I just laugh at them. I am amazed at their hate towards ICE car drivers, especially when they figure out that you often get single digits MPG ;-)

 

Basically the big oil companies are lying to the public about miners without labor law?
LOL no need to hate electric cars. I like F-Type and I like electric cars. I like good, interesting cars in general.

And guess how much subsidies big oil companies get compared to green energy companies...

 

The question is about the rumor/news that Jaguar wants to replace the gasoline F-Type with an electric version. Terrible idea.

Electric is a great idea to commute to work, assuming electricity rates are unaffected by mass adoption, or there continue to be few adopters. But Jaguar shouldn't confuse commuting with driving. Commuting is work for work. Driving a sports car is for pleasure.

Another drawback to attacking any well established monopoly, like big oil, is the wrong assumption that current prices represent market pricing. By definition, they don't. Production cost for a barrell of crude is nowhere near the $60 wholesale price, especially in the middle east, its around $2. Gasoline prices are falling from increased supply, but fracking is only slightly disrupting monopoly pricing because it is relatively expensive.

And proven oil reserves haven't even been dented, some 17,000 years remain at current consumption rates.

Any real threat to oil would be crushed quickly. The current $1.75/gallon has a lot of room to fall.

Which brigs up the biggest opponent to EVs, the government. Pennsylvania levies almost a dollar per gallon in slush fund taxes. Alaska is the lowest around 30 cents. Governments can't function without oil, they are addicted and they are the biggest cost driver of gasoline prices.

Current EV subsidies represent a big government strategy to buy green votes using massive oil revenues. So EVs will never be permitted to be mainstream transpo. Its all a show.

 

Today, Tesla stock plunged 45 points in the midst of a stock market rally, upon the announcement of massive layoffs and potential default on nearly a billion dollars of convertible bonds, due in March if TSLA's stock price remains below 390. Now nearly 100 points below, and crashing.

Electric cars are dead.

There never was a business case that didn't include punishing taxpayer subsidies. Musk ran that company of a cliff, full throttle. Worst CEO ever, but he did manage to steal $100B in personal compensation from US taxpayers, which might be considered genius. I feel sorry for the people who didn't do their research, but that'll teach them.

 

Those statements are tangentially related, at best. The second may be true. The first is almost certainly not.

 

Tesla, sadly, was the poster child for EV viability.

When TSLA dies (RIP 2019), the EV dies.

The reason is simple. If TSLA couldn't last 10 years with giagantic tax payer subsidies, rebates and incentives, the idea isn't viable. Musk being a moron didn't help, but that's the problem with deifying a moron, isn't it.

Jaguar, step off the corporate welfare bandwagon, and watch.

 

Blah blah blah. I promise you, electric cars are the future. I'm not saying the ICE is dead, but electric is the future.

Let these words stand here, un-edited and we'll look back in five years and see what's up.

 

Certaintly. Though we won't even have to wait five months. The question is, what happens to the ripped-off and lied to, who are driving new Model 3's and the like. I, for one, am not into taxpayers paying them anymore than we already have.

 

Ultimately I hope that electric carts are the future - with markets like India and China it is good for all of us if they arent using ICE, and the sooner that diesel dies out the better IMO (notwithstanding that some engines are very clean). You guys in the US probably dont get this, but over here the roads are full of diesel 4WD utes (you probably call them pickup trucks), the Nissans and the Mitsubishis in particular belch out black filth after a year or so, I can barely put my window down on the drive into work in the morning because of the oily stench, give me the farty odour of unleaded over that any day but better still would be zero emissions from electric.

 

You're making a lot of emotional arguments. You're also oversimplifying a great deal. Musk isn't a moron. Visionaries don't always make good businessmen. Nikola Tesla himself was a good example of that, but I expect you enjoy the benefits of those AC wall outlets you've got in every room.

I think that both hybrids and EVs are the future. The days of pure ICE may be numbered but if I can have even a dozen miles of electric-only range to get groceries, with an ICE to take me on a weekend getaway, why would I not want it? A pure EV that can get me through a week of commuting on a charge? Sure. That's sounds good too, especially if I can recharge from renewable sources. I don't have home solar but I expect I will someday. I commute in my F-Type, and the time commuting where I can properly enjoy it is severely limited. An EV that is not hateful to drive would be a fine addition. For the record, the i-Pace isn't bad to drive at all. It's no F-Type, but it's no Gremlin either.

 

You're still saying that Tesla is the entirety of the EVs future. I do not think this is the case.

 

Please don't compare a moron like Musk to Nikola Tesla. Musk stole $100B then tanked a company that had every advantage the government could give it, killing many a viable business in opportunity cost.

Nikola Tesla was one of a few who understood the nature of our universe, he died broke on principle.

 

Dept. of Commerce says, nothing to see here...

​​​​​

 

While he had some spectacular hits, he had some profound misses as well. Some of his ideas on the nature of our universe have not aged particularly well. He was also not good at paying his bills.

