Electric Tesla Roadster 0-60 FOUR SECONDS!

[Royal Dragon]

Electric Tesla Roadster (http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?ei=UTF-8&p=Tesla+roadster&b=0&oid=8f7aea5213fb9908&rurl=video.yahoo.com&vdone=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.yahoo.com%2Fvideo%2Fsearc h%3Fei%3DUTF-8%26p%3DTesla%2Broadster)


http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

[Flying-Monkey]

Who wants to bet that this company stays small or goes bankrupt? Electrics will not be big any time soon.

The irony is that you plug the car in and the electric from the outlet comes from a factory that burns coal and oil to produce electricity.:rolleyes:

[Royal Dragon]

It comes with a Solar recharge option.....

[Yao Sing]

The original Tesla electric car had it's own power source and didn't use batteries.

[Chief Fox]

Who wants to bet that this company stays small or goes bankrupt? Electrics will not be big any time soon.

The irony is that you plug the car in and the electric from the outlet comes from a factory that burns coal and oil to produce electricity.:rolleyes:
Dude, this is a huge step in the right direction. The electricity could be generated via, solar power, wind or hydro. Don't be such a nay sayer.

[Royal Dragon]

Dude, this is a huge step in the right direction.

Reply]
Ur darn right it is!! This car tops 130 MPH!!!! It out accelerates my IROC, and only gets beat at the top end (I've had My IROC past 140 MPH)

[TenTigers]

boy, talk about being behind the times. When I was in Jr. High School back in the late sixties,early seventies, my Dad bought me a subscription to Popular Science. They showed solar power, windmills, water power, huge turbines designed to be powered by the changing of the tides. We had the technology back then, we've had the technology for all these years. Why aren't we using it?
This is the question all inhabitants on this planet should be asking.

[Mr Punch]

Why aren't we using it?
Because oil companies and tobacco companies fund too much dodgy research. (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/19/the-smoke-behind-the-deniers-fire-3/)

As do shady think tanks, covert lobbyists and vested interests. (http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/26/whos-paying/)

'Everlasting' lightbulbs, solar powered cars, Iceland fishing fleet (powered completely by hydrogen fule cell technology by 2010 - with sponsorship taken over by, yep, Shell, and strangely few exports of that technology internationally), wind-up radio-cassettes (even Sony produced one, but presumably that's when the battery companies cut Sony a slice), rechargeable batteries (which should be available everywhere, but the same companies produce them as the standard ones...!) with solar powered chargers...

it's an old story.

Make some noise!

[Royal Dragon]

It's not that we didn't have the technology, it's more like it hasn't evolved enough to be cost effective....untill now ----- > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

[Flying-Monkey]

Dude, this is a huge step in the right direction. The electricity could be generated via, solar power, wind or hydro. Don't be such a nay sayer.

I am just stating how it is. I remember when this car was ugly and yellow like 6 years ago. When an electric car can go from NY to LA without stopping and not cost an arm and a leg, then people will that it seriously.

[Chief Fox]

I am just stating how it is. I remember when this car was ugly and yellow like 6 years ago. When an electric car can go from NY to LA without stopping and not cost an arm and a leg, then people will that it seriously.
I understand being realistic but you can also be positive. The power plant in the town were I live burns coal but it's the cleanest coal burning facility there is. No black smoke coming out of that place. We're making progress slowly. But progress is progress.

[David Jamieson]

solar or windmill power charge options with alternates to run the excess power into the house would be a huge step forward.

Charge stations in a neighbourhood even. There's a lot of possibilities. And yes, the only reason this is held back is because of money and figuring out how to market it and remain proftable.

It may not necessarily be cheaper early on because the initial investments have to be covered. That's how it is with any new tech. remember when a 286 cost 10k? or RAM was 100 bucks a meg?

once the nut is covered, the price will drop and so, the well to do and desperately wanting are the ones who pay for the initial runs. if there is enough of that, then it is done over again and againa and presto, we gots clean air!

[FuXnDajenariht]

wow phillip morris is just all around evil huh? :rolleyes:

[Flying-Monkey]

I know you guys know that solar panels are around 10% efficient. And those windmills are not good for wildlife. Most plants burn coal or oil. Plus, we (th people of the world) will not stop using fossil fuel until the last drop. And I know what you see on the news, but we are not going to run out any time soon (not 20 years). We need to find alternative fuels that we can grow to power our cars and plants; bio fuel and alcohol.

