 06 Oct 2018 00:52Z
Airports around the globe are being warned to prepare their facilities for
climate change-related impacts, including extreme weather and sea level rise.
The warning comes in a policy paper published...
climateliabilitynews.org/2018/10/04/air#

Coastal erosion on the north-west Tasmanian coast, and planning for the
unknowable future
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
<Loading Image...>
ABC Northern Tasmania, 06 Oct 2018 01:05Z
Tasmania's north-west coast is experiencing accelerated coastal erosion with
winter's king tides and storms again causing widespread damage.
This year's events follow hot on the heels of the catastrophic 2016 floods
and storm surges. Councils are now wondering how far it will go and what can
be done about it.
The director of infrastructure services for the Central Coast Council, John
Kersnovski, said a number of towns in his municipality faced serious coastal
erosion issues.
"In our western area, at Heybridge, we have people losing their backyards
and at Penguin the iconic waterfront is being damaged continually," Mr
Kersnovski said.

Hurricane Sergio in Pacific could make U-turn toward Mexico
ABC News, 06 Oct 2018 02:32Z

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 05:48Z
Tropical Storm Kong-rey is expected to bring flooding rain to South Korea

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 06:47Z
A disturbance in the Arabian Sea will bring heavy rain to southwestern India
before heading toward Oman next week

[Snow troll season!]
Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 06:58Z
The first big snowstorm of the season is set to hit the U.S. Rocky Mountains
in the upcoming days

Typhoon Kong-rey leaves 2 dead, 1 missing
Yonhap News, 06 Oct 2018 11:48Z

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 13:46Z
Persistent rain threatens more flooding in Nicaragua

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 13:46Z
Dangerous flooding to continue in the western Mediterranean and Adriatic

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 13:46Z
Hokkaido faces a flood risk from tropical Storm Kong-Rey

Al Jazeera Weather @AJEWeather 06 Oct 2018 13:46Z
A tropical disturbance off Honduras is expected to strengthen and enter the
Gulf of Mexico early next week

Developing tropical cyclone may threaten Yemen to Pakistan this week
AccuWeather.com, 06 Oct 2018 14:46Z
An area of low pressure to the west of India in the Arabian Sea is expected
to develop into a named tropical cyclone in the coming days.

NWS @NWS 06 Oct 2018 15:47Z
Major Hurricane Sergio is forecast to make a u-turn, and head towards Baja
California and weaken next week. Moisture from Sergio remnants is forecast
to reach the Southwest and southern Plains mid to late next week. Forecast
precipitation image is for Thu and Fri of next week. pic.twitter.com/tOKPP8JmbH
<Loading Image...>

Assaad Razzouk @AssaadRazzouk 06 Oct 2018 18:02Z
It's going to take a massive global effort, far more aggressive than any we've
seen, to keep warming in line with 1.5?C - because we're already en route
to an unlivable 3?C world So says a new @IPCC_CH report grounded in 6,000
scientific studies buff.ly/2IHf6Xc #climate pic.twitter.com/rO1YdwL2WZ
<Loading Image...>

How sea levels reshaped Western Australia's coastline over 125,000 years
<http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-07/125,000-years-of-changes-to-the-west-australian/10342394>
ABC News, 7 Oct 2018 7:43am
Archaeologists combine detailed scientific mapping with green screen
technology usually found in big-budget Hollywood films to recreate the
history of Western Australia's shifting coastline going back 125,000 years.

Stopping Climate Change Is Hopeless. Let's Do It.
New York Times/Opinion, 06 Oct 2018 18:59Z

Tesla Inc Expected to Announce Quarterly Sales of $5.67 Billion
PressOracle, 06 Oct 2018 02:30Z

Tesla chief Elon Musk mocks SEC on Twitter
Financial Review, 05 Oct 2018
[NYSE:TSLA fell again as a result. Cadillac was also rated over Tesla
in autonomous driving by Consumer Reports].

Russia's Energy Minister: There Is Risk Of Oil Price Hitting $100
OilPrice.com, 04 Oct 2018 21:42Z

US crude tumbles 2.7%, settling at $74.33, as traders cash in on ...
CNBC, 04 Oct 2018 18:42Z
Oil prices tumbled as much as 3 percent on Thursday, pulling back
sharply after rallying to four-year highs on concerns about the
fallout of U.S. ...

Trade War 'Totally Stopped' US Crude Oil Shipments To China
OilPrice.com, 04 Oct 2018 20:43Z
The U.S.-China trade war is battering what was a fast-growing business
for U.S. oil producers until a few months ago-U.S. crude oil shipments...

Royal Dutch Shell Plc Class A
ETR: R6C - 5 Oct 9:23 am GMT+2
30.04 EUR -0.0050 (0.017%) even

Kinder Morgan Canada Ltd
TSE: KML - 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
17.20 CAD -0.0100 (0.058%) even

Exxon Mobil Corporation
NYSE: XOM - Closed: 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
85.34 USD -0.23 (0.27%) down

Gazprom PAO
MCX: GAZP - 5 Oct 10:40 am GMT+3
167.93 RUB -0.57 (0.34%) down

Ford Motor Company
NYSE: F - Closed: 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
9.12 USD -0.035 (0.38%) down

General Motors Company
NYSE: GM - Closed: 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
34.12 USD -0.14 (0.41%) down

BP plc
NYSE: BP - Closed: 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
46.50 USD -0.27 (0.58%) down

Bayerische Motoren Werke AG
ETR: BMW - 5 Oct 5:35 pm GMT+2
77.68 EUR -0.58 (0.74%) down

NK Rosneft' PAO
MCX: ROSN - 5 Oct 10:40 am GMT+3
502.95 RUB -5.25 (1.03%) *** down 1% ***

Suncor Energy Inc.
TSE: SU - 5 Oct 4:00 pm GMT-4
50.68 CAD -1.00 (1.93%) *** down 1.9% ***
JTEM is right
2018-10-07 02:08:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-elon-musk-another-sec-probe-model-3-production-goals/

