Tesla style ski boat?? Think it could happen?

[Steve B.]

If Musk took no for an answer, Tesla would not be the cool innovation that America is founded on. I'm all for other forms of locomotion.

Steve B.

[67King]

1 hour ago, 1HELLUVALIFE said:

........the majority of the power, 67 percent still comes from fossil fuels. 

Which is down from a peak of nearly 80% only 10 years ago.

 

That said, who the heck cares?  I know a few people who have Teslas, and a couple of them are car enthusiasts.  WHy do people like them?  Performance, handling, the ability to "fill up" at home, novelty, luxury, American.........and way down there on the list of people I konw who have them is the environmental aspect.  Electric vehicles have 100% of their torque availabe at 0RPM.  They have lower centers of gravity.  And you don't have to fill up while you are out running errands.  Sheesh, we could be recharging them from 100% coal based plants with similar efficiencies to gasoline engines and they'd still sell.  Sheesh, if I could get a day's use out of my boat and plug it in overnight, and be ready to go the next day without visiting a marina to fill up, I'd be all over that.  Add in the performance, and it isn't even close.  Seriously, who wouldn't want that?

[Falko]

4 hours ago, 05hammerhead said:

This is just not true. Nuclear is a great alternative.  

 

One thing that I think a lot of people are missing and Musk has started to try and capture it is that power plants dont just turn on and off as people use their power.  They dont add more coal to the fire when you decide to flip on your lights or crank up your AC.  They have to consistently run their plants to the max capacity that they believe people could use and will always be overproducing to the needs.  They try to keep this number around 10% I believe but in time like late evening when peoples ACs start turning off and lights are off etc, the plants are still running(Yes they can turn them down a little) and this waste number gets larger and larger, I believe its around 30%.  If instead of wasting this energy you could capture it in large cap batteries(like tesla has started doing) and use that energy during peak usage hours, you would DRASTICALLY reduce overall usage.  This energy could be used for AC, lights etc or even more dramatic, could be used to charge your car.   This could result in greater utilization of nuclear energy as well as reducing fossil fuel usage.  The problem with this is getting people on board with having these storage systems ($$$) and secondarily getting them to do things like charge their car at 2 AM vs at 530 PM when they get home from work and energy levels are at peak usage. 

IF you started doing shifted energy rates like they used to do where your night time power is half the cost of the day time, you would have people going to storage systems. 

[ejj]

Wow. There went this thread. 

[ORMailbuboater]

5 hours ago, 85 Barefoot said:

Government grant study?  The IER is a non-profit funded by corporations and receives no government funding.  Read their site.   It's a position paper writing machine against anything green or alternative from fossil fuels.  One of their board members currently serves as the managing director of federal affairs for the Koch Brothers and another is the President of a drilling company!  Heck the author of that study wrote a position paper on the same site advocating for the end of recycling due to its expense. 

Who makes money making raw products and not from recycled (and for that matter, fossil fuel consumption)...many, but especially the Koch brothers and oil drillers!

Sorry I meant to say that the position paper references government grant studies in their position.  You are correct.  My bad....

[67King]

14 minutes ago, ORMailbuboater said:

Sorry I meant to say that the position paper references government grant studies in their position.  You are correct.  My bad....

Dude, THANK YOU!  Not many mea culpas come out of threads like these.  Nice to see folks still capable of admitting errors.

 

Just think, though.  With electric boats, we wouldn't have to worry about ethanol!

[Sixball]

Nothing wrong or bad-about getting cleaner. Now if it works it does not need to be subsidized. And if you think Tesla is so inventive I only wish I could get some of you through the scientific lab at Ford or likely any of the big auto manufactures. It was no little thing to get to the standards and get the HP and fuel economy we see today! And for all the data lovers out there if only some of the papers that are not published were seen it would change many peoples minds. As for CO2 the levels found in samples of ice from before the industrial revaluation showed higher levels then than they are today. ( I have not looked in maybe seven years) but then just saying people like to use data to fit what they want you to believe.  And just think what the wiled fires are putting out, I am going out on a limb but probably close or more the the country will create man made. Lets be clean but get it wright before we spend money on something that is not working well. I just look at the air and water quality around Michigan forty years ago and today! The USA is doing its part and looking to do more. 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by Sixball

[67King]

45 minutes ago, Sixball said:

Nothing wrong or bad-about getting cleaner. Now if it works it does not need to be subsidized. And if you think Tesla is so inventive I only wish I could get some of you through the scientific lab at Ford or likely any of the big auto manufactures. It was no little thing to get to the standards and get the HP and fuel economy we see today!