 

Fukushima 2017



Scientists have figured out how to clean up Fukushima once and for all

JANUARY 21, 2017 BY JAYSON MACLEAN



The Fukushima disaster occurred almost six years ago when an earthquake-caused tsunami crashed into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, releasing large amounts of radioactive material into the surrounding area and creating an environmental problem still left to be solved: what to do with the millions of litres of contaminated water used to cool the damaged reactors?



Now, scientists from Rice University in Houston, Texas, and Kazan Federal University in Russia think that they have come up with a solution that's both affordable and effective.



While the worry about radioactive contaminants reaching across the Pacific ocean to North America in large quantities has more or less been resolved, with numerous studies showing almost negligible rises in radioactive contaminants in fish along the west coast of Canada and the U.S., the issue of trying to deal with the tonnes of stored, contaminated water remains.



In a new study, researchers say their formulation of oxidatively modified carbon (OMC) is successful at absorbing the radioactive elements cesium and strontium, both found in the stored water at Fukushima.



“There is a constant need to develop advantageous materials for removing radioactive waste from aqueous systems,” say the authors, whose study is published in the journalCarbon. “Here we propose a new carbon-based material prepared by oxidative treatment of various natural carbon sources.”



The researchers took an inexpensive, coke-derived powder known as C-seal F, used as an additive to drilling fluids in the oil industry, and combined it with a carbon-heavy mineral called shungite to produce the OMC material. They found that treating the carbon particles with oxidizing chemicals increased the surface area and supplied the necessary grouping of oxygen molecules across the material for absorbing the toxic metals. In column filtration tests, the new carbon filter removed nearly 93 per cent of cesium and 92 of strontium in one pass.



“Just passing contaminated water through OMC filters will extract the radioactive elements and permit safe discharge to the ocean,” says James Tour of the Department of Chemistry, Department of Material Science and Nano Engineering, and NanoCarbon Center at Rice University, in a statement. “This could be a major advance for the cleanup effort at Fukushima.”



The radioactivity released into the surrounding area led the Japanese government to evacuate all residents within a 20 kilometre range of the reactor site. Since the disaster, researchers on the North American side of the Pacific began measuring radioactive levels, as water currents are known to circulate across from Asia.



To this day, evidence of radioactive isotopes like cesium-134 and -137 have been found in the waters and wildlife off Canada’s west coast, attributable to Fukushima, but readings are said to be at a low and harmless level. For instance, tuna caught in the Pacific post-Fukushima was found to contain measurable amountsof C-134 and C-137, yet at levels lower than even the naturally occurring radioactive potassium in tuna, itself not a health concern.



A study last year of B.C. salmon found no detectable levels of C-134in samples taken from 156 salmon, while trace evidence of C-137 found in the fish could not reliably be directed attributed to the Fukushima disaster as opposed to other possible sources.



About Jayson MacLean

Jayson MacLean writes about science and technology for Cantech Letter.

Jayson is a writer, researcher and educator with a PhD in political philosophy from the University of Ottawa. His interests range from bioethics and innovations in the health sciences to governance, social justice and the history of ideas.









:



And:



FAQs: Radiation from Fukushima : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution



From which I copy this:


Where does radiation from Fukushima go once it enters the ocean?


The spread of cesium once it enters the ocean can be understood by the analogy of mixing cream into coffee. At first, they are separate and distinguishable, but just as we start to stir, the cream forms long, narrow filaments or streaks in the water. In the Pacific, streaks of contaminants become longer and narrower as they move offshore, where diffusive processes begin to homogenize and dilute the radionuclides. Currents then mix and continue to dilute the cesium as it travels across the ocean and, with distance and time, radionuclide concentrations in seawater decline.



» More information about our oceanographic studies off Fukushima, the movement of radiation across the Pacific(pdf), and radiation in sediments near Japan.


Is radiation a concern along U.S. and Canadian coasts?


Although we have found traces of radioactive contamination from Fukushima in samples collected through our citizen-science initiative, Our Radioactive Ocean, the concentration of cesium-137 and -134 in these samples is well below levels of concern for humans or marine life. The highest levels of cesium (10 Bq/m3) attributable to Fukushima that we have measured were found 1,500 miles north of Hawaii. Swimming every day in the ocean there would still result in a dose 1,000 time smaller than the radiation we receive with a single dental x-ray. Not zero, but still very low.



Looking ahead, levels of any Fukushima contaminants along the West Coast of North America are predicted to peak around 2015 or 2016, but at levels similar to what we are measuring in some of our samples today. This is not to say that we should not be concerned about additional sources of radioactivity in the ocean above the natural sources, but at the levels expected, even short distances from Japan, the Pacific will be safe for boating, swimming, etc. Nevertheless, we continue to monitor levels of radiation up and down the West Coast through Our Radioactive Ocean.



» More about what we have found off the West Coast hereand here.


Has Fukushima been responsible for the deaths of marine animals in the Pacific?


To date, there have been no reliable links made between radiation in the Pacific and mass die-offs of marine mammals, birds, fish, or invertebrates. Some of these die-offs have been attributed to viruses, warming water, and other changes to the marine environment that need to be addressed. If there were effects from radioactive contamination, we would expect to see the largest effects off Japan, not the West Coast of North America, and this has not been seen.