: Tesla shares (NASDAQ:TSLA) experienced a
: steep dive on Friday’s trading, dropping
: more than 7% amidst reports that U.S.
: District Court Judge Alison Nathan has
: asked Elon Musk and the Securities and
: Exchange Commission to justify the terms
: of their settlement over the CEO’s
: “funding secured” lawsuit.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178796353538
Wally W.
2018-10-07 02:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
That is telling.
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Why do you assume the flaw is not in you?
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 06:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me. What's wrong with you?
Now we get an idea of what looks normal for you: weird is normal, and
normal is weird.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:04:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
Ebonics is "normal" to you?
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Proper grammar and selling, and you?
Unum
2018-10-08 23:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
Ebonics is "normal" to you?
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Proper grammar and selling, and you?
Maybe you should check that 'selling', lol.
R Kym Horsell
2018-10-08 23:28:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
Ebonics is "normal" to you?
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Proper grammar and selling, and you?
Maybe you should check that 'selling', lol.
Spelling correctiod == authoritarian hillbilly that's
allays been pulled up by Teacher for their own bad speling and
granmar in da past.
--
[Quigley, Quigley, Quigley:]
You know you're a climate denier if #1:
you proved the earth is surrounded by a blanket and then you refuse to
accept your own proof.
Wally W.
2018-10-09 03:16:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by R Kym Horsell
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
Ebonics is "normal" to you?
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Proper grammar and selling, and you?
Maybe you should check that 'selling', lol.
Spelling correctiod == authoritarian hillbilly that's
allays been pulled up by Teacher for their own bad speling and
granmar in da past.
Oh ... that was *so* cute! /sarc
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:02:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Seemed pretty normal to me.
Ebonics is "normal" to you?
Post by Unum
What's wrong with you?
Proper grammar and selling, and you?
Maybe you should check that 'selling', lol.
:-)
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-07 05:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by R Kym Horsell
1/2 of dez clowns act like theyz paid group "moderators".
Why can't you write/speak normally?
Rusty is known around here as the "Phailed Phud".

Couldn't cut the supercomputer genius stuff so they put him on the short
bus back to Oz.

Word has it he now blows (and sometimes sucks) the dust out of PC fans
for a living.

But if you ever need a monkey to keypunch an Excel spreadsheet for you
and produce results to six decimal places of unnecessary precision, he's
your guy.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 01:40:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.

Tee-hee.
Unum
2018-10-06 04:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans

First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.

Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 05:01:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
Uh-oh, reposting is a sign yer all rattled.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:41:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.

Same as they pay for wind farms.
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
No.

Not even close.

The Camry alone sold 235K.

https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-cars-trucks-vehicle-america-2016-2017-1/#19-jeep-grand-cherokee-212273-81-2

https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/
Unum
2018-10-07 01:25:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
No.
Not even close.
Didn't read the article?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans

First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.

Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 06:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
production with utilisation and to stabilize the grid frequency. Without
their CO2 emissions. Wind farms production would disrupt the grid.
Hint: In Germany, despite the increase of wind farm capacity, CO2
emissions are stable. Overall, wind farms /cause/ as much CO2 emissions
coal plants.
Unum
2018-10-07 14:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Wally W.
2018-10-07 16:38:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Maybe he was overly generous in the amount of understanding he
ascribed to you.

Show us you understand the difference between these: mW, MW, MWh.

Then tell us the difference between anthropoMORPHIC global warming and
anthropoGENIC global warming.

If you get those right, some might listen to you about why you think
wind farms don't have indirect GHG emissions.

Can a jackass run with its tail between its legs?
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 16:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/
Maintaining%20Reliability%20in%20the%20Modern%20Power%20System.pdf

1. Power generation and transmission capacity must be sufficient to meet
peak demand for
electricity
2. Power systems must have adequate flexibility to address variability
and uncertainty in demand
(load) and generation resources
3. Power systems must be able to maintain steady frequency
4. Power systems must be able to maintain voltage within an acceptable
range

Conventional grids, managed the production side to equal the consumption
side. With the introduction of a lot of fatal (for example weather
driven) production, the conventional generators must adjust their
production to both demand fluctuation and fatal generator fluctuations.
If they don't succeed, the grid collapses and ends as a black system,
such as was the case in South Australia.
Wally W.
2018-10-07 17:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/01/f34/
Maintaining%20Reliability%20in%20the%20Modern%20Power%20System.pdf
1. Power generation and transmission capacity must be sufficient to meet
peak demand for
electricity
2. Power systems must have adequate flexibility to address variability
and uncertainty in demand
(load) and generation resources
3. Power systems must be able to maintain steady frequency
4. Power systems must be able to maintain voltage within an acceptable
range
Conventional grids, managed the production side to equal the consumption
side. With the introduction of a lot of fatal (for example weather
driven) production, the conventional generators must adjust their
production to both demand fluctuation and fatal generator fluctuations.
If they don't succeed, the grid collapses and ends as a black system,
such as was the case in South Australia.
Kudos for trying to talk through Unum to people who can be reached.

I don't imagine he will avail himself of this learning opportunity.

Some evasive jackasses wish they were born as attack dogs. It's a
clumsy spectacle when they rebel against their true nature.
Unum
2018-10-07 17:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 18:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Unum
2018-10-07 21:24:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Wind farms carry the load when dirty energy plants go offline
due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article44115528.html

because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic
dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first),
renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that dispatchability is
a non-issue. The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be
produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and
integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional
generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using
weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be
predicted. So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load,
or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply
at any given time.
Wally W.
2018-10-07 21:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Wind farms carry the load when dirty energy plants go offline
due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article44115528.html
because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic
dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first),
renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that dispatchability is
a non-issue.
Sounds like greenie-spin.
Post by Unum
The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be
produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and
integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional
generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using
weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be
predicted.
So weather forecasts predict calm winds for days ...

Does their prediction make them better?

The need to construct 100% backup capacity by conventional power
plants is not diminished by the ability to predict days-long calms.
Post by Unum
So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load,
or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply
at any given time.
And the utility must be prepared to meet 100% of the load demand when
flaky, greenie-brain-fart windmills are loafing.

Unless one lives in Bret-world:
On Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill wrote:
: The notion that people need reliable continuous power has gotten a
: bit out of hand. A lot of places in S. America and Africa don't
: shoot for 60/60/24/7/52.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Wind farms carry the load when dirty energy plants go offline
due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
Generally not:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/turns-out-wind-and-solar-have-a-secret-friend-natural-gas/?utm_term=.cd8d781b186e


Because of the particular nature of clean energy sources like solar and
wind, you can’t simply add them to the grid in large volumes and think
that’s the end of the story. Rather, because these sources of
electricity generation are “intermittent” — solar fluctuates with
weather and the daily cycle, wind fluctuates with the wind — there has
to be some means of continuing to provide electricity even when they go
dark. And the more renewables you have, the bigger this problem can be.
Now, a new study suggests that at least so far, solving that problem has
ironically involved more fossil fuels — and more particularly,
installing a large number of fast-ramping natural gas plants, which can
fill in quickly whenever renewable generation slips.

