Yosemite used to be a nice place to visit in winter, but last time I went in feb 2020 there was traffic lined up to get in for over a mile. I asked the rangers at the entrance booths and they told me it was just as bad in the valley. We left. What a disappointment, the time I went before that was 1999 and it was quiet and beautiful. Too many people on planet Earth.

There's such things as energy storage facilities that can be throttled faster and more efficiently than conventional baseline plants. California has several, for instance, and Australia is a world leader in it. Even so, EV's cause less fossil fuels to be burned than a new ICE, you know that right? It sounds like you do, given your last sentence, which somewhat counters your first.

I worked at BMW in Munich and was in QC for a while. The problems I've found in my Tesla are minor compared with what was passed off on the assembly line in the Munich 3 series plant. Also, the Model 3 is considered one of the most reliable EV's in the US. Sorry, bro, but your "if-they-only" arguments are worthless in the real world. I'll put my Model 3 against anything in its price class.

The collapse of the USSR was a tragedy that could have been avoided if the US didn't have Bush in office at the time. Gorbachev was on the right track and had he succeeded in his reforms, Russia would look a lot more like Sweden or Norway right now. Yes, the USA ruined one of the greatest opportunities in history to make the world a better, more stable place.

My power mix in California is:

• Renewable (Bio/Geo/Hydro/Solar/Wind) = 33.6%
• Large Hydro = 9.2%
• Nuclear = 9.3
• Other = 7%
• Natural Gas = 37.9
• Coal = 3%

Even if EV's ran only on coal or natural gas they would still be far cleaner than ICE vehicles. Sorry, but I've seen your argument dozens of times and it's been refuted repeatedly by legitimate scientific organizations.

I'll agree with you that Tesla's QC could be better, but I've seen far worse from the Big 3. Just FYI: Toyota and VW both make EV's and they're not that great, certainly not better than Tesla. I agree that EV only is not the answer, we'll likely need syn-fuels, and H2 to fill the gap until EV's are ready to replace ICE's completely, which is very likely based on the current state of battery research still in the lab. You might want to do more research on EV's so you're more up to speed before commenting.

Not only that, but as the low-hanging fruit of easily-accessed oil dries up, it's going to take more and more energy to acquire and refine new sources of oil at higher costs. Like you say, oil requires a hell of a lot of energy to refine.

My best friend, not an educated man, just dumped $60K into a 3500 HD 4x4 truck he uses twice a year to actually haul something. I bought a Tesla that gets used constantly. He gave me static about it and laughed. I asked him how many foot rubs he has to give MBS to fill his tank. No laughs that time.

• A spaced based system could supply uninterrupted power with greater generation efficiency and could be built out much larger than its terrestrial counterpart.
• Several plants in orbit could be networked for power sharing optimization while using the same transmission infrastructure.
• Another facet is that a single power plant with orbital adjustments could be used across/between continents thus eliminating much terrestrial distribution infrastructure.

edit format

>Filling in the gaps

Yes, that's exactly my thoughts. Some examples are long-haul freight trucks and locomotives that travel from hub to hub where H2 infrastructure could be readily installed and likely cost effective. I'm looking at Tesla's semi and thinking an H2 fuel cell range extender would be the ticket to cross country hauling for such a rig.