I am all over the map?

How does anything that happens with a Tesla matter to a Porsche built vehicle?

That is the point of the link to the GM vehicle fires. If Tesla fires mean someyhing to Porsches then by that same logic GM fires must also.

I am not taking this serious at all but if you are going to continue with your "fire connections" I will continue with mine.

Fair is fair, isn't it? It is all just fun and games.

 

based up this supposition then i have no choice but to conclude you have no understanding of "causal relationships". as this makes no sense vis a vis any "causal relationship" at all.

a battery powered porsche ( OR tesla for that matter! ) and v6 fuel powered GM cars catching fire has NOTHING at all in common with one another beyond the fact that ALL THREE ARE CARS! that's where their commonality begins and ends!

it's only germane to the conversation ( cars catching fire ) IF lithium batteries *might* be involved with both porsche and tesla battery powered/assisted, cars and any propensity for them to combust existed. ( i'll give you that is still up for debate as there is nothing definitive to suggest they will ALL catch fire lol )

but the link you provided that referenced GM vehicles that were NOT hybrid or battery operated had NO BEARING ( sorry, i have bearings on my mind for a moment ) on the topic at all.

so, while yes, it's all certainly "fun and games", it's also helpful when attempting to advance a debate, ANY debate, that all involved are comparing apples to apples.

given your link to gm fires ( again, having nothing whatsoever to do with any batteries at all ) made NO sense relative to the discourse i "thought" we were having! hence my reference to your being "all over the map". perhaps i should've suggested you were grasping at straws?

 

The link about GM was in regards to all cars have the potenial to burn down so you better go check you garage your Turbo may be on fire. That is the same logic as you saying Teslas burning down means all cars with LiIon batteries will/could burn.

I have brought up the fact that Porsche has had hybrids on the roads for years with LiIon batteries and so far as I have read none have burned down. None.

Tesla fires have nothing to do with Porsche or any other car manufacturer. There is no "casual relationship". None. Tesla fires have to do with Tesla. Period.

 

you firmly reside within the 1/2% lol of those that cannot be helped, irrespective of any logic they may be presented with.

 

i like the look of that electroporsche excluding the suicide doors which need to go.

Anyone who thinks that because they have invested in some private company with an idea, they have an inside track on how new technology will be rolled out to the masses, especially on something as gray as cars that drive themselves, is about to lose their entire investment.

Shareholder laws protect those who own publicly traded stocks significant more than private co's. You're pretty much on your own with a private company.

 

well, if you REALLY wanna start some sh*t, might i suggest you come over and bring a matchbook or two as that is beginning to look like the only way i'll ever get out of this one without losing my a**. ( given of course, it only has one regular 12volt NON LITHIUM ION BATTERY, it's gonna probably take propellant too )

..and i think it's about time, actually, that you do me a favor hah!

 

I'd choose the electrical chair over the electrical Porsche.

 

Thanks for the investing 101 lesson. I will be sure to keep it mind going forward.

The company I invested in has a lot more than an "idea". They have functioning contracts to supply their products to most major auto manufactures.

And maybe you should read through the new highway bill that just passed the USA congress. There are timelines for autonomous collision avoidance technology and groundwork funding for municipalities in it. NHTSA also just issued timelines for colision avoidance testing and ratings as well.

 

LOL.

 

IMHO ,,,
Global trend is for all automakers to go electric by 2050,, probably 50% by 2030, depending on the particular use of the vehicle.
It only makes sense as renewable energy is only way for this planet to survive and the agenda is on most of the policy makers and smart consumers minds.
Is this why OPEC is dumping oil at this level ,, to prepare for the end of fossil fuel reserve ,, say in 30 - 40 years?
Yes the charm of smoke and grease, from our romantic idea of motor sports will die out soon or later.
Having visited a Porsche showroom last week ,, looking into the engine bay of new Turbo S ,, all I saw were three holes staring back at me. Oil, water and steering fluid. I like the idea of looking at an engine, when I open the hood.

Even this 996 TT we drive has too many computers and hydraulics... still far more rawness than the new 911s they are making and for the price we have paid and what we get in return is not too bad.

Also if you look at recent auction prices of old timers ,, perhaps it is a prudent investment to stock up on classic cars?

 

You're kidding, right?

 

This is the sticker I made for my 'other' car

 

Maybe that should read "Canada", since it is the leading oil exporter to the United States... about three times as much imported from them vs. Saudi Arabia.

 

Dock ,, LOL ,, did I open a can of worms here?
Whats happening in China, Mongolian desert, fast developing cities in Africa,, not so funny. The impact of pollution from China is choking the skies of Seoul and Tokyo,, dry dust storms of Gobi also ,, Sahara yellow storm rains on Europe every spring and winter ,, if you park your car outside ,, I have seen 5 mm of yellow dust on some cases.. all into our lungs.