The new research, published recently as a working paper by the National
Bureau of Economic Research, was conducted by Elena Verdolini of the
Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change and the Fondazione Eni
Enrico Mattei in Milan, Italy, along with colleagues from Syracuse
University and the French Economic Observatory.
In the study, the researchers took a broad look at the erection of wind,
solar, and other renewable energy plants (not including large hydropower
or biomass projects) across 26 countries that are members of an
international council known as the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development over the period between the year 1990 and
2013. And they found a surprisingly tight relationship between
renewables on the one hand, and gas on the other.
“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast
reacting fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent increase
in renewable generation capacity in the long term,” the study reports.
Again, this is over 26 separate countries, and more than two decades.
Post by Unum
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article44115528.html
because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic
dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first),
renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that
dispatchability is
a non-issue. The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be
produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and
integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional
generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using
weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be
predicted. So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load,
or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply
at any given time.
Unum
2018-10-08 23:19:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Wind farms carry the load when dirty energy plants go offline
due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-storage-is-threatening-natural-gas-peaker-plants

I can’t see a reason why we should ever build a gas peaker again in the U.S.
after, say, 2025,” said Shayle Kann, a senior adviser to GTM Research and Wood
Mackenzie, speaking at Greentech Media’s Energy Storage Summit. “If you think
about how energy storage starts to take over the world, peaking is kind of
your first big market.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/ge-announces-12000-job-cuts-at-ge-power.html

General Electric announced on Thursday it was axing 12,000 jobs at its global
power business as the struggling industrial conglomerate responds to dwindling
demand for fossil fuel power plants.

GE rival Siemens is cutting about 6,900 jobs, or close to 2 percent of its
global workforce, mainly at its power and gas division, which has been hit by
the rapid growth of renewables.
Post by Unum
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article44115528.html
because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic
dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first),
renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that dispatchability is
a non-issue. The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be
produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and
integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional
generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using
weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be
predicted. So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load,
or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply
at any given time.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:20:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a
technical matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage,
and balance production and consumption on a second by second basis in
electrical grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well
documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
It has. On-demand backup generators, emit GHG to stabilize the
fluctuations caused by wind farms (because frequency, voltage, power
balance must be controlled on a second by second basis).
Wind farms carry the load when dirty energy plants go offline
due to scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/battery-storage-is-threatening-natural-gas-peaker-plants
I can’t see a reason why we should ever build a gas peaker again in the U.S.
after, say, 2025,” said Shayle Kann, a senior adviser to GTM Research and Wood
Mackenzie, speaking at Greentech Media’s Energy Storage Summit. “If you think
about how energy storage starts to take over the world, peaking is kind of
your first big market.”
Self referential "science" is only a guessing game.
Post by Unum
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/07/ge-announces-12000-job-cuts-at-ge-power.html
General Electric announced on Thursday it was axing 12,000 jobs at its global
power business as the struggling industrial conglomerate responds to dwindling
demand for fossil fuel power plants.
GE rival Siemens is cutting about 6,900 jobs, or close to 2 percent of its
global workforce, mainly at its power and gas division, which has been hit by
the rapid growth of renewables.
https://www.thelayoff.com/t/NIG4ud0


It has been confirmed that GE Power is suffering from major design
and/or quality flaws in their current H and possibly F Class Gas Turbine
fleets. The combustion system is failing at multiple customer sites.
Customers do not want the risk so they are selecting GE's competitors
for their gas turbine purchases.

And multiple flaws hit their wind turbine designs too:

https://newsok.com/article/feed/5959952/ge-finds-flaw-in-power-plant-turbines

General Electric discovered a flaw in its newest power-plant turbines
after a key part failed earlier this month, forcing utility Exelon to
shut down two Texas plants while GE makes repairs.
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article44115528.html
because there is no fuel cost associated with renewable plants, using economic
dispatch (which uses the plants with the lowest variable costs first),
renewable plants would always be dispatched first, so that
dispatchability is
a non-issue. The real issue for dispatchers is knowing how much power will be
produced by renewable plants in aggregate at any time in the near future and
integrating this into their calculations of the amount of additional
generation that will be needed. Like customer load that can be predicted using
weather forecasts and other factors, renewable generation can also be
predicted. So in a sense, this renewable generation will act as negative load,
or a reduction in the amount of other load demand that the utility must supply
at any given time.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast
reacting fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent increase
in renewable generation capacity in the long term,” the study reports.
Again, this is over 26 separate countries, and more than two decades.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/turns-out-wind-and-solar-have-a-secret-friend-natural-gas/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f978bc6e088
Unum
2018-10-08 23:15:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast reacting
fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent increase in renewable
generation capacity in the long term,” the study reports. Again, this is over
26 separate countries, and more than two decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/turns-out-wind-and-solar-have-a-secret-friend-natural-gas/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f978bc6e088
You didn't bother to read the article?

"Verdolini emphasized this merely describes the past — not necessarily the
future. That’s a critical distinction, because the study also notes that if we
reach a time when fast-responding energy storage is prevalent — when, say,
large-scale grid batteries store solar or wind-generated energy and can
discharge it instantaneously when there’s a need — then the reliance on gas
may no longer be so prevalent."
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:12:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Academics don't publish on electrical grid management. It is a technical
matter. But the need to control frequency, control voltage, and balance
production and consumption on a second by second basis in electrical
grids is based on the laws of electricity and very well documented.
That has nothing to do specifically with wind farms, which don't emit GHG's.
“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast
reacting fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent
increase in renewable generation capacity in the long term,” the study
reports. Again, this is over 26 separate countries, and more than two
decades.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/turns-out-wind-and-solar-have-a-secret-friend-natural-gas/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f978bc6e088
You didn't bother to read the article?
"Verdolini emphasized this merely describes the past — not necessarily the
future.
Past is prologue.
Post by Unum
That’s a critical distinction, because the study also notes that
if we
reach a time when fast-responding energy storage is prevalent — when, say,
large-scale grid batteries store solar or wind-generated energy and can
discharge it instantaneously when there’s a need — then the reliance on gas
may no longer be so prevalent."
May, if, should, could, etc...
Bret Cahill
2018-10-10 20:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Past is prologue.
To whale oil & buggy whips.
John Smith
2018-10-10 21:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by John Smith
Past is prologue.
To whale oil & buggy whips.
How's the wheel doing these days?

