Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:And, sometimes it's not. In this case, the actual evidence is not promising. How many years and how many billions of dollars has the government spent trying to develop these forms of energy, yet they are still not financially viable.

I don't know how much has been spent. Do you?

In total or annually?

Either would do.

And are you sure they are not financially viable?

Yes. If they were, the government would not STILL have to subsidize them. They would be able to compete on their own.

Like nuclear does? Or even other 'traditional' forms of energy - where would fracking be without gobbets of subsidy and government funded research for 30 years?

(by the way, 'capacitance' is not a form of energy)

I didn't say it was. I didn't address it. You did and I didn't cut it out of your response.

So do you want to address it? Or are you going to ignore the issue for convenience?

It's a waste of time. I might as well say "capitalism" for every time you say "socialism."

Oh right. You're not a socialist. You just think the government should be involved in nearly everything.

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a waste of time. I might as well say "capitalism" for every time you say "socialism."

Oh right. You're not a socialist. You just think the government should be involved in nearly everything.

No, this just demonstrates that you don't know what socialism is. Just what the caricature of "socialism" is.

You can deny it all you like, or ignore it, but the real improvements to major infrastructure - such as energy, the internet, roads, etc - are achieved through a combination of governments and companies/individuals. Often as a result of investment.

And I for one am interested in the ideas for how we can improve power distribution and add resilience and redundancy to the system through things like capacitance. What that would do is to make alternative forms of energy much more viable, meaning we don't have to burn so much oil and gas (we can use it for so many other purposes).

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Did we say that? Nope. But I think their price will come down over the next few years and they will be more attractive to consumers.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Did we say that? Nope. But I think their price will come down over the next few years and they will be more attractive to consumers.

Dan's right, I never said that they'd be the rage. I don't know that. I do like the fact that people have more choices now in the kind of car they can buy than ever. That's good. Is it worth the cost? I dunno. But I note (and have noted earlier on this thread) that there are some crazy taxes and tariffs in the American car business, so this is nothing really that novel.

It would be harder to actually find examples where business grew new industries by itself, then to find industries growing with the assistance and or cooperation of government.

Two Republican States (Texas and Nevada) fought tooth and nail for a very significant industry recently. Nevada won, with a complex assortment of incentives and by dint of the location of the only working lithium factory in the USA.
What Industry is that?
Electric Car industry.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevad ... 13-billion

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:It's a waste of time. I might as well say "capitalism" for every time you say "socialism."

Oh right. You're not a socialist. You just think the government should be involved in nearly everything.

No, this just demonstrates that you don't know what socialism is. Just what the caricature of "socialism" is.

Nope. I know exactly what it is. All I have to do is watch the "change we've been waiting for" to understand incrementally-induced socialism.

You can deny it all you like, or ignore it, but the real improvements to major infrastructure - such as energy, the internet, roads, etc - are achieved through a combination of governments and companies/individuals. Often as a result of investment.

I'll deny denying that. So, in classic Danivon language: stop telling me what I believe.

And I for one am interested in the ideas for how we can improve power distribution and add resilience and redundancy to the system through things like capacitance. What that would do is to make alternative forms of energy much more viable, meaning we don't have to burn so much oil and gas (we can use it for so many other purposes).

The problem is we (now) have the cart before the horse.

Further, we are investing in many, many bad "bets." I've mentioned before the next town over and their wind turbine. It is broken. They can't afford to fix it. It sits dormant, but the payments don't stop. Every resident is being taxed for the privilege of having an inoperative wind power generator. That's been going on for years. Most renewable companies are losing money. How many failures must the government fund?

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Did we say that? Nope. But I think their price will come down over the next few years and they will be more attractive to consumers.

Wrong. When Republicans are in charge, they will stop forcing the middle class to subsidize the rich. Without those subsidies, sales will decline.

geojanes wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Did we say that? Nope. But I think their price will come down over the next few years and they will be more attractive to consumers.

Dan's right, I never said that they'd be the rage. I don't know that.

You're both wrong. Read WHAT I WROTE, please!

I said "if you are right"--I did not say you predicted they would be all the rage. I AM predicting that--if you are correct in your assertions about their efficiencies, etc. I'm saying you're not, but IF YOU ARE, then they will be "all the rage."

Got it?

I do like the fact that people have more choices now in the kind of car they can buy than ever.

I should invent a car that runs on hemp oil. It won't matter how well it runs--I can get the government to fund it and people can buy the "fuel" with their EBT cards.

That's good. Is it worth the cost? I dunno. But I note (and have noted earlier on this thread) that there are some crazy taxes and tariffs in the American car business, so this is nothing really that novel.

Sorry, to me that's the wrong approach. I like the liberal dream movie, "Dave." When he becomes President, he cuts out all the pet projects. A good President would do that.

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. I know exactly what it is. All I have to do is watch the "change we've been waiting for" to understand incrementally-induced socialism.

What you are seeing is mercantilism, corporatism, and at a pinch a bit more social democracy all within a pretty much capitalist system.

