Tesla Launch of Pick-Up

Sounds like junk science to me. Funded by the oil companies?

ShinerBock wrote:
Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Okay, okay, we are all going to die -- eventually. Happy now?

Why would I be happy about dying? I think you are mistaking my willingness to admit that Tesla(and many EV's) have many hurdles to overcome in order to meet their expected growth goals as me being some sort of pessimist about everything. Far from the truth.

As I stated before, just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a (insert dehumanizing label here). It just means they have a different world view than you do with different experiences. You can't move forward by pretending everything is perfect and labeling those that disagree in order to shut them up.

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Another adage that you might want to get wisdom from: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I don't find myself in holes because I have enough sense to foresee problems and find solutions instead of sticking my head and one pretending that no problems exists.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
1. Direct knowledge, where his daughter actually presided over the plant's decommissioning is better than your crystal balling.

Again, the plant you speak of has no bearing on what I was talking about so it does not matter who has direct knowledge of what.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
2. Air quality actually improve in urban green zones -- even if surrounded by residential area.

That is not what I hear like most "feel good" ideas that is backed by no data.....

Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

The CO2 that trees consume is not an mediate health risk. NOx and PM is a mediate health risk, and trees do not consume these. Mainly areas with high population densities have issues with these two health risks. Most rural areas away from these metro areas don't have enough of a concentration of them to be a health risk.

Okay, okay, we are all going to die -- eventually. Happy now?

OMG, somebody said here, arguing with you is a lot worse than arguing with his wife.

I just but agree and worst -- like the wife is drunk or something.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:


Another adage that you might want to get wisdom from: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

I don't find myself in holes because I have enough sense to foresee problems and find solutions instead of sticking my head in one pretending that no problems exists.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
1. Direct knowledge, where his daughter actually presided over the plant's decommissioning is better than your crystal balling.

Again, the plant you speak of has no bearing on what I was talking about so it does not matter who has direct knowledge of what.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
2. Air quality actually improve in urban green zones -- even if surrounded by residential area.

That is not what I hear like most "feel good" ideas that is backed by no data.....

Greener But Not Cleaner? How Trees Can Worsen Urban Air Pollution

The CO2 that trees consume is not an mediate health risk. NOx and PM is a mediate health risk, and trees do not consume these. Mainly areas with high population densities have issues with these two health risks. Most rural areas away from these metro areas don't have enough of a concentration of them to be a health risk.

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

May I recommend that you should just stick to what you know? lol


My neighbor's, and hunting buddy, daughter worked there. She lost her job as plant-supply chain manager but get a higher paying new gig with Amazon.

LOL, I would say the same to you about your passed assumptions about the medium/heavy duty industry, "poverty level" salaries in other states, and how electric utilities work in other states.

What does Amazon or your hunting buddy have to do with the list of mainly office positions that left have to anything?

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
And what are you talking about "higher population density" is causing pollution? In California? Where if you want to develop tracks of land, usually bare desert, for housing, you have to plant trees along roadways and pathways, reserve a good portion of it complex for green area and semi-forested parks and currently, new homes are with built-in solar paneled roofs, otherwise it would not sell?

Higher population density causes greater pollution in a given area especially things such as NOx which stagnates in the troposphere where it is bad pollution. This is why southern California's air pollution is so bad and needs to be heavily regulated. This is not the case in most other areas of the US due to its much lower population densities. Emissions such as NOx, which has a very short lifespan due to its reactivity, has a chance to dissipate into the stratosphere(where it is a good thing) so the same regulations are not needed.

Decreasing the population density(moving away from metro areas) would be a lot better for local air pollution than many of these regulations or even lower emissions vehicles.

Another adage that you might want to get wisdom from: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

1. Direct knowledge, where his daughter actually presided over the plant's decommissioning is better than your crystal balling.

2. Air quality actually improve in urban green zones -- even if surrounded by residential area.

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

May I recommend that you should just stick to what you know? lol


My neighbor's, and hunting buddy, daughter worked there. She lost her job as plant-supply chain manager but get a higher paying new gig with Amazon.

LOL, I would say the same to you about your passed assumptions about the medium/heavy duty industry, "poverty level" salaries in other states, and how electric utilities work in other states.

What does Amazon or your hunting buddy have to do with the list of mainly office positions that left have to anything?

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:
And what are you talking about "higher population density" is causing pollution? In California? Where if you want to develop tracks of land, usually bare desert, for housing, you have to plant trees along roadways and pathways, reserve a good portion of it complex for green area and semi-forested parks and currently, new homes are with built-in solar paneled roofs, otherwise it would not sell?

Higher population density causes greater pollution in a given area especially things such as NOx which stagnates in the troposphere where it is bad pollution. This is why southern California's air pollution is so bad and needs to be heavily regulated. This is not the case in most other areas of the US due to its much lower population densities. Emissions such as NOx, which has a very short lifespan due to its reactivity, has a chance to dissipate into the stratosphere(where it is a good thing) so the same regulations are not needed.

Decreasing the population density(moving away from metro areas) would be a lot better for local air pollution than many of these regulations or even lower emissions vehicles.

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

I'll say let me them.

My neighbor used to be a polluting, noisy and smelly steel plant. I guess they moved somewhere to Midwest.

I'm not shedding a tear over it. Specially that Amazon took over their property.

Many of those named in that articles were not "smelly plants". They were cooperate headquarters of manufacturing companies. But hey, if it makes you feel better to eat sour grapes then by all means.

Also, population density plays a big role in increasing local pollution. Much of southern California's pollution problem is their own doing and the same environmental issues are not shared throughout most places through out the US so they don't need the same emissions laws. But instead of moving and spreading out to lessen the local pollution that are causing the health, the self righteous hypocrites want to move their pollution to someone else's backyard (while still enjoying the benefits) so they don't have to be set back.

May I recommend that you should just stick to what you know? lol

My neighbor's, and hunting buddy, daughter worked there. She lost her job as plant-supply chain manager but get a higher paying new gig with Amazon.

And what are you talking about "higher population density" is causing pollution? In California? Where if you want to develop tracks of land, usually bare desert, for housing, you have to plant trees along roadways and pathways, reserve a good portion of it complex for green area and semi-forested parks and currently, new homes are with built-in solar paneled roofs, otherwise it would not sell?

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

I'll say let me them.

My neighbor used to be a polluting, noisy and smelly steel plant. I guess they moved somewhere to Midwest.

I'm not shedding a tear over it. Specially that Amazon took over their property.

Many of those named in that articles were not "smelly plants". They were cooperate headquarters of manufacturing companies. But hey, if it makes you feel better to eat sour grapes then by all means.

Also, population density plays a big role in increasing local pollution. Much of southern California's pollution problem is their own doing and the same environmental issues are not shared throughout most places through out the US so they don't need the same emissions laws. But instead of moving and spreading out to lessen the local pollution that are causing the health, the self righteous hypocrites want to move their pollution to someone else's backyard (while still enjoying the benefits) so they don't have to be set back.

time2roll wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

NJRVer wrote:

Your city's power company must be pretty backwards.
Go into any area of population and all you have to do is look up at the poles and see the lines that are run. In NJ the power companies keep up with development. Large power hog coming in, power company makes sure they can handle it. If not they will be stringing more cable on the poles. Not unusual to see 6 lines on one pole around here with all the development. This is just the regular wooden telephone pole on the side of the road, not the high tension towers.

Compare that to rural NC where I own property and there is one strand of wire on a telephone pole that is about 30% smaller than the poles here in NJ and the one wire on that pole looks like a piece of Romex.
Not going to run very many MegaChargers off that line.

Apparently my cities utility is not alone.....

Vast Majority of Utilities Just Beginning to Cope With EV Growth

If they don't have plans to handle EV cars in just 10-15 years, then how can they also handle EV semi's as well?

Forget the survey monkeys and self proclaimed pundits. Check with your actual utility. Is SATX San Antonio TX? Is that CPS energy?

CPS Energy is embracing plug-in vehicles

Jersey Central seems to encourage EVs

As for that single wire power transmission line.... is your phone still on a party line too? Perfect reason to pull the other two wires and get proper three phase power to your area. How long do you plan to have this out dated line limit the local economy and growth? Dang it this is America... get moving already. We were once a nation of doers instead of whiners.

Jersey Central is not very well liked. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do maintenance and upgrades.
Other power company, PSE&G, took it upon themselves to install a solar collector on just about every pole they own.

ShinerBock wrote:

Yosemite Sam1 wrote:

Bock -- your expertise may be needed here.

https://forums.goodsamclub.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/29805132.cfm

Nope, I think I'll stay here.

You need to rain on their parade of Tesla cheerleaders and EV fan club there.