Replaced yet?
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:19:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Indirectly, they do. Wind farms fluctuations require the use of fast
ramping (and inefficient) on-demand generation to match second by second
No cite means aubrin is lying as usual.
Handled:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/11/turns-out-wind-and-solar-have-a-secret-friend-natural-gas/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0f978bc6e088


Because of the particular nature of clean energy sources like solar and
wind, you can’t simply add them to the grid in large volumes and think
that’s the end of the story. Rather, because these sources of
electricity generation are “intermittent” — solar fluctuates with
weather and the daily cycle, wind fluctuates with the wind — there has
to be some means of continuing to provide electricity even when they go
dark. And the more renewables you have, the bigger this problem can be.
Now, a new study suggests that at least so far, solving that problem has
ironically involved more fossil fuels — and more particularly,
installing a large number of fast-ramping natural gas plants, which can
fill in quickly whenever renewable generation slips.

“All other things equal, a 1% percent increase in the share of fast
reacting fossil technologies is associated with a 0.88% percent increase
in renewable generation capacity in the long term,” the study reports.
Again, this is over 26 separate countries, and more than two decades.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Oh, they don't pay for scrubber tech in their rates?

Since when?

https://www.appalachianpower.com/info/projects/ScrubbersAndEnvironmentalControls/

Scrubbers and Environmental Controls
Appalachian Power parent company American Electric Power (AEP) has
invested more than $5 billion since 2004 to retrofit a number of its
coal-fired power plants with environmental controls. About $2 billion of
that is within Appalachian Power. The effort is aimed at reducing
nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, created when
coal is burned in the process of generating electricity.
For Appalachian Power, the most significant environmental control
construction efforts were:
A flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, commonly called a scrubber, at
the 1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant in Mason County, W.Va.;
FGD systems on all three generating units at the 2,900-megawatt John E.
Amos Plant in Putnam County, W.Va.; and
FGD systems on both units at the 1,600-megawatt Mitchell Plant in
Marshall County, W.Va., which is jointly owned by Appalachian Power and
Kentucky Power.
AEP and Appalachian Power also have invested in the mid-range
NOx-reduction technology known as a selective non-catalytic reduction
system (SNCR), as well as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems to
reduce NOx emissions.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Never said they do.

They're bird killers and microclimate changers.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
No.
Not even close.
Didn't read the article?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
A lie.

Camry sells 235 K alone.
Post by Unum
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
And those 4 bested it by over a million.

Case closed.
Unum
2018-10-08 23:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Oh, they don't pay for scrubber tech in their rates?
Since when?
https://www.appalachianpower.com/info/projects/ScrubbersAndEnvironmentalControls/
Scrubbers and Environmental Controls
Appalachian Power parent company American Electric Power (AEP) has invested
more than $5 billion since 2004 to retrofit a number of its coal-fired power
plants with environmental controls. About $2 billion of that is within
Appalachian Power. The effort is aimed at reducing nitrogen oxide (NOx) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, created when coal is burned in the process of
generating electricity.
For Appalachian Power, the most significant environmental control construction
A flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, commonly called a scrubber, at the
1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant in Mason County, W.Va.;
FGD systems on all three generating units at the 2,900-megawatt John E. Amos
Plant in Putnam County, W.Va.; and
FGD systems on both units at the 1,600-megawatt Mitchell Plant in Marshall
County, W.Va., which is jointly owned by Appalachian Power and Kentucky Power.
AEP and Appalachian Power also have invested in the mid-range NOx-reduction
technology known as a selective non-catalytic reduction system (SNCR), as well
as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems to reduce NOx emissions.
That's only a small fraction of the cost of air pollution and the
effects of GHG's.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Never said they do.
They're bird killers and microclimate changers.
Getting desperate?
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
No.
Not even close.
Didn't read the article?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
A lie.
Camry sells 235 K alone.
Hey dumbass, nobody claimed the Model 3 is the top selling sedan.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
And those 4 bested it by over a million.
So what?
Post by John Smith
Case closed.
Yawn.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:06:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Who is it that pays for GHG emissions again?
Power plants and their customers.
Obvious lie.
Oh, they don't pay for scrubber tech in their rates?
Since when?
https://www.appalachianpower.com/info/projects/ScrubbersAndEnvironmentalControls/
Scrubbers and Environmental Controls
Appalachian Power parent company American Electric Power (AEP) has
invested more than $5 billion since 2004 to retrofit a number of its
coal-fired power plants with environmental controls. About $2 billion
of that is within Appalachian Power. The effort is aimed at reducing
nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, created when
coal is burned in the process of generating electricity.
For Appalachian Power, the most significant environmental control
A flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system, commonly called a scrubber,
at the 1,300-megawatt Mountaineer Plant in Mason County, W.Va.;
FGD systems on all three generating units at the 2,900-megawatt John
E. Amos Plant in Putnam County, W.Va.; and
FGD systems on both units at the 1,600-megawatt Mitchell Plant in
Marshall County, W.Va., which is jointly owned by Appalachian Power
and Kentucky Power.
AEP and Appalachian Power also have invested in the mid-range
NOx-reduction technology known as a selective non-catalytic reduction
system (SNCR), as well as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems
to reduce NOx emissions.
That's only a small fraction of the cost of air pollution and the
effects of GHG's.
That's what typical rate payers (consumers) get to pay.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Same as they pay for wind farms.
Wind farms don't emit GHG's.
Never said they do.
They're bird killers and microclimate changers.
Getting desperate?
Denying the facts presented again?

https://www.audubon.org/news/will-wind-turbines-ever-be-safe-birds

Wind turbines kill an estimated 140,000 to 328,000 birds each year in
North America, making it the most threatening form of green energy. And
yet, it’s also one of the most rapidly expanding energy industries: more
than 49,000 individual wind turbines now exist across 39 states.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Tee-hee.
I think its pretty amusing too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
No.
Not even close.
Didn't read the article?
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
A lie.
Camry sells 235 K alone.
Hey dumbass, nobody claimed the Model 3 is the top selling sedan.
But it's not even in the top 10 of best selling this year:


https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/

Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.

Chevrolet Malibu: 76,417 units

Chevrolet Cruze: 77,691 units

Ford Fusion: 86,978 units

Hyundai Elantra: 99,728 units

Nissan Sentra: 115,676 units

Nissan Altima: 123,792 units

Honda Accord: 138,290 units

Toyota Corolla: 161,462 units

Honda Civic: 176,242 units

Toyota Camry: 178,795 units
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
And those 4 bested it by over a million.
So what?
So it's a richboy toy, not a mainstream choice.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Case closed.
Yawn.
That's your mental lethargy.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-06 07:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable
generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Unum
2018-10-06 14:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.

Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Chom Noamsky
2018-10-06 16:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
Which isn't necessary with synchronous dispatchable generation.

Tee-hee!
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of
federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more
than all other energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity
produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all
other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
You are reaching false conclusions.


Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs
will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-06 17:13:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-
subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
Post by John Smith
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of
federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more
than all other energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity
produced),
solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms
of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not only solar and wind energies capture the greatest amounts of
subsidies per unit of energy produced but they don't even produce that
energy when it is needed, because they are fatal energies (i.e. driven by
the hazards of weather). They almost never produce exactly what consumers
ask, always too much or not enough. And they ask other producers to pay
for grid stability.
Unum
2018-10-07 01:29:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal
subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other
energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced),
solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of
energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not particularly interested in his personal opinion.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
You are reaching false conclusions.
Yawn.
Post by John Smith
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs will
not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Were you drunk when you wrote that sentence?

Generation of electricity doesn't have anything to do with ICE's, and
doesn't have anything do do with the range of EV's. Which is now adequate
for 90% of the driving most people do.
Wally W.
2018-10-07 02:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
You are reaching false conclusions.
Yawn.
It's a routine activity for you?
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 06:25:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-
subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of
federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more
than all other energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity
produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all
other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not particularly interested in his personal opinion.
Did you miss the link to Forbes?
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:09:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of
federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more
than all other energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity
produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of
all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not particularly interested in his personal opinion.
Sort of cooks yours, oh well...
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
You are reaching false conclusions.
Yawn.
Liars do that.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Were you drunk when you wrote that sentence?
Are you drunk now?
Post by Unum
Generation of electricity doesn't have anything to do with ICE's, and
doesn't have anything do do with the range of EV's. Which is now adequate
for 90% of the driving most people do.
Wrong.

Electric cars need grid power generation assets. And those are fossil
fuel heavy.

Range is limited to about 300 miles due to battery technology.

Therefore ICEs will not go away.

Cope.
Unum
2018-10-08 23:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal
subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other
energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced),
solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of
energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not particularly interested in his personal opinion.
Sort of cooks yours, oh well...
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
You are reaching false conclusions.
Yawn.
Liars do that.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs
will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Were you drunk when you wrote that sentence?
Are you drunk now?
Post by Unum
Generation of electricity doesn't have anything to do with ICE's, and
doesn't have anything do do with the range of EV's. Which is now adequate
for 90% of the driving most people do.
Wrong.
No cite means you are either lying or clueless.
Post by John Smith
Electric cars need grid power generation assets. And those are fossil fuel heavy.
Renewable energy is available pretty much everywhere in the US.
Post by John Smith
Range is limited to about 300 miles due to battery technology.
And you know this how?
Post by John Smith
Therefore ICEs will not go away.
Cope.
No amount of spluttering makes your claims more credible.
Wally W.
2018-10-09 03:15:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Renewable energy is available pretty much everywhere in the US.
Define "available."

If 0.000001% of the power in an area can be attributed to a greenie
brain-fart windmill, then an evasive weasel would say "Renewable
energy is available" there.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
Photovoltaic and wind energy have long used the stowaway technique to
have on-demand generators bear the costs of their intermittence. As they
develop, and as the subsidies they collect drives away on-demand
generators, it will be fair they support themselves the cost of pumping
storages, batteries, or any other stabilisation mean they need as a
complement.
Gigantic subsidies for dirty energy means aubrin is lying as usual.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/05/30/why-do-federal-subsidies-make-renewable-energy-so-costly/#3723de50128c
On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of
federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more
than all other energy sources combined.
However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity
produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of
all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
Not particularly interested in his personal opinion.
Sort of cooks yours, oh well...
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
You are reaching false conclusions.
Yawn.
Liars do that.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Were you drunk when you wrote that sentence?
Are you drunk now?
Post by Unum
Generation of electricity doesn't have anything to do with ICE's, and
doesn't have anything do do with the range of EV's. Which is now adequate
for 90% of the driving most people do.
Wrong.
No cite means you are either lying or clueless.
Yours is where?
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Electric cars need grid power generation assets. And those are fossil fuel heavy.
Renewable energy is available pretty much everywhere in the US.
In what percentage?

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=92&t=4

How much of U.S. energy consumption and electricity generation comes
from renewable energy sources?
In 2017, renewable energy sources accounted for about 11% of total U.S.
energy consumption and about 17% of electricity generation.1
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Range is limited to about 300 miles due to battery technology.
And you know this how?
Study the work of Dr. Goodenough who developed the LIon battery.

He now wants to replace it.

Hope he does too.

https://news.utexas.edu/2017/02/28/goodenough-introduces-new-battery-technology

The researchers demonstrated that their new battery cells have at least
three times as much energy density as today’s lithium-ion batteries. A
battery cell’s energy density gives an electric vehicle its driving
range, so a higher energy density means that a car can drive more miles
between charges. The UT Austin battery formulation also allows for a
greater number of charging and discharging cycles, which equates to
longer-lasting batteries, as well as a faster rate of recharge (minutes
rather than hours).
Today’s lithium-ion batteries use liquid electrolytes to transport the
lithium ions between the anode (the negative side of the battery) and
the cathode (the positive side of the battery). If a battery cell is
charged too quickly, it can cause dendrites or “metal whiskers” to form
and cross through the liquid electrolytes, causing a short circuit that
can lead to explosions and fires. Instead of liquid electrolytes, the
researchers rely on glass electrolytes that enable the use of an
alkali-metal anode without the formation of dendrites.
The use of an alkali-metal anode (lithium, sodium or potassium) — which
isn’t possible with conventional batteries — increases the energy
density of a cathode and delivers a long cycle life. In experiments, the
researchers’ cells have demonstrated more than 1,200 cycles with low
cell resistance.
Additionally, because the solid-glass electrolytes can operate, or have
high conductivity, at -20 degrees Celsius, this type of battery in a car
could perform well in subzero degree weather. This is the first
all-solid-state battery cell that can operate under 60 degree Celsius.
Braga began developing solid-glass electrolytes with colleagues while
she was at the University of Porto in Portugal. About two years ago, she
began collaborating with Goodenough and researcher Andrew J. Murchison
at UT Austin. Braga said that Goodenough brought an understanding of the
composition and properties of the solid-glass electrolytes that resulted
in a new version of the electrolytes that is now patented through the UT
Austin Office of Technology Commercialization.
The engineers’ glass electrolytes allow them to plate and strip alkali
metals on both the cathode and the anode side without dendrites, which
simplifies battery cell fabrication.
Another advantage is that the battery cells can be made from
earth-friendly materials.
“The glass electrolytes allow for the substitution of low-cost sodium
for lithium. Sodium is extracted from seawater that is widely
available,” Braga said.
Goodenough and Braga are continuing to advance their battery-related
research and are working on several patents. In the short term, they
hope to work with battery makers to develop and test their new materials
in electric vehicles and energy storage devices.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Therefore ICEs will not go away.
Cope.
No amount of spluttering makes your claims more credible.
Stop projecting.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:28:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Tee-hee.
And consider the disposal costs of spent batteries.
Bret Cahill
2018-10-08 22:49:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Even a gas turbine takes a minute or so to get on line.