Socialism would be public ownership, not subsidies.

You can deny it all you like, or ignore it, but the real improvements to major infrastructure - such as energy, the internet, roads, etc - are achieved through a combination of governments and companies/individuals. Often as a result of investment.

I'll deny denying that. So, in classic Danivon language: stop telling me what I believe.

I did not say that you were denying it. I said you 'can'. This is not the same as saying "If x is right and blah blah blah..." - that most definitely is telling people what they think/say/believe.

And I for one am interested in the ideas for how we can improve power distribution and add resilience and redundancy to the system through things like capacitance. What that would do is to make alternative forms of energy much more viable, meaning we don't have to burn so much oil and gas (we can use it for so many other purposes).

The problem is we (now) have the cart before the horse.

Frankly, we always did. The energy market is always supply-led (we have demand, but it can only be satisfied by big supply points). It would be great for 'traditional' supply methods too, because it would mean we could use burning plants more efficiently, nuclear as a baseline, hydro as per water levels not demand etc etc.

But we should not stop researching one area because another area needs to be looked into as well. Human progress is not linear or pre-programmed.

Further, we are investing in many, many bad "bets." I've mentioned before the next town over and their wind turbine. It is broken. They can't afford to fix it. It sits dormant, but the payments don't stop. Every resident is being taxed for the privilege of having an inoperative wind power generator. That's been going on for years. Most renewable companies are losing money. How many failures must the government fund?

This is the nature of bets. Not all come off. Certainly there does need to be an evaluation of the losing bets, but also in context with the good bets, and also any lessons learned from 'bad bets'.

And the 'town' level example is frankly their problem - the federal government is where I thought your beef lay.

If you and George are right, electric vehicles will be all the rage and dealers won't be able to keep them in stock.

Right.

Did we say that? Nope. But I think their price will come down over the next few years and they will be more attractive to consumers.

Wrong. When Republicans are in charge, they will stop forcing the middle class to subsidize the rich. Without those subsidies, sales will decline.

1) I love your belief that one political party is really going to make that much of a difference (we all subsidise the rich, whoever is in power in governments, because the rich can buy governments and politicians). 2) prices are declining now, and across the 'unsubsidised' section. Tesla are projecting they will have models out in a few years for half what you can get a new one now. 3) I also love how your response to me saying "I think..." - expressing an opinion - is a simple and flat "Wrong". as if you are disproving an asserted fact, with evidence and stuff.

Doctor Fate wrote:I said "if you are right"--I did not say you predicted they would be all the rage. I AM predicting that--if you are correct in your assertions about their efficiencies, etc. I'm saying you're not, but IF YOU ARE, then they will be "all the rage."

Got it?

OK, I'll amend. You can't possibly know that they'll be "all the rage" if they are a competitive or even superior product. There are countless examples of inferior products crushing superior ones (and I don't think that electric cars are superior) through the use of market position, first mover advantage or other advantage.

Doctor Fate wrote:

That's [list=]good. Is it worth the cost? I dunno. But I note (and have noted earlier on this thread) that there are some crazy taxes and tariffs in the American car business, so this is nothing really that novel.

Sorry, to me that's the wrong approach. I like the liberal dream movie, "Dave." When he becomes President, he cuts out all the pet projects. A good President would do that.

All I'm getting at is the issue of proportionality. If you want to get upset about screwed up government policies, fix the Chicken Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

At least here, electric car subsidies aren't a tax, it's a tax credit, where people get money back from the gov't instead of paying more in taxes. The Chicken Tax costs us all real money.

worth a read.....

http://entrepreneurialstate.anthempressblog.com/

The book explores the leading role that the State has played in generating innovation and economic growth in modern capitalism. In detailed case studies of the investments that led to the IT revolution, the biotech revolution, and the emerging ‘green’ revolution, it highlights the entrepreneurial—risk taking— investments that global public agencies have made along the entire innovation chain before the private sector invested. In doing so it debunks the common myth of the State as a large slow bureaucratic organization contrasted with the dynamic private sector. Far from the often heard criticisms of the State potentially ‘crowding out’ private investments, bold mission-oriented public investments (amongst decentralized public actors), not only fixed markets but also actively shaped and created them.
The book argues that ignoring this reality only serves ideological ends, and puts both innovation and inclusive growth at risk. After describing all the public investments that made all the technologies behind the iPhone possible (internet, GPS, touch-screen display, Siri), the author asks a key question about the distribution of risks and rewards: Who will fund the next technological wave, if companies like Apple and Google pay so little tax, why do we socialize the risks and not the rewards

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Nope. I know exactly what it is. All I have to do is watch the "change we've been waiting for" to understand incrementally-induced socialism.

What you are seeing is mercantilism, corporatism, and at a pinch a bit more social democracy all within a pretty much capitalist system.

Socialism would be public ownership, not subsidies.

Yes, if we had a revolution. We didn't. So, we are getting socialism on a sliding scale. You say it's not socialism. I say it is. You will appeal to the dictionary. I will point out the dictionary is but a textbook-ish definition that doesn't cover this situation.