Is radiation exposure from the ocean and beach a concern?


I stood on the deck of a ship l2 miles from the Fukushima reactors in June 2011 and was about one-half mile away as recently as October 2015 and the radiation detectors I was carrying showed little or no increase above background levels. Even the samples I collected (water, sediment, plants, and animals) from these locations are safe to handle without any precautions. In fact, our biggest problem is blocking interference from background radiation in our samples so we can isolate the trace levels of cesium and other radionuclides that we know came from Fukushima.



On the West Coast of North America, radiation from the water, sediment, and biota is even less of a problem because of the distance from Japan and the dilution that occurs as the contaminants cross the Pacific. The greatest concern is for those who work on the site of the reactors because leaks from storage tanks could release water with high concentrations of contaminants.





Article of 2017 March 22nd:

Despite rumors, scientists say Fukushima radiation on U.S. coast poses no health risk

AP



Radiation from the Fukushima nuclear disaster has reached North American shores, but — despite a number of reports shared on social media— scientists say the levels of radiation are so low that they pose no risk to public health.

Late last year, researchers announced that cesium-134 was discovered in waters off the coast of Oregon and in one sockeye salmon in a British Columbia lake. Cesium-134 is considered the fingerprint radiation of the Fukushima disaster, because its short half-life means it could only come from the plant that suffered meltdowns following the 2011 earthquake-triggered tsunami.

News reports have been used as the basis for viral stories about the radiation. One story from alternativemediasyndicate.com carried the headline: “Fukushima Radiation: Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over, Or Worse.” Another story from organicandhealthy.org labeled the discovery of the salmon as “bad news for everyone” and described the U.S. West Coast as “contaminated.”

Ken Buesseler, a senior scientist at Massachusetts’ Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, has traveled to Japan numerous times since 2011 to study the Fukushima disaster’s effect on seawater. He also leads a sampling project to study the radiation as it makes its way across the Pacific Ocean to North America.

It’s fair to be concerned about radiation, he said, but the levels detected are far too small to make anyone sick: They are 1,000 times less than what a person would be exposed to during a routine dental X-ray.

“It’s even less than things like CT scans or flying in a plane or even living at high altitude. Personally I’m not concerned about those levels,” he said.

Research scientist John Smith, who works for Canada’s fisheries and oceans department, said the “crazy low levels” of cesium found in the salmon were suspicious all along.

“It’s absolutely no surprise there would be a little bit of Fukushima cesium in this fish and it’s really at a level we would have expected it to be,” he said.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a 2015 report on the impact of seaborne Fukushima radiation on the U.S. that evidence showed the levels “fall well short of posing any U.S. health or environmental risk.” In January, state officials in Alaska announced that tests of seafood in the state’s waters found no detectable amounts of radiation from the plant.

“This has been going on since the beginning of the Fukushima accident,” adds Smith of some reports that have surfaced online since the disaster. “All this kind of fake news and scary news.”





:



And I, Forrest K. Harstad, add this:



The solution to pollution is dilution.



Don’t get worried about Fukushima—or even another melt-down, should one occur. Our world is plenty large enough to dilute it to no-worries levels. Just don’t be there if/when one happens.



Rest assured.





http://www.environews.tv/121216-seab...-oregon-coast/

 

Whether you choose an EV or a gas car, both industries get subsidies.

Also, Tesla stock may not be doing well, Jaguar (Tata) stock is definitely worse (back at 2009 level now). I hope Jaguar doesn't get sold again...

Oh well, I am no expert at this. That's what I know, and maybe I have also been lied to.
I'm just interested in F-Type and am lucky to own one

 

You gotta admit that quote is too funny, considering three times the radioactive material meltdown as Chernobyl, and all three reactor cores have descended into the Earth in a full blown 3x China Syndrome. Don't forget, you get 10 years in prison for reporting on Fukushima in Japan.

Califonia wines are confirmed radioactive with unmistakable Fukushima fingerprints, as are all the beaches. Think about that. The radioactivity has crossed the entire Pacific Ocean, can that be good? Do you know how friggin big the Pacific Ocean is?

Is Fukushima really an Extinction Level Event as many are reporting? I don't think anyone on Earth has a clue. I am going to rewatch The China Syndrome this weekend as a refresher.

 

TSLA stock has been the only thing doing fine until recently plunging on the news of big layoffs.

It's Tesla's Junk Bond S&P rating and crazy interest rates they have to pay to raise capital that sets off alarm bells. When your own bond holders, who get paid before stock holders, are expecting failure thats when you are in trouble.

Also, a billion in convertible bonds coming due in March is abject desperation by the company. Convertible bond issue is a Hail Mary only accepted by rank amateurs. The reason is, it seems like free money, but the convertible bond holder intends to naked-short your stock to $0. Then they extract all your shareholder value plus get the bond payout. Oldest trick in the book.

 

I wouldn't live in California if it was free.

And how's that unrestricted "migrant" policy working out for you? :-)

 

At least we don't need a wall, we've got a moat.