Tesla hits 420,000 miles


Yeah, it can be said because that’s the ■■■■■■■ definition.


Definitions are hard for you, the two together do, neither do separately. We were talking about COAL, pay attention.


Truth is not truth.


Funny when you guys resort to semantics to support your argument. :rofl:


What on earth makes you think I am angry? Of course complete energy independence is a good thing, but naivety is not. Just believing that fossil fuels will be replaced with renewable sources any time soon, if ever, is extremely naïve. Even if we could produce 100% of our energy needs with renewables (you’re going to have to works an awful lot harder on that flying thing … ) we would still need firm power both to balance the system and to back it up when it is not immediately available. Maybe if the environmentalists would get behind nuclear and hydro power, we could make significant progress in that regard, but then naivety is their strong suit, so I won’t hold my breath.


It is on par with natural gas (in the U.S.; China, not so much.) That makes it a major component.


Well that’s insane.

I guess water cooling was out of the question due to weight.


If that’s how you want to look at it, natural gas is also a minority energy source. How far do you want to take this game?


To where would you transfer the heat?


Indeed. At best you can call natural gas a plurality. Neither is a majority. It’s not a “game”, it’s simple definitions.


It’s conversations like above that makes software engineers rage. If a business user defined a requirement that a specific set of business logic would trigger when a subset of the data was in the majority, then they would get exactly that. Function (x) is called when y > 50% + 1. If they complain that it’s not doing what they said they wanted and really meant “the most” and further complained about “semantics,” I would reply that words and definitions still matter, even though demanding linguistic accuracy is now a minority position in today’s world.


No one with a real understanding thinks that, most have set goals in terms of reasonable milestones that are well short of “fossil fuels will be replaced with renewable sources”. I find that the political right is the one that tries to frame it as black/white, that pushing for renewable energy suddenly means “no fossil fuels immediately”.

I am personally torn regarding nuclear; San Onofre is a fixture here Orange County and I have driven by, and surfed near it, countless times. The permanency of these plants when factoring in the inevitability of natural disasters, and how Fukushima revealed our engineering is far from infallible, has certainly has tweaked my opinion… as we sit here in CA waiting for the “big one”.

Hydro-power is also complicated, you can point to “environmentalists” but I can also point to fisheries and economic considerations that break the “tree-hugger” and “delta smelt” narrative that people like to use.

So both have their places, maybe Nuclear with a set distance from population centers and based on areas that are less prone to certain disasters, and hydro, maybe not right in the middle of a declining salmon fisheries watershed?

I think there can be middle ground.


Keep going, I like highlighting our diversification :wink:


Yes, If Cal didn’t charge so much for electricity, I’d get an electric car. No smog, no tune ups. I have a short commute.


Get some solar :slight_smile:

We locked in our rate long ago.


Except solar is just a scam to get dem donors rich… It’s not even eco friendly by the time you make them and install them. A little dust makes it so, they never pay for themselves or regain the energy it took to make them., It’s math and science so just say “huh?” .

And it does not make cal’s electricity any cheaper…


Well that’s just a world salad of lies and talking points!

At 3.5 years of 10,000 kWh/year, 100% home usage satisfied with 5% going back into the grid, and chugging along!


Yes, I knew you wouldn’t understand… Do you have an electric car?


You would have to pump it out of the aircraft somehow.

Now that you think about it it was actually a really dumb idea.

Perhaps a fusion reactor, if we ever crack the tech and make it work, would work without killing the crew or roasting the aircraft.


Yup. That’s what the jet engines were doing. All jet engines need heat to run.

Thankfully, they decided it was a bad idea before it was implemented.