701–710 of 749 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neat, thanks!
As just a statement of bias…the guys at that site have a pretty clear distaste for Tesla. They are industry experts and that’s where their analysis comes from, but it’s palpable. I would call it evidence versus politically based but noting it. The difference in bias though is ther snark has citations to primary sources not just wild generic claims.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. It's a miserable business. Look at the pictures from the inspection of a plating plant. Everything near the process is corroded and covered with crud. Such plants have to be regulated and inspected, to prevent them from becoming a hazard both to the neighborhood and downstream. Plants which do chemistry on an industrial scale tend to need their own waste processing, which gets the waste products down to a reason…
ok but I'm willing to have occasionally poisoned water in exchange for an industrial society
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe reworded as “He has skin in the game” > so obviously his point can’t be true > so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting > so obviously I can dismiss this as teleologically false. Please don’t be so lazy you guys. There is something to be gained here.
> so obviously he’s biased and we can’t do the mental work of sifting This guy, with an obvious bias, created a website that misrepresents the situation in California (by implying things are banned or "nearly impossible" when in actuality they just take time/effort), while also failing to show the specific regulations or requirements for any of it. Without supplying that kind of information this website is little bet…
A separate but related topic is the warnings California requires of products. It's gotten a bit out of hand because every product you buy has the same warning, which completely dilutes what I hope was the intention. Even buying something as simple as an electric guitar comes with the "can cause cancer" warning because it can have nickel parts on it (usually for the bridge and tuners and frets).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a battery cell manufacturing line and with the intent to facilitate providing research resources to California battery business. Considering the claim was that you couldn't make lithium batteries in CA, having a new manufacturing line shows that's incorrect. It also shows the state sees it as a need. I haven't seen anyone provide any info showing it isn't possible.
It's a pilot program, nobody said you can't uneconomically do research, but you can't build things in quantity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why can’t we build a new nuclear plant in Manhattan We should, it would replace significant amounts of natural gas usage for space heating. Not doing so is literally cooking the planet.
I think a nuclear plant in Manhattan would cost far more than just building the plant in outer NY, and then running a big power line in to Manhattan. Sure, the power line would take up space, but so would the nuclear plant's cooling system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The permitting and regulatory process is so extremely hostile that even when you want to and are able to do so safely and without emissions, it’s impossible. This didn't occur in a vacuum. Business interests and their aligned politicians fought successfully for a century for their freedom to destroy human health and life in pursuit of profit. Many died, many were injured and countless more had their lifespans cut s…
Now the regulatory industry is fighting to destroy productive society in the pursuit of profit. The value-added is fairly stagnant, but the costs have been growing dramatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is no different than any other state.
No, other states build these things. It it a point specially about California.
Why can't things be be built here, in a state other than California?
What is the fixation with California? Tennessee or Nebraska would love to build smart phones, or even just the chips for smart phones. What is the reasoning for not building these things in other states?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I like that your vague response to the question is either “this provides no value without context” or “the value it provides without context is a secret that only I know” but phrased in a silly way
Fair point. My actual conclusion: California has made it structurally impossible to manufacture things it consumes, and has exported the environmental burden to places with fewer protections.
This places California somewhere between the north pole (produces no things) and replicators from Star Trek (produces all of the things) in terms of productivity. This is useful information because it makes the reader feel li