[Royal Dragon]

I know you guys know that solar panels are around 10% efficient.

Reply]
Look at the link I posted, this company has a spray on material that is way more effective at collecting solar power than just a measly 10%.

>>And those windmills are not good for wildlife.

Reply]
I had not heard that, how so?

>>Most plants burn coal or oil. Plus, we (th people of the world) will not stop using fossil fuel until the last drop.

Reply]
Agreed.

And I know what you see on the news, but we are not going to run out any time soon (not 20 years). We need to find alternative fuels that we can grow to power our cars and plants; bio fuel and alcohol.

See, the thing is this, we used oil for much more than powering cars, we use it to make lubercants that run the manufacturing machines that make...well EVERYTHING we have. We also use Oil to make plastics, that are the main compnent of, again, just about everything we have.

Then there are solvents used in paints, and industries. All that comes from Oils as well.

Crude oil is the main component that makes vertually every aspect of modern life possible. Without it, we are going to go back to a feudal existance where things are made out of the wildlife surrounding us.

Finding clean burning fuel for our cars is a minor issue that is already solved. It's justgoing to take time for us to make the switch. But even when we do so, we will still need oil on a masive scale...it's just that we will need it on a slightly less massive scale.

[David Jamieson]

I know you guys know that solar panels are around 10% efficient. And those windmills are not good for wildlife. Most plants burn coal or oil. Plus, we (th people of the world) will not stop using fossil fuel until the last drop. And I know what you see on the news, but we are not going to run out any time soon (not 20 years). We need to find alternative fuels that we can grow to power our cars and plants; bio fuel and alcohol.


most plants burning coal oil are in the US. In Canada for instance, In Ontario it's Largest province, 50+% of the electricity generated is from Nuclear source with about another 20-25% from hydro electric dams and therest in alternates and coal/oil.

Canada is phasing out coal / oil tech and ramping up alternates and nuclear.
Quebec, our other big province has less nuke and more hydro electric. In the western provinces, where the populations are less significant, there si mroe coal oil, but 80% of the countries population lives in Ontario and Quebec.

[SifuAbel]

http://www.acpropulsion.com/

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_html_home.htm

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_performance.htm


Also, catch the the nextfest 2006 on discovery channel. Ford and toyota are unvailing their new hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

[Radhnoti]

My understanding is that even PRODUCING hydrogen or electric fuel cells takes up huge amounts of energy...which typically comes from a traditional power plant. That's the hypocrisy of the much touted hybrid cars, there's no net environmental gain, just feel-good nonsense.
Recycling? Most recycling plants use as much in materials (again at the power plant down the road) as they save.
Solar panels, as someone mentioned, are made from fossil fuel and the panels (again) take energy to produce.
Nuclear is good, but good luck getting it past the U.S. environmentalists.
Windmills kill birds by blocking their easiest flying lanes.
Hydroelectrics on rivers endanger minnows.
Hydroelectrics on oceans block views from the Kennedy compound. :D Plus it's energy and techno intensive to transmit power that kind of distance under corrosive sea water.

[5Animals1Path]

My understanding is that even PRODUCING hydrogen or electric fuel cells takes up huge amounts of energy...which typically comes from a traditional power plant. That's the hypocrisy of the much touted hybrid cars, there's no net environmental gain, just feel-good nonsense.
Recycling? Most recycling plants use as much in materials (again at the power plant down the road) as they save.
Solar panels, as someone mentioned, are made from fossil fuel and the panels (again) take energy to produce.
Nuclear is good, but good luck getting it past the U.S. environmentalists.
Windmills kill birds by blocking their easiest flying lanes.
Hydroelectrics on rivers endanger minnows.
Hydroelectrics on oceans block views from the Kennedy compound. :D Plus it's energy and techno intensive to transmit power that kind of distance under corrosive sea water.


No matter which way we use, it's gonna have additional effects in addition to the absolute intended one.

It's all about which one makes us feel the least guilty, and who's got the power.

No pun intended.

[David Jamieson]

Well, there's all kinds of ways to generate electricity, probably a few we haven't thought of yet.

The fear of nuclear is valid in the context of knowledge of likelyhood of human error. But they are pretty close to dummy proof now and it is the waste that becomes the issue. But in reality it is super clean as energy sources go and powerful.

