Tesla repays federal loan nearly 10 years early

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

http://online.wsj.co...3994914472.html

Okay, I'll bite. Let's just say for a moment that these numbers are accurate - questionable considering the source but let's just give the benefit of the doubt here. So the electric car is 16K pounds of CO2 emission ahead when it leaves the production line. Now, when I operate the EV, it will cause half the CO2 emission of the gasoline powered car saving roughly 6.5K pounds of CO2 per year. So, after less than three years, the EV and conventional car pull even and then the carbon footprint of the EV is smaller than that of the gasoline powered car. And we're only at the beginning of the EV evolution.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Yes if you just going to do the city commute.

How about for longer commute?

I don't have a longer commute. And for that long road trip, there's Budget, Enterprise, Alamo, National and so on and so forth. Why make problems where there isn't one?

[Karee 4,190]

Personally I think the electric car is great. I hear it does 0-60 in nothing flat. My problem is the govt. investing in companies run by billionaires. Do you realize how many poor children could have been fed with 465 million dollars? How many free cell phones the govt. could have given out? How many birth control pills the govt. could haven given away?

Yet this administration is all about giving breaks to the rich and then trying to label it as some kind thing to save the environment. Quite shameful really.

Okay, I'll bite. Let's just say for a moment that these numbers are accurate - questionable considering the source but let's just give the benefit of the doubt here. So the electric car is 16K pounds of CO2 emission ahead when it leaves the production line. Now, when I operate the EV, it will cause half the CO2 emission of the gasoline powered car saving roughly 6.5K pounds of CO2 per year. So, after less than three years, the EV and conventional car pull even and then the carbon footprint of the EV is smaller than that of the gasoline powered car. And we're only at the beginning of the EV evolution.

Plus at some point you get Lithium flavored drinking water. Another bonus.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You really bragging on a 2% success rate.

Reading comprehension failing you again? Go back and read what was actually posted but this time also try to grasp it. If you succeed, you come back and we can discuss what I actually said.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, I'll bite. Let's just say for a moment that these numbers are accurate - questionable considering the source but let's just give the benefit of the doubt here. So the electric car is 16K pounds of CO2 emission ahead when it leaves the production line. Now, when I operate the EV, it will cause half the CO2 emission of the gasoline powered car saving roughly 6.5K pounds of CO2 per year. So, after less than three years, the EV and conventional car pull even and then the carbon footprint of the EV is smaller than that of the gasoline powered car. And we're only at the beginning of the EV evolution.

Maybe. That depends how long the batteries last, and you have to dump another 10 tons of carbon dioxide into the environment from some third world country toxic mining operation when you replace them.

Plus at some point you get Lithium flavored drinking water. Another bonus.

Alkali metals make for good bombs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To sum with the electric car you cannot travel 800 miles if you choose to which you can with conventional car.

Hence for most ppl who like to drive electric car at this point 2 vehicles are required.

If you cannot grasp this simple logic, there is no way to dumd it down any further.

how many popular gas models drive for 800 miles without refueling? you're blinded by a farcical ideology that prevents you from applying logic in consistent manner. stop reading rand, dude.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i love how those against newer technology vascillate between arguing against gov't investment and trying to convince themselves the technology will never go anywhere. what a bunch of ninnies.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[RGinWA 816]

Did they need a loan from govt to survive?

or u think Govt should had supported AOL and kept them in business as well.

Um, AOL didn't increase the internet speeds.

The government invested in the original idea of the internet and gave out grants for developing the infrastructure. If not we'd be paying $10 a day to use it. Then you'd blame the government for not breaking up the internet monopoly.

Forget it, you don't grasp the concept of technology growth through investment.

When we run out of oil just have them worry about it then.

[GandD 5,966]

i love how those against newer technology vascillate between arguing against gov't investment and trying to convince themselves the technology will never go anywhere. what a bunch of ninnies.

Remember when similar people put Galileo on house arrest because he proved the earth rotated around the sun? No new advances ever! Everything was perfect in 1956.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

i love how those against newer technology vascillate between arguing against gov't investment and trying to convince themselves the technology will never go anywhere. what a bunch of ninnies.

or how they pretend that no new technology was ever fostered into marketability by the government.

Remember when similar people put Galileo on house arrest because he proved the earth rotated around the sun?

Those were the Republicans of that time.

[GandD 5,966]

Those were the Republicans of that time.

They certainly had a conservative mentality.

[RGinWA 816]

or how they pretend that no new technology was ever fostered into marketability by the government.

Those were the Republicans of that time.

Well the Vatican was kind of conservative back then...lol

If you think about it, conservative's have always been the intolerant and the obsessed. Today it's about money and hating the poor and needy, but in the past it was power, money and sex. (With sex it was the regulation of who had it and how.)

Wait a minute they still are stuck on the first three...I guess nothings really changed.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

They certainly had a conservative mentality.

They were the forces of yesterday opposed to any progress, opposed to knowledge and science. Today, we call the forces of yesterday simply Republicans.

Well the Vatican was kind of conservative back then...lol

If you think about it, conservative's have always been the intolerant and the obsessed. Today it's about money and hating the poor and needy, but in the past it was power, money and sex. (With sex it was the regulation of who had it and how.)

Wait a minute they still are stuck on the first three...I guess nothings really changed.

Conservatives are still the same because they hate change.

[RGinWA 816]

They were the forces of yesterday opposed to any progress, opposed to knowledge and science. Today, we call the forces of yesterday simply Republicans.

Conservatives are still the same because they hate change.

Three words...stem cell research. That about sums up a true idiocy in the party.

[Harsh_77 718]

Um, AOL didn't increase the internet speeds.

The government invested in the original idea of the internet and gave out grants for developing the infrastructure. If not we'd be paying $10 a day to use it. Then you'd blame the government for not breaking up the internet monopoly.

Forget it, you don't grasp the concept of technology growth through investment.

When we run out of oil just have them worry about it then.

So now u can compare correctly internet speed is not a company either. Internet speed is based on your ISP service which is pvt company.

Govt did not invest in the fiber or dsl lines they were done by pvt companies but u cannot grasp that.