Yeah.....um, been there, done that.  I was in V-Engine at Ford for years, the later portions of which working on later stuff, e.g. Coyote from late 2006 until I left.  Left at Summer shutdown in 2007.  So I wasn't at Research every day, but was enough.

And yes, Tesla is impressive.  Ford may have more resources and more brain power, but Ford lacks the attention span.

[bamaboy]

Did someone really brag about producing plastic and running leaded gasoline in this thread? 

 

SMH

 

Carry on

[SoDakSooner]

22 hours ago, sidekicknicholas said:

Epic made one too -

 

 

Beat me to it!

[95echelon]

23 hours ago, oldjeep said:

Nuclear is an alternative however getting plants approved and finding anywhere to store the waste is a huge problem.  The local plant has been getting temp permission after temp permission to store their waste in casks on the site since there is no where to take it.

Man if we only had the technology to reprocess nuclear fuel... Oh wait we do, but congress blocks it to pander to people who never bothered to go to high school science classes.

The best laymans article on Nuclear and how it could help solve all of our problems was ironically written by GQ in 2008: http://www.gq.com/story/nuclear-fuel-oil-dependence-meltdown

Bottom line is that if we went full nuclear we wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions and could change all of our cars and boats to hyrdrogen power made carbon neutrally (you can fill up like gas, unlike electric). You could have a fukoshima style meltdown every year and it would be a drop in the bucket (death toll and long term health wise) compared to what will happen 100 years from now with climate change. I'm into saltwater fish and I am going to miss the Great Barrier Reef.

[bamaboy]

I've heard nuclear is the most expensive energy to produce

Is that true?  Honest question

[95echelon]

4 minutes ago, bamaboy said:

I've heard nuclear is the most expensive energy to produce

Is that true?  Honest question

Much cheaper for Nuclear. Only issue is lack of education in america and the "not in my backyard argument". One european country that used to be full nuclear banned it and now buys it from one who hasnt banned it. I think France makes billions a year selling nuclear power to germany or something.

Actual 2011 statistics from the IER: http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

Quote

These costs are shown in the graph below. On average, in 2011, nuclear power had the lowest electricity production costs at 2.10 cents per kilowatt hour, and petroleum had the highest at 21.56 cents per kilowatt hour. However, since few petroleum units are used at that cost (petroleum only produced 0.7 percent of U.S. electricity in 2011), it is better to compare nuclear production costs to coal production costs, which averaged 3.23 cents per kilowatt hour in 2011 and to natural gas production costs which averaged 4.51 cents per kilowatt hour.

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by 95echelon

[granddaddy55]

On August 31, 2016 at 9:59 AM, oldjeep said:

Nuclear is an alternative however getting plants approved and finding anywhere to store the waste is a huge problem.  The local plant has been getting temp permission after temp permission to store their waste in casks on the site since there is no where to take it.

Actually every rod ever used ever anywhere would fit it an extremely large coliseum style basketball facility .  Our govetmevt has literally one and cause regulation and the desire to stop the nuclear industry is the reason their is no where to take it,. It's been done in Nevada safely for decades 

52 minutes ago, bamaboy said:

I've heard nuclear is the most expensive energy to produce

Is that true?  Honest question

Absolutely the cheapest once the investment has been made

3 hours ago, bamaboy said:

Did someone really brag about producing plastic and running leaded gasoline in this thread? 

 

SMH

 

Carry on

Yes it was to make a point that we humans without the extreme green movement did get rid of that toxin in 79-84'.  So we don't need the left telling us how to live.  Second, read!, carlin a lib was making a joke that in millennium terms the earth is not affected by man, man is affected by earth.  Read , don't skim unless your a speed reader, so here we go again "the earth in 10000 year terms is going to shake mankind off like s bad case of the fleas , and therefore how do you know the earth didn't make man so it could have plastic,". 

Point of my response to battery driven wake boats like tesla, my response was that whole movement is nothing but liberal and rhino chrony capitalism and it was our tax dollars that drove that not Teslas brilliance snd innovation , therefore non of it is going to happen unless someone gets paid or bribed and even then it will fail  unless the bribes and payments continue 

Edited September 1, 2016 by granddaddy55

[95echelon]

29 minutes ago, granddaddy55 said:

Actually every rod ever used ever anywhere would fit it an extremely large coliseum style basketball facility .  Our govetmevt has literally one and cause regulation and the desire to stop the nuclear industry is the reason their is no where to take it,. It's been done in Nevada safely for decades 

Absolutely the cheapest once the investment has been made

Yes it was to make a point that we humans without the extreme green movement did get rid of that toxin in 79-84'.  So we don't need the left telling us how to live.  Second, read!, carlin a lib was making a joke that in millennium terms the earth is not affected by man, man is affected by earth.  Read , don't skim unless your a speed reader, so here we go again "the earth in 10000 year terms is going to shake mankind off like s bad case of the fleas , and therefore how do you know the earth didn't make man so it could have plastic,". 

Point of my response to battery driven wake boats like tesla, my response was that whole movement is nothing but liberal and rhino chrony capitalism and it was our tax dollars that drove that not Teslas brilliance snd innovation , therefore non of it is going to happen unless someone gets paid or bribed and even then it will fail  unless the bribes and payments continue 

Yup and another great point is that spent nuclear fuel can be (and is in the greater world outside the US) reprocessed with an 80%+ reclamation rate but the states bans it. All that fuel we refuse to store could literally be fed right back into the reactor. It's like how diesels can run on fryer oil (ok bad analogy). 

Edit and to be more on topic: I dont love the electric movement. I want a tesla though mostly because its a cool and powerful car (model S). Top gear did an amazing segent on the honda FCX hydrogen car and made great points like the ability to make a cross country trip, less strip mining for the elements batteries require, etc. i think for the power required for boats that the only tech I know of that could make this work is hydrogen motors or hydrogen fuel cells generating electric power in the boat.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by 95echelon

[85 Barefoot]

43 minutes ago, granddaddy55 said:

Actually every rod ever used ever anywhere would fit it an extremely large coliseum style basketball facility .  Our govetmevt has literally one and cause regulation and the desire to stop the nuclear industry is the reason their is no where to take it,. It's been done in Nevada safely for decades 

Absolutely the cheapest once the investment has been made

Yes it was to make a point that we humans without the extreme green movement did get rid of that toxin in 79-84'.  So we don't need the left telling us how to live.  Second, read!, carlin a lib was making a joke that in millennium terms the earth is not affected by man, man is affected by earth.  Read , don't skim unless your a speed reader, so here we go again "the earth in 10000 year terms is going to shake mankind off like s bad case of the fleas , and therefore how do you know the earth didn't make man so it could have plastic,". 

Point of my response to battery driven wake boats like tesla, my response was that whole movement is nothing but liberal and rhino chrony capitalism and it was our tax dollars that drove that not Teslas brilliance snd innovation , therefore non of it is going to happen unless someone gets paid or bribed and even then it will fail  unless the bribes and payments continue 

Really, really want to respond in full but I would violate the TOU.  But, this is an accurate statement: HR 4084 was proposed last year. Here's what it would do:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/262160-new-legislation-to-empower-next-generation-nuclear

Good people, with good intentions, with big brains, are working to solve our energy predicament.  Why we, as Americans, are satisfied with the status quo competing with countries to that we don't like whose sole resource is oil, is beyond me.  We have the capital, brainpower, and motivation to spur a permanent global energy shift away from oil, rendering countries and interests with whom we disagree powerless, and will be a boon for American companies who lead that charge.  Only a few countries have the ability to do that.  We're one, and we're getting passed because we are stuck in the old way of thinking and resort to name calling (left that, lib this, green movement that). The quicker we realize that IC engines will be dinosaurs and SOMEONE is going to profit off that, we should be supporting that transition if, for nothing else, American profits!  What's the difference between buying oil from Iran, Russia, or Venezuela and buying technology from India and China?  Nothing, except we can't control our need for oil but we can control our own destiny with regard to making renewable energy better and more cost-effective.  That's why I support Tesla's vision and motivation, and any other American company thinking outside the box so that we are energy leaders, not mere purchasers of an energy source that the sooner it can become obsolete, the better.

 

[shadetreefab]

Because oil makes people lots of money.

[85 Barefoot]

Correct.  And right now that enriches a lot of people we don't even like.  It's not that oil makes people money, energy makes people money.  I posit that we have more to gain economically (if nothing else, at least keep it on our shores...a penny saved is a penny earned after all) embracing the clean energy movement than reacting to others who are moving faster.

Edited September 1, 2016 by 85 Barefoot

[oldjeep]

Might as well cut out the middle-man and just power the boat directly

Edited September 1, 2016 by oldjeep

[bamaboy]

2 hours ago, granddaddy55 said:

Second, read!, carlin a lib was making a joke that in millennium terms the earth is not affected by man, man is affected by earth.  Read , don't skim unless your a speed reader, so here we go again "the earth in 10000 year terms is going to shake mankind off like s bad case of the fleas , and therefore how do you know the earth didn't make man so it could have plastic,".

Sorry I'm a millenial.  Anything over a paragraph and I lose interest.

 

SQUIRREL!!!

[05hammerhead]

1 hour ago, oldjeep said:

Might as well cut out the middle-man and just power the boat directly

I worked on a few DARPA grants in my day and many of the conferences I attended had others working on these types of projects.  Would be a cool idea someday. 

[Rednucleus]

On 8/31/2016 at 5:58 AM, 1HELLUVALIFE said:

Still burning fossil fuels to charge your "green" cars and boats. 

 

That depends on your source of electricity. Hydroelectric around here. I would love an electric tow boat that would go for 2-3 hours

[sunvalleylaw]

3 hours ago, Rednucleus said:

That depends on your source of electricity. Hydroelectric around here. I would love an electric tow boat that would go for 2-3 hours

Yeah, I was thinking that about Idaho too.  Though Idaho does have some coal plants, that they are looking at decreasing.  http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article52010280.html.  

And the lower snake dams are a controversy as well.  

Edited September 2, 2016 by sunvalleylaw

[granddaddy55]

On September 1, 2016 at 1:06 PM, 85 Barefoot said:

Really, really want to respond in full but I would violate the TOU.  But, this is an accurate statement: HR 4084 was proposed last year. Here's what it would do:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/262160-new-legislation-to-empower-next-generation-nuclear

Good people, with good intentions, with big brains, are working to solve our energy predicament.  Why we, as Americans, are satisfied with the status quo competing with countries to that we don't like whose sole resource is oil, is beyond me.  We have the capital, brainpower, and motivation to spur a permanent global energy shift away from oil, rendering countries and interests with whom we disagree powerless, and will be a boon for American companies who lead that charge.  Only a few countries have the ability to do that.  We're one, and we're getting passed because we are stuck in the old way of thinking and resort to name calling (left that, lib this, green movement that). The quicker we realize that IC engines will be dinosaurs and SOMEONE is going to profit off that, we should be supporting that transition if, for nothing else, American profits!  What's the difference between buying oil from Iran, Russia, or Venezuela and buying technology from India and China?  Nothing, except we can't control our need for oil but we can control our own destiny with regard to making renewable energy better and more cost-effective.  That's why I support Tesla's vision and motivation, and any other American company thinking outside the box so that we are energy leaders, not mere purchasers of an energy source that the sooner it can become obsolete, the better.

 

We keep discovering the newest biggest find on earth sometimes right here in our shale, we are never going to run out and again I restate , NOTHING outperforms a gallon of gas even at $10 per gallon Europe prices 

ever see of read atlas shrugged, it's about chrony capitalism which I'd always deciding who will be winners and who will be losers , the economy and capitalism should make those decisions not some one of entity like s government and its "chronies"

Edited September 8, 2016 by granddaddy55

[67King]

9 hours ago, granddaddy55 said:

We keep discovering the newest biggest find on earth sometimes right here in our shale, we are never going to run out and again I restate , NOTHING outperforms a gallon of gas even at $10 per gallon Europe prices 

ever see of read atlas shrugged, it's about chrony capitalism which I'd always deciding who will be winners and who will be losers , the economy and capitalism should make those decisions not some one of entity like s government and its "chronies"

Multiple times.  Elon Musk could be Hank Reardon, and your cronies could easily be James Taggart and his allies.  One guy creates a new technology with the ability to drastically change teh existing transportation system, by putting his heart, soul, and every penny he owns into the company.  The existing infrastructure uses its political allies to do everyting they can to create doubt, discredit, and otherwise suppress the new technology.  For example, Tesla can't sell in multiple states.  Without exception, the states that have prevented Tesla from entering the market under the - to be blunt - completely bullcrap guise of consumer choice have been run by your cronies.

Why is it that those who claim to want a free market, competition, increased choice, etc. have become the ones who most fervently support the status quo, and do everything they can to prevent innovation from hitting the market?  Well......except financial innovation.  They completely support new and creative ways for the banks to scheme people out of their money.  I mean, credit default swaps?  Really?  That'd be like the bar tender being able to take out a life insurance policy wiht himself as the beneficiary on the biggest drunk who frequents the place and drives home every night.  But let Tesla sell cars in Michigan?  No, can't have that.

Sorry, no one who uses the term "Rino" has any right, whatsoever, to lecture others on "chrony capitalism."