Currently there are 500 million vehicles in the world ,, by 2030 it will rise to 1 billion. First thing a developing economies wants is a car, in the garage. At this rate ,, major population area of the world, which is on the coastal lines will be under the water. Rising water table will sink all the cities, from Sydney to Manhattan,, Bangladeshi will dissappear,, cities and towns alone the Rhine and Danube ,, The parliament under the Thames. LOL ,,, anno 2,100 ,,, only in aother life time.


Recent Paris accord on Climate Change high lights.


PAGE 21
TEMPERATURE INCREASE
“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”
JUSTIN GILLIS, CLIMATE SCIENCE REPORTER:
This agreement adopts a more ambitious target for limiting global warming than in the past by mentioning 1.5 degrees Celsius as part of the concrete goal to stay well below 2 degrees. If that were to be actually achieved, it would likely ward off some of the most severe effects of climate change. For example, although we don’t know the exact temperature, there is a trigger point at which the whole Greenland ice sheet and the West Antarctic ice sheet will melt. There is a chance that staying below 2 degrees Celsius would avoid that trigger point, and an even better chance if we stay below 1.5 degrees.
PAGE 22
PRESERVATION OF FORESTS
“Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.”
JUSTIN GILLIS, CLIMATE SCIENCE REPORTER:
This provision is the most significant recognition given in one of these agreements to the role forests play in offsetting human actions. It is meant as a political signal that countries should enact policies that have been developed over the last decade to save the world’s remaining intact forests. Tropical countries would likely be paid with both public and private money if they succeed in reducing or limiting destruction of their forests due to logging, or clearance for food production.
PAGE 25
BEARING THE COST
“As part of a global effort, developed country Parties should continue to take the lead in mobilizing climate finance from a wide variety of sources, instruments and channels, noting the significant role of public funds, through a variety of actions, including supporting country-driven strategies, and taking into account the needs and priorities of developing country Parties. Such mobilization of climate finance should represent a progression beyond previous efforts.”
MELISSA EDDY, BERLIN CORRESPONDENT:
Many developing and smaller countries are disappointed that the agreement does not name a specific number – a goal of at least $100 billion a year in contributions from rich countries is mentioned only in the preamble, which is not legally binding. Developing nations maintain that even that sum would not be enough to help them build up a power system quickly or cheaply enough based on renewable energy sources rather than coal and oil.
PAGE 27
TRANSPARENCY
“In order to build mutual trust and confidence and to promote effective implementation, an enhanced transparency framework for action and support, with built-in flexibility which takes into account Parties’ different capacities and builds upon collective experience is hereby established.”
CORAL DAVENPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY REPORTER:
The issue of transparency was a hard red line for the United States, which argued for a single system through which the carbon reductions of all countries, whether industrialized or developing, could be evaluated. Establishing this system constitutes a success for the United States, and represents a key to establishing trust among all countries.
PAGE 21
ABSENCE OF “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS NEUTRALITY”
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
CORAL DAVENPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY REPORTER:
Advocates say this wording sends a clear message to the fossil-fuel industry that much of the world’s remaining reserves of coal, oil and gas must stay in the ground and cannot be burned. But the agreement does not call, as a previous version did, for “reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century,” a provision that oil-producing countries fiercely resisted. The current language suggests that at least some fossil fuels can continue to burn, as long as the greenhouse gas emissions are absorbed by a larger number of “greenhouse sinks,” like new forests.
PAGE 25
LOSS AND DAMAGE
“Parties recognize the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage.”
MELISSA EDDY, BERLIN CORRESPONDENT:
This is the first time the term “loss and damage” has been included in an international agreement, meeting a demand from smaller, island countries for acknowledgement of their suffering from the effects of climate change. Although the language stops short of mentioning liability – opposed by more heavily polluted industrialized nations – it is still considered a significant step toward recognition of the damage that results from rising global temperatures.
PAGE 22
FIVE-YEAR CONTRIBUTIONS
“Each Party shall communicate a nationally determined contribution every five years in accordance with decision 1/CP.21 and any relevant decisions of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement and be informed by the outcomes of the global stocktake referred to in Article 14.”
SEWELL CHAN, INTERNATIONAL NEWS EDITOR, LONDON:
This legally requires countries to come back every five years with new reduction targets for emissions that will be evaluated. Bringing the number down to five-year limits constitutes a tightening of the accord, as some countries, India in particular, had demanded 10-year cycles.

 

There is a difference between air pollution and global climate change.

Reducing pollution is a good idea. Changing global climate cycles is nothing man can do.