Perception is what is hurting the implementation of it on an effective level. But it clearly the next step in energy tech taht hasn't properly been given it's day in the sun. :p

[Mr Punch]

My understanding is that even PRODUCING hydrogen or electric fuel cells takes up huge amounts of energy...which typically comes from a traditional power plant. Lack of research into economies of scale and making the technology viable due to lack of funding.


That's the hypocrisy of the much touted hybrid cars, there's no net environmental gain, just feel-good nonsense.Check out the Icelandic fishing fleet. Different technology.


Recycling? Most recycling plants use as much in materials (again at the power plant down the road) as they save.Recycling? Don't remember anyone mentioning it, but since you did: Lack of research into economies of scale and making the technology viable due to lack of funding.


Solar panels, as someone mentioned, are made from fossil fuel and the panels (again) take energy to produce.So what? There is always a downside. But it's getting the balance right that counts. If we are producing enough solar panels to roof a town of ten thousand homes (for example) sure it'll take energy and hydrocarbons to produce, but then you'll have pretty much pollution-free and cost-free energy production with absolutely minimal maintenance for as long as we have sun.

It's one initial disadvantage, followed by a sunny future.
Compare it to any coal-burning or even nuclear plant in terms of maintenance, longevity and pollution and it's good. Of course compare it to those plants on how much electricity it puts out and it's nonsense: which is why sensible environmentalists advocate an integrated energy production system, not this bs you've just come up with of one vs another. It's classic divisive, diversionary apples-vs-oranges rhetoric.


Nuclear is good, but good luck getting it past the U.S. environmentalists.Nuclear is good, but let's look more sensibly at nuclear waste. There is no way of disposing of it safely. And currectly there is not enough of a financial incentive or disincentive for nuclear companies to invest in finding one. There have been no new ideas of how to dispose of nuclear waste since some bright spark suggested shooting it into space! :rolleyes:


Windmills kill birds by blocking their easiest flying lanes.How many? Besides, birds learn. Birds generally don't continue to do things that kill them... unlike humans I'm afraid.

And again. research would help... like not putting windmills in areas where there a re large populations of active birds. Difficult but not impossible.


Hydroelectrics on rivers endanger minnows.Now you're just taking the p1ss!


Hydroelectrics on oceans block views from the Kennedy compound. :D Plus it's energy and techno intensive to transmit power that kind of distance under corrosive sea waterI confess I know nothing about ocean hydroelectrics, so I'm going to go with: Lack of research into economies of scale and making the technology viable due to lack of funding! :D

And before some bright spark comes up with the govt budget of however many millions of dollars put into researching renewable energy it's still nothing compared to hydrocarbon research, advertising and disinformation. Apart from which, one govt research dollar is not equivalent to one conglomerate's private sector dollar: If you made strict legislation restricting the amount of exhaust allowed from cars per mile and per unit size and that that legislation was going to come in in ten years: saying for example that you could only produce cars with a 500 cc engine (!) you can bet that within ten years we'd have environmentally friendly hybrid/fuel cell cars with a huge cut in emissions.

We are in a crisis. Whether you believe human contribution to global warming is it's main cause or not you must be able to see that pumping millions of tons of poison into the atmoshere is not good for the planet and the ecosystems supporting human life. There will be more severe weather, water shortage, pollution (including it entering the food chain), migrating disease vectors and crop failure on a scale which will be responsible for the deaths of literally millions of people directly due to the warming of the planet, and every estimate of when that critical no-return tipping point is coming is getting closer to NOW. There are some of us who believe it's natural balance reasserting itself and overpopulation is a bad thing anyway, but who wants to see some of their family die?!

Personally I am pushing my govt to ban:


production of cars over 800 cc for private ownership

production of plastic bags (supermarket/store use)

production of any packaging which contains any poisonous or non-inertly-degradeable inks or materials (definitions to be discussed)

printing of any junk mail/fliers

production of aircon machines without a minimum temperature restriction of 28 deg (this is the temperature that Japanese govt scientists have said is not detrimental to human productivity - personally I find it too hot, and would be looking for research supporting 26 degs! :D )

ditto heaters without a max limit of 20 - it's not necessary, natural or good for your health to have your house like a sauna in the winter

BTW, politics-wise I am pretty much libertarian, but I believe we are in a state of emergency, and thus as we have not demonstrated for example the responsibility which goes with the privilege of car ownership that is one of the things which needs to be curtailed. Car ownership is a privilege, not a right, and certainly not a basic human one. Since we have now reached a point where irresponsible car use is causing physical damage to the health of the people and the planet it is encroaching on my freedoms and rights. Extreme? These are extreme times. In our lifetimes I'm fairly sure we will see people in our own countries fighting over clean water/food/shelter/some other basic human right: then we'll reassess what our priorities are.

