He's supposed to be from Bristol, after all.
Haha you think red people are doing the blue collar jobs in California cities? Come take a look for yourself. We have Mexican immigrants who cannot vote doing those jobs.
As for military spending we would not be financing boondoggles like the yal-1, JLENS, and ford class carriers.
California would last an exceptionally long time without a military assuming the rest of the lower 48 don't plan a military invasion. As liberal progressive pacifists, California would be a beacon of hope for all other nations. The trillions spent on military spending would go to education.
Granted California makes a lot of the overpriced weapons but that's merely a profitable business. New California would just sell those to other countries and pocket the profits. In fact, substantially more money would be made in that sector because there would be so many more potential nation state customers.
By what measure? Landmass? No. Population? No. Economy? No.
Half the California landmass is blue. That's about the size of Germany right there. The red half of CA can simply be compensated by giving them a tarif to grow food for the blue half. The blue half won't be paying trillions on military and other federal BS so it would be a small price to pay to make the whole state blue. We all know the red half mostly cares about money, so we would give them that for living their agrarian lifestyle. Eventually, the robots will farm for the blue half anyway. The universal basic income will take care of people's needs.
Stop the presses! Toyota to jump into the EV market.
BTW this video illustrates my last point. The all wheel drive Tesla can deliver energy to the motors in millisecond pulses enabling it to maintain traction in the rain in a way no other car can.
In the comments, @Somnium Sky sums it up:
"Being able to dynamically shift power from the front to the rear at the millisecond level allows it to adjust torque extremely quickly for the AWD system more than is possible with a mechanically linked system."
I agree that gas is hugely energy dense, but only 18% of that energy goes into moving the car. The rest is waste heat. So gasoline would have to actually get more energy dense to compete with EVs. ICE car efficiency is at a practical optimization limit (hence the move to hybrid). There may be good engineering and safety reasons not to improve the energy density of gasoline. Total speculation, but in my mind, a more energy dense gasoline could actually break or wear out existing IC engines.
One big difference between gasoline and batteries is the access to that energy. While a gallon of gas may have more energy than the equivalent volume of battery cells, you cannot burn that gallon all at once. Likewise, you can't consume all of the energy in the battery all at once, but it's conceivable (if not already possible) to draw down that energy more rapidly. So a battery can *deliver* more energy where it is needed, when it is needed, with less waste.
EVs will have 500 mile range in about 6 years, perhaps a bit sooner. That is calculated at the average annual improvement of lithium batteries, not accounting for any dramatic breakthroughs. With the introduction of silicon into the electrodes (which is already happening at Tesla) we could see the 500 mile range more rapidly. Keep in mind that 500 miles is the approximate range that consumers think that they need but actually will almost never need.
Hydrogen is dead on arrival. You can't make hydrogen without electricity. It's a very energy intensive process. Toyota has something like 27 cars in California that run hydrogen and they require biannual tank inspections because if that tank ruptures, you are heading to the moon. And didn't anyone mention that the car's performance is abominable? Makes an EV look like a formula one car. Where are you going to refuel? There is EV charging in many thousands of locations in California (and major cities elsewhere) and I'm guessing about 10 hydrogen stations. Hydrogen ain't gonna happen, let go of that Bush era fantasy.
Synthesizing gasoline from other fuels like natural gas may make it cleaner than it is today but they would have to keep the prices below $2.50 a gallon and they would need an unprecedented production ramp up to make a dent in the oil industry. If gas is above $2.50 then EVs have won the game. (I'm not sure how burning carbon can ever be carbon neutral btw)
You have only affirmed my point by saying you are sticking with ICE because it's the most economical choice. Most consumers would agree with you. Therefore, EVs are on a trajectory to win you over as they will be, by far, the most economical choice. The Tesla drive train will last 1,000,000 miles and the battery should last 500,000 miles at 90% of the original capacity. ICE cars don't do that.
Funny, I question how viable ICE cars are. They only get 40mpg and the embodied energy to make that gallon is likely pretty inefficient and subsidized.
Meanwhile, EVs get 100mpge no problem. Safer, more spacious, 7x more reliable, soon cheaper, and soon with more range than an ICE car.
Makes you wonder how the ICE will survive... Especially when the closure of gas stations will dramatically limit their range.
GM can sell the carbon credit they get for the Bolt back to themselves dollar for dollar effectively subsidizing ICE car production. They will never (in the near future) need to sell them in the open market at a loss because their ICE production is in the millions of cars.
Meanwhile, Tesla cannot apply carbon credits to their own product line because they don't manufacture ICE cars. So this means they sell/unload them to ICE manufactures at a steep discount.
The point is that the carbon credit system favors large manufactures of ICE cars.
As for Oregon and North Dakota sales of the Bolt, that's fine but they don't represent a large market and they don't have the air quality requirements of California. So GM is going to focus on the California market in order to scoop up the carbon credits. Also keep in mind, you don't get any carbon credits for selling cars abroad. That's why Tesla is focusing on China and Noreay as markets and GM probably doesn't care much about those places at this time. If they were to produces millions of Bolts then that might change.
Almost everything I said above came out of Musk's mouth on the last quarterly conference call. So I'm only echoing what I heard there but I believe it to be true based on my own understanding of the market.
One difference is that GM intends to sell EVs into the California market in order to apply their own carbon credits towards the gas guzzlers they sell everywhere else. That's somewhat disingenuous if you ask me. Sure they may sell some elsewhere, but it's all about California for them.
Meanwhile Tesla is selling cars where ever they can and has no internal use for their carbon credits. So Tesla sells the credits for pennies on the dollar.
GM can use their own credits for the full dollar for dollar. This highlights that carbon credits are really a subsidy for big automotive companies to keep building gas guzzlers.
If Tesla could sell their credits for full value, then it would be a fair subsidy.
I have nothing against Smart cars but I've never heard anyone argue that they are 'open and expansive' before. Again, I might even own a smart car someday, but they ain't the most 'expansive' experience.
Is anyone else shipping a car or SUV that resembles a Tesla in specifications? (Even in small production numbers?) I'm not aware of any.
This isn't true. Even ten years ago an 18% efficient panel would be energy positive after about about 1.5 to 2.5 years anywhere in the lower 48 states. The Silevo polycrystalline cells used by Tesla SolarCity in their Solar Roof are between 22 to 24% efficient. Then factor in that you don't need an underlying roof and the embodied energy goes down. Plus increased surface area of a Tesla solar roof vs modules on the roof will mean that the embodied energy is amortized more rapidly as some tiles will be 'working' harder than others in areas that modules never would have been placed.
The only thing that might make this system better is liquid cooling heat exchange or phase change material and/or maybe aerogel blanket beneath. Then the cell efficiency would go way up as the cells are cooled and hot water is generated for the building. Aerogel would insulate the roof. But all of that would add cost, complexity, and liability. In meantime SolarCity must focus on profit and a sustainable business model.
If you did the math, original poster said they want a car that can go about 50 miles in under a ten minute charge. That is 25% more range than the average American drives in a day. That is approximately the same time you would spend in a gas station for an ICE car. Given you can charge at home, this would put the value proposition in favor of the electric car. So therefore every intelligent consumer would opt for an EV.
Now consider that we ALREADY have a car and charger that are better than these requirements. The Tesla Model S can charge 170 miles in 30 minutes on a SuperCharger. That's more than the original poster's request of 80% of 200 miles. (The overall range of the Model S is 315 miles. The range will go up at about 8% per year compounding --for at least a few years- as battery technology, etc. advances.)
"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure