I spent six months studying the issue. I was a member of Greenpeace at the time. I read the studies in the university library. I started out wanting to demonstrate the crisis Greenpeace and others alerted me to. Getting the details, I found out that my Greenpeace magazine was telling the truth that there were tons of waste, and they were telling the truth that nuclear waste was very dangerous. I was disheartened to learn that the dangerous waste was NOT the kind that there was a lot of.

Back then I also repeated the Greenpeace line that in twenty years California would be underwater from global warming. That was in the early 90s. Apparently I was wrong because California is still here.

Mark, you would look great on Sainte-Cath's with this babe hehehehehe

Once again, any links to back up your claims (like the ones i have provided) would be appreciated.

It has nothing to do with Greenpeace or global warming etc. and everything to do with the facts which validate the grim reality of high level nuclear waste being generated in very large quantities every year and the lack of safe storage for this waste.
It's a ticking time bomb.

It also doesn't help when you have countries like Japan who get the bright idea to make a nuke plant in the ring of fire...
It's created a major disaster which has now spread beyond 100 miles from the site on land and thousands of miles in the ocean, and it will continue to do untold damage for many years to come.

So in conclusion, trying to promote nukes as "cleaner" than solar is ludicrous at best.
It has already been proven that the emissions/pollution from the manufacturing of solar panels is far less per output than fossil fuel production, and far better than nuclear power production on both a safety and environmental level.


.

koolaid must be tasty...would be easy to drink it i guess

who wants to spend a shitload on a car only to be limited to the distance you can travel? i don't know about you but i like to be able to jump in my car at moments notice and be able to go anywhere i want.

Bingo. When did driving become limited to "need?" That is no fun. Driving doesn't get interesting until you are 300 miles from home.

Okay, you're clearly not going to change your mind nor do you wish to learn anything. Solar is perfectly clean, because arsenic, cadmium, and lead aren't toxic at all. It's nuclear, not coal, that spews millions of tons of pollutants into the air every day. Everybody should just move to south Floruda, where every day is sunny and they don't need any electricity at night. Happy now?


Give me a shout if you ever grow out of your fanboy stage and want to look at the positives and negatives of things.

And where does all this magic electricity come from? Nuclear? Oil? Gas? Coal? But hey out of sight out of mind right?

That car looks so sweet...

https://youtube.com/watch?v=F0vycQ06a04

Whilst it is understandable if you like to road trips that this car isn't from you yet, it still does not take away from the potential of the car. Your one point seems to be that the range is not sufficient enough, so let me dispel why this isn't such an impossible deal in the relatively short term.

The first point that needs to be made is that you do NOT need an electric charger at every single gas station. You can not refill your gas at home, and thus there needs to be a gas station in every village, town, etc. Usually multiple to handle the load. This is what a lot of people completely neglect to take in to account. 90% of the time individuals will charge at home, at night, in off-peak times. This requires no upgrade to the grid (since off-peak power usage is so low), and the existing grid can support over 100 million electric cars charging off peak. As you do with your mobile phone you will simply plugin your electric car at night and wake up to a fully charged car every morning.

With this said, and as users adapt to this model (and technology morphs to make sure you never forget to charge at night - think wireless charging, mobile phone notifications, etc) it becomes a non-issue on a car of 300 mile range to drive around anywhere within the city for the day more or less.

Now, as you like to road-trip. Lets talk about CURRENT technology. Tesla's DC fast-charging network (which is being rolled out next year) can add 100 miles range in 20 minutes. So an hour to add 300 miles. Grab yourself something to eat, stretch your legs, watch a TV show/movie in or out of your car (Tesla has a 17 inch screen in the console) and you are ready to roll. If you only need an extra 100 miles to get to your hotel, it will require even less then this. Keep in mind this is current technology, and it will only get better.

Now for the kicker. There are 46,000 miles of highway in the US. Tesla plans to start with distances of nearly 300 miles between charging stations along highways, and move down. With a charging station at every 200 miles, along every highway in the US, that is a total of ONLY 200 charging stations to cover the entire US. Hardly an impossible task.

There is a lot of work to be done, and naysayers like yourself don't help, but as the thread started stated the days gasoline cars are numbered. For everyone a Tesla does not make sense today, for many it does. In as little as 5-10 years (with the reduction in price of battery tech at CURRENT pace), the build out of fast charging infrastructure, and the numerous benefits of electric (cheaper to run, cleaner, quieter, less maintenance, more room, etc) it will be common sense. The original gasoline cars didn't get on the road without work or issues either. This technology is the future, and the near future at that.