It's almost 2017

File: lolwatt-tesla-google-1457363617.jpg (151KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 640x480px

>being a CO2 cuck

File: Red-Tesla-Model-X-Crash-SUV-1.jpg (99KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 960x720px

>shitty yukon btfo

File: toasty.jpg (188KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 2048x1152px

>>16350867

Pretty sure that Tesla is a write off... And the Yukon probably still drives...

>>16350861

Charging it with dirty power that has to be shipped in because you live in a barren wasteland... I can't wait till you guys sink into the ocean...

>>16350890
http://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-x-saves-family-after-crash/

>According to Braman, he and his family were entering an intersection near E. Bush Lake Road in Bloomington, Minnesota when a GMC SUV ran through a red light at high speed striking the Model X near the right front quarter panel. The impact caused all airbags to deploy – some in areas Braman admits he didn’t realize existed – and provide safety around all passengers within the vehicle. Braman tells Teslarati, “I rapidly got out of the car and was lucky enough to have a group of young men who were behind me in line at the light help extract us from the car. I quickly got my family as far away from the GMC as I could. I was unsure if the gasoline in that car was stable and worried that his car would catch fire.”

>I was unsure if the gasoline in that car was stable and worried that his car would catch fire.

The fucking irony.

>>16350854
>LOL OIL
cool, I guess you don't need those plastics or lubricants then.

>>16350867
Yukon is reparable.
The more costly Tesla is not.

Sorry, I have to be in Cheyenne WY in two days. I can''t play around with your meme bullshit hobby golf cart.

Call me when you do hot-swap batteries.

>>16350890
Its amazing the very front right corner is nearly perfect still, yet 95% of the car is pure vapor.

>>16350911
>I was unsure if the gasoline in that car was stable and worried that his car would catch fire.

kek. Like sitting on 3000lbs of Lithium is safer... You're literally sitting on 9000 little pipe bombs.

This is why I despise Tesla, The fanbase is beyond fucking stupid. They always go on about how great their shit is when they don't know how it works. Just like Applefags.

>>16350937
Couldn't have said it battery myself. he he get it. Check out this guys vapor pen exploding. I bet like you said, about 8000 of these essentially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYRTgZcLFhU

>>16350958
lier lier pants on fire

wonder if he's going to get charged kek

>>16350937
Yeah, when that Tesla was cut in half it was a bloodbath. Oh wait.

>>16350903
Mad flyover detected, you will be obviated in short order

>>16350832
>"ROFL GAS"
>my civic still has a longer range then these cuck electric shit cars

File: IdealLongitudinalAccel.jpg (53KB, 872x647px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 872x647px

Gasoline ICE
>Makes power via a mechanically-catalyzed chemical reaction inside of the car (12-18% efficient).

Tesla
>Natural gas - a by-product of gasoline production - has to be pre-processed a LOT, creating lots of nasty by-products in the process.
>It is converted to electric energy in turbines and shit (with losses).
>Then converted to different, safer, electric currents (with losses), requiring lots of precious metals and safety systems.
>Then transported across the land (with corona discharge) requiring a lot of metal - into your house or a charging station.
>Then it is converted to a more useful current and jammed into the batteries in your tesla where you spend 1kWh doing a quarter-mile in 10.8s.
>It's hard to say how efficient this all is, and the infrastructure is already in in place.

I guess they both have their uses but I grew up romanticizing the process of extracting as much power as possible from an ICE by rowing through gears and minimizing speed loss through corners in stead of just blasting it with electric piss (the Tesla method).

>>16350903
What dirty power?

>>16351046

You're powered mostly by Nuclear and NG fired plants, which are dirty.

>>16351121
>nuclear
>dirty
just re-energize the spent fuel and run it through again
eventually you have a much tinier amount of waste, as well as slightly more energy

because I like hearing explosions when I step on the go pedal

File: 081099sci-yucca-mountain.2.gif (152KB, 894x652px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 894x652px

>>16351139

They don't do that. They stick it in a container then bury it underneath a mountain.

>>16351121
There's only one nuclear power plant in California and it's getting phased away. NG isn't all that dirty, it burns with minimal residues and has the lowest CO2 emissions of all fossil fuels.

>>16351231
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
America doesn't, but other nations do

>>16351262
Other nations are irrelevant when we're talking about power production in California. But nuclear is also irrelevant when it does not provide power in any significant degree to the state.

>>16351240
>NG isn't all that dirty

Extracting it and refining it is though. You have to look at the whole picture.

>>16350913
Or tires.......

>>16351034
There are many retarded things about your logic (especially ignoring all the *clean* ways to generate electricity) but the most glaring idiocy was:
> you spend 1kWh doing a quarter-mile in 10.8s
clearly ignoring the 0.6kWh that the regenerative braking puts directly back into the battery kek. Try not to be so biased regarding new technologies.

>>16351267
>California

Almost 90% of the country's population doesn't live in CA and nuclear energy amounts to 20% of the energy usage in US.

File: great again.jpg (7KB, 261x193px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 261x193px

>>16350832
>Why are you still driving paleolithic ICE vehicles?

Mainly because they're still wildly expensive. Currently the most affordable EVs is still over $30k for small econobox size car with shitty range. You're better off buying an efficient guzzoline car or a hybrid at that point. Want a full-sized sedan or SUV? Prepare to drop a 6-figure check. Also, the warranty sucks.

Not to mention that there are issues with range and recharge rate and the infrastructure to support EVs is still in its infancy.

I'm all for EVs, but they are still a long way from being a serious consideration for the average consumer.

>>16352537
He also completely ignores the energy efficiency of drilling, transporting, refining, and shipping petrol to benefit his own argument.

And also ignores that nat gas has fewer emissions than gasoline or coal.

And also ignores that turbines are the most efficient way of internal combustion.

And gives no insight to any real numbers associated with electrical losses, only that they must be worse than crude oil derived powered cars.

I would have failed out of school if I had views as narrow as his.

File: [MUFFLED SCREAMING].jpg (37KB, 540x283px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 540x283px

When an electric car--
>becomes a significant amount less of a fire hazard than an ICE car
>becomes less expensive than an ICE car
>becomes less environmentally hazardous to produce than an ICE car
>becomes as reliable and wrench-friendly as an ICE car
--THEN I will consider it. Till then, it's an expensive way of saying LOOK AT ME I'M ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, with an in-dash screen and some don't-die-a-stupid-death gadgets thrown in for "$AF€T¥" and "INFOTAINMENT". All the ills of modern consumer-focused cars, with the hubris of nouveau-riche enviro-chique poseurs mixed in.

And these fuckers want poorfag students like ME to buy these new. In your fucking dreams, Big Auto.