Tesla Bankruptcy Looms!

Discussion in 'Energy' started by elektra, Dec 1, 2017.

  1. Viacheslav
    Offline

    Viacheslav VIP Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Thanks Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +95
    Tesla Model 3 quality is terrible, but will it matter to buyers?

    I think that these were the expected "problems" for the "new man" in the "mass" automobile industry.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Grumblenuts
    Offline

    Grumblenuts Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Ratings:
    +177
    The complaint quality here by our anti-America biased, Tesla hating contingent has been, in a word, appalling.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,270
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033






    That's funny, you don't defend any of the bad actions, and terrible quality of Tesla, and instead merely attack those who point out the flaws and the fact that tesla has never turned a profit. How a company can still command the stock prices it does, when it has never turned a profit in ANY year of its existence is more a testament of how gullible people are, and how they will still fall for Ponzi schemes, even when they have all the information they could ever want at their fingertips.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. Grumblenuts
    Offline

    Grumblenuts Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Ratings:
    +177
    "Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,270
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033




    Oh? What is "at stake" here?
     
  6. Syriusly
    Offline

    Syriusly Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Messages:
    50,427
    Thanks Received:
    6,360
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Ratings:
    +19,669
    Still no impending bankruptcy.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  7. Grumblenuts
    Offline

    Grumblenuts Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Ratings:
    +177
    Fails to address several direct, simple questions? Check!
    Sig line reveals to be proud climate science denier? Check!
    So doesn't care? Check! :(

    Well, I would try to explain some of what's at stake here, but you would simply deny it and most everyone who would listen already knows. The future of all life on Earth to be blunt. But you don't care about that, do you? Just admit it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,270
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033






    If you make the claim that there is something truly at stake then you have to present evidence to support that contention. I can show you chapter and verse that hybrids like the Prius are more harmful to the environment than a Ford F-150. I can show you chapter and verse that biofuels are horrible for the environment. A new study shows beyond doubt that organic cotton grocery bags do more harm to the environment than the plastic bags they are replacing. You don't care about any of that because your motives are good. I WANT a clean world, I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  9. Grumblenuts
    Offline

    Grumblenuts Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    Messages:
    556
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    58
    Ratings:
    +177
    Simply repeating your ridiculous claims above, thereby lending them undue credence, fits that description to a tee: "to engage in behaviors that are harmful" regardless of what you really know or how deliberately you spread all this denier propaganda. Seem hard core though. Quite shameless indeed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    56,270
    Thanks Received:
    12,116
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +41,033





    Here's just one example of how greenies get it wrong...



    "For at least a few decades, Americans have been drilled in the superiority of tote bags. Reusable bags are good, we’re told, because they’re friendly for the environment. Disposable bags, on the other hand, are dangerous. Municipalities across the country have moved to restrict the consumption of plastic shopping bags to avoid waste. Many businesses have stopped offering plastic sacks, or provide them for a modest but punitive price. Bag-recycling programs have been introduced nationwide.

    But canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace. In 2008, the UK Environment Agency (UKEA) published a study of resource expenditures for various bags: paper, plastic, canvas, and recycled-polypropylene tote bags. Surprisingly, the authors found that in typical patterns of use and disposal, consumers seeking to minimize pollution and carbon emissions should use plastic grocery bags and then reuse those bags at least once—as trash-can liners or for other secondary tasks. Conventional plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, the plastic sacks found at grocery stores) had the smallest per-use environmental impact of all those tested. Cotton tote bags, by contrast, exhibited the highest and most severe global-warming potential by far since they require more resources to produce and distribute.

    Such results feel deeply counterintuitive. HDPE bags seem foreign, artificial. They lodge in trees, catch in the esophagi of animals, fester in landfills, clot cities, and are reduced to small particles floating in ocean gyres—for hundreds of years into the future. But even though they don’t easily degrade, they require very few resources to manufacture and transport. They produce less carbon, waste, and byproducts than cotton or paper bags. They’re recyclable. They’re cheap. For all those reasons, they’re ubiquitous. And they remain, long after their usefulness is exhausted.

    The UKEA study calculated an expenditure of a little less than two kilograms of carbon per HDPE bag. For paper bags, seven uses would be needed to achieve the same per-use ratio. Tote bags made from recycled polypropylene plastic require 26, and cotton tote bags require 327 uses. (Although they weren’t included in the study, one can presume that designer totes, made with leather adornments, metal, and so on drive the required number of uses into basically astronomical numbers.)



    Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006
    A study to assess the life cycle environmental impacts of carrier bags for the UK in 2006

    Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006 - GOV.UK
     
    • Funny Funny x 1

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

azs

,

news