A battery is 4 orders of magnitude faster.
John Smith
2018-10-10 19:47:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources
In other words, an extra cost we didn't need with dispatchable generation.
Even a gas turbine takes a minute or so to get on line.
And yet plenty will already be up and running to smooth flow.
Post by Bret Cahill
A battery is 4 orders of magnitude faster.
And many magnitudes of inefficient to manufacture, charge, discharge,
and replace as their duty cycle expires.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:10:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs
will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Unum
2018-10-07 01:20:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs will
not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved. And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-07 06:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Certainly not. Ranges claimed by EV car makers are as reliable as VW
pollutant emissions numbers were. What is important for buyers is actual
ranges (after 2 or 3 years of battery wear, by hot or cold weather, at
highway traffic speed, with heating or air conditioning on).
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
JTEM is right
2018-10-07 18:18:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Ranges claimed by EV car makers are as reliable as VW
pollutant emissions numbers were. What is important for buyers is actual
ranges (after 2 or 3 years of battery wear, by hot or cold weather, at
highway traffic speed, with heating or air conditioning on).
You know, except for the minuscule slither of a
percentage of the population with experience with
things like, oh, cell phones & laptops, nobody
has ever heard of this "Battery loss over time" that
you deniers of a climate keep talking about...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178825163138
Wally W.
2018-10-07 18:45:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JTEM is right
Post by Paul Aubrin
Ranges claimed by EV car makers are as reliable as VW
pollutant emissions numbers were. What is important for buyers is actual
ranges (after 2 or 3 years of battery wear, by hot or cold weather, at
highway traffic speed, with heating or air conditioning on).
You know, except for the minuscule slither of a
percentage of the population with experience with
things like, oh, cell phones & laptops, nobody
has ever heard of this "Battery loss over time" that
you deniers of a climate keep talking about...
Ah, yes ... "deniers of a climate"

Greenies are *so* precise with their language.

Oh, wait ... being definitive is anathema to weasels.
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.

We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without traditional
grid backup.

Stop the lies.
Unum
2018-10-08 23:02:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs
will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without traditional grid
backup.
Yep, you can.
Post by John Smith
Stop the lies.
Quitcher whining, boy!
John Smith
2018-10-10 19:54:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.

https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-range

https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-longest-range-electric-cars-131118/


https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a19331/how-far-literally-can-the-electric-car-go/

The Audi e-tron quattro, a new ground-up crossover that's slightly
bigger than the brand's Q5 utility vehicle, will pack a whopping 95
kilowatt-hour battery pack, granting more than 300 miles per
charge—threatening to further escalate the EV range wars. The e-tron is
expected to sell for around $60,000 to $70,000.
Why did Audi push driving range of the e-tron all the way to 300 miles?
"That was a strong requirement from the sales department," Pint said.

Want more range?

Hybrid only.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without
traditional grid backup.
Yep, you can.
Only if you buy your own hardware.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Stop the lies.
Quitcher whining, boy!
Stop projecting, liar.
Unum
2018-10-10 21:19:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so ICEs
will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-longest-range-electric-cars-131118/
Merely lists current ranges. So we aren't stuck after all, and you lied?
John Smith
2018-10-10 21:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels,
so ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-longest-range-electric-cars-131118/
Merely lists current ranges. So we aren't stuck after all, and you lied?
Of course we're stuck, unless Dr. Goodenough's new battery tech comes
through.
Unum
2018-10-11 00:32:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming? Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from renewable
sources that aubrin so frequently whines about here. And then of
course they lead to the elimination of ICE's, the very idea of which
makes denialist scum utterly petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil fuels, so
ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-longest-range-electric-cars-131118/
Merely lists current ranges. So we aren't stuck after all, and you lied?
Of course we're stuck, unless Dr. Goodenough's new battery tech comes through.
So we aren't stuck after all, and you lied.
Nobody
2018-10-10 21:30:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming?
Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from
renewable sources that aubrin so frequently whines about
here. And then of course they lead to the elimination of
ICE's, the very idea of which makes denialist scum utterly
petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil
fuels, so ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a
roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-
range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-l
ongest-range-electric-cars-131118/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a19331/how-fa
r-literally-can-the-electric-car-go/
The Audi e-tron quattro, a new ground-up crossover that's slightly
bigger than the brand's Q5 utility vehicle, will pack a whopping
95 kilowatt-hour battery pack, granting more than 300 miles per
charge—threatening to further escalate the EV range wars. The
e-tron is expected to sell for around $60,000 to $70,000.
Why did Audi push driving range of the e-tron all the way to 300
miles? "That was a strong requirement from the sales department,"
Pint said.
Want more range?
Hybrid only.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without
traditional grid backup.
Yep, you can.
Only if you buy your own hardware.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Stop the lies.
Quitcher whining, boy!
Stop projecting, liar.
Unum HATES facts.
On a side notew, the Tesla has about 300 mile range but that is with
only 300 lbs in the car and no heat or air conditioning used. also at
very slow speeds. Once you got to 60 mph, it is FAR less than 300
miles range.