For example, if someone is poisoned to death, it may be one massive dose or it may be a series of small doses over a period of time. The end result is the same.

If President Obama has his way, we will be a socialist society. Well, except he won't give up his wealth. So, no, it won't be a "Marxist" utopia. It will be a Marxist-Obama utopia.

I'll deny denying that. So, in classic Danivon language: stop telling me what I believe.

I did not say that you were denying it. I said you 'can'. This is not the same as saying "If x is right and blah blah blah..." - that most definitely is telling people what they think/say/believe.

But we should not stop researching one area because another area needs to be looked into as well. Human progress is not linear or pre-programmed.

I'm not suggesting progress is linear. I am simply saying current methods are getting nowhere--unless you invest in the companies and sell your stock while the government buys it, you're backing a loser. The Obama administration is very bad at this. The reason is simple: they invest with their heart (and our money). If it was their money, out of their wallets, they would not do 90% of the crap they do.

This is the nature of bets. Not all come off. Certainly there does need to be an evaluation of the losing bets, but also in context with the good bets, and also any lessons learned from 'bad bets'.

It seems rather imprudent to borrow money from China, or anyone, to roll the dice.

And the 'town' level example is frankly their problem - the federal government is where I thought your beef lay.

They're no better.

For what it is worth, we just got back from the Midwest. We drove the whole way and saw many wind turbines. Not one was moving. Not one.

1) I love your belief that one political party is really going to make that much of a difference (we all subsidise the rich, whoever is in power in governments, because the rich can buy governments and politicians)

This subsidy WILL bite the dust. It is unfair and foolish.

2) prices are declining now, and across the 'unsubsidised' section. Tesla are projecting they will have models out in a few years for half what you can get a new one now.

Great. As soon as they are not subsidized, it will be wonderful to see how they sell, particularly with our ever-escalating electricity prices. See, there's the funny thing: Obama's EPA is going to drive electricity through the roof by regulation. So, all these folks who own electric cars will be crying for a bailout.

3) I also love how your response to me saying "I think..." - expressing an opinion - is a simple and flat "Wrong". as if you are disproving an asserted fact, with evidence and stuff.

If something is "wrong," it is wrong. Expending time on it is time I won't get back. You throw out notions and then play the same tired game--disprove my assertions. No. I'll rebut them with assertions of my own. Thanks.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

That's [list=]good. Is it worth the cost? I dunno. But I note (and have noted earlier on this thread) that there are some crazy taxes and tariffs in the American car business, so this is nothing really that novel.

Sorry, to me that's the wrong approach. I like the liberal dream movie, "Dave." When he becomes President, he cuts out all the pet projects. A good President would do that.

All I'm getting at is the issue of proportionality. If you want to get upset about screwed up government policies, fix the Chicken Tax http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_tax

At least here, electric car subsidies aren't a tax, it's a tax credit, where people get money back from the gov't instead of paying more in taxes. The Chicken Tax costs us all real money.

It's all "real money."

Well, except when the Fed just prints it because it can.

Okay, none of it is "real."

Tesla's Model 3 Pre-order Numbers Are Way Bigger Than Anyone Expected

Given that people camped out in line for a chance to pay a deposit on the Model 3, a car they won’t see for at least a year, it’s no surprise that the pre-order numbers are big. But 276,000 pre-orders in 72 hours is still a shockingly high number.

Mathematically, 276,000 is going to be good for Tesla’s bottom line: it means $276 million in the bank from deposits alone

,

This is $9,660,000,0000 in sales.
I guess Mr. Musk has revolutionized the automobile industry with the Tesla 3... and its electric.
And its not selling just because its electric but because it is an incredible vehicle.

http://gizmodo.com/teslas-model-3-preor ... 1768837959

rickyp wrote:Tesla's Model 3 Pre-order Numbers Are Way Bigger Than Anyone Expected

Given that people camped out in line for a chance to pay a deposit on the Model 3, a car they won’t see for at least a year, it’s no surprise that the pre-order numbers are big. But 276,000 pre-orders in 72 hours is still a shockingly high number.

Mathematically, 276,000 is going to be good for Tesla’s bottom line: it means $276 million in the bank from deposits alone

,

This is $9,660,000,0000 in sales.
I guess Mr. Musk has revolutionized the automobile industry with the Tesla 3... and its electric.
And its not selling just because its electric but because it is an incredible vehicle.

http://gizmodo.com/teslas-model-3-preor ... 1768837959

That's nice.

But the high level of demand could create problems for the company. Tesla has only ever made 100,000 cars, and its factories are scaled for a much lower level of production. Some estimates have cars that are being pre-ordered now being delivered in 2020.

Further, it's just silly to act like e-cars are a "solution" to our energy problems. What would revolutionize things is a car that generates its own electricity--think "Prius" only more efficient.

Let's see what the long-run is. And, I understand the range is 220 miles. That's decent, but I would not buy a car with that range.