BTW2, in this post, my own extreme views are below the part answering Rad's post about energy production... they are my opinion. The part about energy production is also my opinion but with a very firm basis is current research (as part of my job I am always looking into feasibility and viability of various environmental schemes over others). So please don't dismiss all of my views as a crank! :D My thoughts on my list of legislation I want to see are very open to discussion and change!

[Yao Sing]

That's what you guys seem to be missing. The original Tesla eletric car wasn't about the motor, it was about the power source.

First Tesla Electric Car (http://paranormal.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=paranormal&zu=http://keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm)

[David Jamieson]

yeah the magnet thing.

ever wonder about that? :p
we all get the demo as kids, here's one magnet, here's another one, flip one over and see how they repel each other.

now why isn't that energy source exploited more?

[Royal Dragon]

Maybe Telsas car didn't work, and it had some sort of battery in it. Maybe it was a scam.

[Shaolinlueb]

who killed the electric car. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/whokilledtheelectriccar/)

hopefully the same wont happen to the tesla car. like how they named it after Nikola Tesla.

i would own one if i could afford it. that thing is bad a$$.

[Gru Bianca]

Yao Sing

Right to point.:)
Tesla was a genius, so much so that the US government has confiscated hundreads of drawings and project Tesla patented.
Go figure why..........

[Radhnoti]

I don't think global warming has a single thing to do with us.

"On Mars, NASA and the California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory report a prolonged period of surface warming, and the Martian icecap is steadily receding. According to scientists, "the fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age."

Pluto is undergoing a similar period of global warming, scientists report. According to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology release, "Pluto is undergoing global warming, as evidenced by a three-fold increase in the planet's atmospheric pressure during the past 14 years, a team of astronomers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Williams College, the University of Hawaii, Lowell Observatory and Cornell University announced."

Climate changes occur regardless of human activity, and planet temperatures are always cooling or warming. Hence the end of the Ice Age...and the brief period of time when Vikings could settle and farm Greenland.
Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age.
Republicans use fear of (weak) national security to maintain power, Democrats try to use fear of environmental catastrophy (and individual group entitlement fears) to build power.
Thats my opinion.

[Mr Punch]

I think you're wrong.

Bottom line is:

If we don't do anything to alleviate CO2 emissions, cut polluting the food chain, cut overproduction etc our quality of life will go back 800 years.

If we do, it'll go back 50 years.

I wouldn't mind taking the same glass bottle to the vinegar store for refills until it breaks.

Anyway regardless of whether it's cosmic warming or global warming wouldn't you agree that it makes sense to not continue to pour vast quantities of poison into our air and sea? I don't care where you live in that big beautiful country of yours, sooner or later you'll be drinking the **** that some factory is spewing. Many companies statewide and a couple of states are waking up to this, and I don't understand people's (esp the great survivalist American people's) reluctance to stand up for their survival in this case. You'll carry a gun to defend yourself and your family but you won't stop driving a vehicle that gives you 14 miles to the gallon... of poisonous gas?

[Radhnoti]

I drive a Toyota that gets 30+ miles to the gallon most the time. :)

I just think the free market will sort it out. Oil starts getting scarce, prices will rise and people will quit driving huge SUVs. Simultaneously, it will become profitable to pump oil out from deeper in the ground...stabilizing the market.

As far as heating/cooling cycles, I don't think it could tip outside our survivable range. Ever heard of the "carbonate-silicate cycle"? It's not just a "other planets" phenomenon...

I have great confidence in mankind's ability to create and innovate...assuming they have the opportunity and the possibility of making a profit.

As far as "spewing poisons" go, I may be wrong...but it doesn't make a lot of sense for the U.S. to be hamstrung with regulations that the rest of the world doesn't have to follow (with the Kyoto treaty that would be China, India, etc.). The only results of that would be a loss of U.S. prestige/power and the rise of new superpowers without such moral compunctions. Local governments will and are passing more and more air/water protection regulations...not something that's likely to happen in more totalitarian regimes where "the people" have less say.