https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range

Constant speed (such as using cruise control)
Flat ground, no wind
Climate control OFF or using vent only (no heat or air
conditioning)
300 lbs of vehicle load (driver plus passenger or cargo)
Windows up, sunroof closed
Tires inflated to recommended pressures
New battery pack (<1 year, <25,000 miles)
John Smith
2018-10-10 21:53:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming?
Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from
renewable sources that aubrin so frequently whines about
here. And then of course they lead to the elimination of
ICE's, the very idea of which makes denialist scum utterly
petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil
fuels, so ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a
roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longest-
range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the-l
ongest-range-electric-cars-131118/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a19331/how-fa
r-literally-can-the-electric-car-go/
The Audi e-tron quattro, a new ground-up crossover that's slightly
bigger than the brand's Q5 utility vehicle, will pack a whopping
95 kilowatt-hour battery pack, granting more than 300 miles per
charge—threatening to further escalate the EV range wars. The
e-tron is expected to sell for around $60,000 to $70,000.
Why did Audi push driving range of the e-tron all the way to 300
miles? "That was a strong requirement from the sales department,"
Pint said.
Want more range?
Hybrid only.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without
traditional grid backup.
Yep, you can.
Only if you buy your own hardware.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Stop the lies.
Quitcher whining, boy!
Stop projecting, liar.
Unum HATES facts.
On a side notew, the Tesla has about 300 mile range but that is with
only 300 lbs in the car and no heat or air conditioning used. also at
very slow speeds. Once you got to 60 mph, it is FAR less than 300
miles range.
https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range
Constant speed (such as using cruise control)
Flat ground, no wind
Climate control OFF or using vent only (no heat or air
conditioning)
300 lbs of vehicle load (driver plus passenger or cargo)
Windows up, sunroof closed
Tires inflated to recommended pressures
New battery pack (<1 year, <25,000 miles)
It's very cool, but very spendy and the company is going under soon.
Nobody
2018-10-11 20:20:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Nobody
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
Actually, how does Tesla relates to global-warming?
Batteries are not a
primary energy source.
aubrin suddenly decided he is the newsgroup monitor, lol.
Batteries smooth out the variations in power output from
renewable sources that aubrin so frequently whines about
here. And then of course they lead to the elimination of
ICE's, the very idea of which makes denialist scum utterly
petrified.
Electricity must still be generated - largely from fossil
fuels, so ICEs will not be eliminated as range remains a
roadblock.
Nope, range problem seems to have been solved.
Nope, that's a lie.
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Nope, we aren't.
You lie constantly.
https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/electric-cars-with-the-longes
t- range
https://www.autobytel.com/hybrid-cars/car-buying-guides/10-of-the
-l ongest-range-electric-cars-131118/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a19331/how-
fa r-literally-can-the-electric-car-go/
The Audi e-tron quattro, a new ground-up crossover that's
slightly bigger than the brand's Q5 utility vehicle, will pack a
whopping 95 kilowatt-hour battery pack, granting more than 300
miles per charge—threatening to further escalate the EV
range wars. The e-tron is expected to sell for around $60,000 to
$70,000. Why did Audi push driving range of the e-tron all the
way to 300 miles? "That was a strong requirement from the sales
department," Pint said.
Want more range?
Hybrid only.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
And you can get renewable
energy just about everywhere in the USA.
But not at any time of the day consistently and not without
traditional grid backup.
Yep, you can.
Only if you buy your own hardware.
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Stop the lies.
Quitcher whining, boy!
Stop projecting, liar.
Unum HATES facts.
On a side notew, the Tesla has about 300 mile range but that is
with only 300 lbs in the car and no heat or air conditioning
used. also at very slow speeds. Once you got to 60 mph, it is
FAR less than 300 miles range.
https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range
Constant speed (such as using cruise control)
Flat ground, no wind
Climate control OFF or using vent only (no heat or air
conditioning)
300 lbs of vehicle load (driver plus passenger or cargo)
Windows up, sunroof closed
Tires inflated to recommended pressures
New battery pack (<1 year, <25,000 miles)
It's very cool, but very spendy and the company is going under
soon.
Would not surprise me at all.
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-14 07:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Nobody
On a side notew, the Tesla has about 300 mile range but that is with
only 300 lbs in the car and no heat or air conditioning used. also at
very slow speeds. Once you got to 60 mph, it is FAR less than 300 miles
range.
https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range
Constant speed (such as using cruise control)
Flat ground, no wind Climate control OFF or using vent only (no heat
or air conditioning)
300 lbs of vehicle load (driver plus passenger or cargo)
Windows up, sunroof closed Tires inflated to recommended pressures
New battery pack (<1 year, <25,000 miles)
On such a basis, the typical range of a conventional car exceeds 1000
miles. One European car was actually tested in real road conditions at
720mi, when it could theoretically reach 1060mi. During the test, they
had no problem with heating in snowy conditions. Heating a gasoline car
by cold weather doesn't lower the operational range.
Nobody
2018-10-15 20:14:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
Post by Nobody
On a side notew, the Tesla has about 300 mile range but that is
with only 300 lbs in the car and no heat or air conditioning
used. also at very slow speeds. Once you got to 60 mph, it is
FAR less than 300 miles range.
https://www.tesla.com/en_CA/blog/model-s-efficiency-and-range
Constant speed (such as using cruise control)
Flat ground, no wind Climate control OFF or using vent only
(no heat or air conditioning)
300 lbs of vehicle load (driver plus passenger or cargo)
Windows up, sunroof closed Tires inflated to recommended
pressures New battery pack (<1 year, <25,000 miles)
On such a basis, the typical range of a conventional car exceeds
1000 miles. One European car was actually tested in real road
conditions at 720mi, when it could theoretically reach 1060mi.
During the test, they had no problem with heating in snowy
conditions. Heating a gasoline car by cold weather doesn't lower
the operational range.
Precisely. Thats why electric vehicles in very cold or very hot
climates are a non starter.
Bret Cahill
2018-10-09 04:03:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Eben if yer time is worth $4.75/hr it's cheaper and healthier as well as faster to fly on longer trips -- less fast food, etc.

If you want to live in Sparks, NV go whine to yer congressional delegation.

Just don't mention my name.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by John Smith
We're stuck at the 300 mile max. range.
Eben if yer time is worth $4.75/hr it's cheaper and healthier as well as faster to fly on longer trips -- less fast food, etc.
Not interested in the air buses, rental cars or Uber costs.

I eat as a please, ymmv if you need an airline food tray to go "healthy"...
Post by Bret Cahill
If you want to live in Sparks, NV go whine to yer congressional delegation.
Just don't mention my name.
I have no idea what you're intimating here.
John Smith
2018-10-05 16:21:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks
and SUV.

https://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/americas-least-wanted-cars-no-one-wants-in-2018.html/

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/us-is-not-buying-regular-cars-so-ford-will-stop-making-them-and-shift-to-more-suv-trucks-suv-and-new-electric-vehicles.html
Post by Unum
Automakers on Tuesday reported monthly and quarterly sales totals. For the
three months that ended in September, Tesla delivered more Model 3s than all
but four of the top sedans sold in the U.S., regardless of size or price.
https://focus2move.com/usa-best-selling-cars/

F Series 603,926 2018

Tesla total 83,500 2018



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Unum
2018-10-05 21:57:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
John Smith
2018-10-06 16:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?

80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?


lol
Unum
2018-10-07 01:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
John Smith
2018-10-08 18:03:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?

Why do you trade in insults against reality?
Unum
2018-10-08 23:04:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Post by John Smith
Why do you trade in insults against reality?
It was an entirely legitimate question.
Wally W.
2018-10-09 03:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Define "becoming."

How far must one extrapolate Kymmie's exponential curve (plotted from
his ratios to 20 decimal places, with two trailing "significant"
zeros) before it would *be* "One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans?"
Post by John Smith
Why do you trade in insults against reality?
It was an entirely legitimate question.
So you say.

But you say lots of things.
John Smith
2018-10-10 20:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.

Inaccuracy.

4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/

Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.

Chevrolet Malibu: 76,417 units

Chevrolet Cruze: 77,691 units

Ford Fusion: 86,978 units

Hyundai Elantra: 99,728 units

Nissan Sentra: 115,676 units

Nissan Altima: 123,792 units

Honda Accord: 138,290 units

Toyota Corolla: 161,462 units

Honda Civic: 176,242 units

Toyota Camry: 178,795 units
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Why do you trade in insults against
reality?
Post by Unum
It was an entirely legitimate question.
No, it was not.
Unum
2018-10-10 21:24:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.
Inaccuracy.
4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/
Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars through the
first half of 2018.
Hey dimwit, the article was about the 2018 third quarter.

"The Model 3 electric car ranked among the best-selling sedans of
the third quarter"

"Tesla’s competitors are feeling it. Sales of the Mercedes-Benz C-Class, the
best-selling luxury sedan in the U.S., plunged 24 percent last month and are
down 28 percent for the year through September."
John Smith
2018-10-10 21:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the
trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.
Inaccuracy.
4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/
Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.
Hey dimwit, the article was about the 2018 third quarter.
No, it was about year to date.

Try and keep up.

Meanwhile:

4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.

https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/

Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.

Chevrolet Malibu: 76,417 units

Chevrolet Cruze: 77,691 units

Ford Fusion: 86,978 units

Hyundai Elantra: 99,728 units

Nissan Sentra: 115,676 units

Nissan Altima: 123,792 units

Honda Accord: 138,290 units

Toyota Corolla: 161,462 units

Honda Civic: 176,242 units

Toyota Camry: 178,795 units
Unum
2018-10-11 00:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it became the
best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds, Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is
becoming one of the best-selling sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the
trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.
Inaccuracy.
4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-through-the-first-half-of-2018/
Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars through
the first half of 2018.
Hey dimwit, the article was about the 2018 third quarter.
No, it was about year to date.
States it right in the article. Why did you lie?

"The Model 3 electric car ranked among the best-selling sedans of
the third quarter"
Post by John Smith
Try and keep up.
And then there's a chart that shows the comparative sales. "the third-quarter
showing was unprecedented for an electric car"
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-14 11:37:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-
model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it
became the best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds,
Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is becoming one of the best-selling
sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the
trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.
Inaccuracy.
4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-
through-the-first-half-of-2018/
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.
Hey dimwit, the article was about the 2018 third quarter.
No, it was about year to date.
States it right in the article. Why did you lie?
He did not lie, he informed you that Bloomberg's comparison had a
restricted value: it relies on choosing 3 specific months in the year,
ignoring cars that are no sedans, ignoring that some of Tesla's cars were
sold in Canada, and neglecting that Tesla was not even in 4 best selling
sedans. But with such a narrow selection, you are right. Maybe it is an
indication that Tesla will (maybe in some future) become a successful
sedan seller in the USA. It is a possibility, let us see what happen in
the future.
Unum
2018-10-14 14:09:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
No wonder denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-03/tesla-s-
model-3-is-becoming-one-of-america-s-best-selling-sedans
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
First it was America’s best-selling electric car. Then it
became the best-selling luxury car. Now, against the odds,
Tesla Inc.’s Model 3 is becoming one of the best-selling
sedans in America, period.
That is because Americans stopped buying sedans and went to the
trucks and SUV.
They certainly haven't stopped buying Tesla sedans.
Oh?
80,000 vs. tens of millions of trucks and SUvs is significant?
Why are denialist scum are so darn scared of Tesla?
Why can't you accept the sales figures as reported?
The report clearly and truthfully states that "Tesla’s Model 3 Is
Becoming One of America’s Best-Selling Sedans". Got a problem with it?
Yes.
Inaccuracy.
4 traditional sedans are regularly in the 200,000+ unit range annually.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/here-are-the-10-best-selling-cars-
through-the-first-half-of-2018/
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Post by Unum
Post by John Smith
Check out the list below to learn about the ten best-selling cars
through the first half of 2018.
Hey dimwit, the article was about the 2018 third quarter.
No, it was about year to date.
States it right in the article. Why did you lie?
He did not lie, he informed you that Bloomberg's comparison had a
restricted value: it relies on choosing 3 specific months in the year,
Obviously the article did specify the 2018 third quarter, and not
"year to date" which was a lie. Now, why did aubrin lie?
Paul Aubrin
2018-10-15 21:08:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Aubrin
He did not lie, he informed you that Bloomberg's comparison had a
restricted value: it relies on choosing 3 specific months in the year,
Obviously the article did specify the 2018 third quarter, and not "year
to date" which was a lie. Now, why did aubrin lie?
I observed that the comparison was limited to a very short period,
restricted to a small part of all cars, and didn't account that some of
those cars had been sold in Canada. That's absolutely true.

JTEM is right
2018-10-06 04:32:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
First off, there is no official sales figures
from Tesla, so it's all bullshit.

Secondly, they confuse DELIVERIES for sales.

Third, there is no hard delivery figures.

Forth, the figures they claim are global and
not U.S. deliveries:

: It’s an imperfect ranking because Tesla didn’t
: break out sales by country

I'll explain the problem....

Last year Ford sold close to 900,000 F series
trucks. But those sales, and those deliveries,
where spread out over 12 months. What if Ford
hardly delivered any trucks at all during most
of the year, and then in one quarter only
delivered 650,000 units? This would be NO reflection
what so ever as to how popular the truck was during
that single quarter.

Nope.

To find out how popular the F series honestly is,
what it's sales figures actually look like you
have to divide those 650,000 deliveries by the
number of quarters in which the sales were made.

Tesla doesn't do this. Instead, they could all
deliveries as sales made for THAT quarter... or
even just THAT month.

The sales may have been made a year ago, or even
further back, but the cars are only being built
and delivered now...

THIS IS WHY TESLA HIDES IT'S SALES FIGURES!

It's easy to manipulate statistics if people don't
have all the information.

...a hospital can save 10,000 lives and that
would sound very impressive... unless you found out
that they had 10 million patients, then you realize
that 10,000 "Saved" lives amounts to one-tenth of
1%, which is a horrendously bad statistic.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/178763236053
Loading...