Test drove a Tesla Model 3
- Thread starter y_p_w
- Start date
- Status
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
How is Model 3 a luxury car?
Compare the performance specs and interior materials to any 4-door sedan and you'll see.
How is Model 3 a luxury car?
Compare the performance specs and interior materials to any 4-door sedan and you'll see.
Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
How is Model 3 a luxury car?
Compare the performance specs and interior materials to any 4-door sedan and you'll see.
Ah yes, Tesla - well known for their fit and finish and high quality interiors.
/s
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
How is Model 3 a luxury car?
Compare the performance specs and interior materials to any 4-door sedan and you'll see.
Ah yes, Tesla - well known for their fit and finish and high quality interiors.
/s
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Originally Posted by The Critic
Were you able to drive one with the full self-driving capabilities?
I crunched out the pricing of a RAV4 Hybrid Limited (the one I want) and the price comes scary-close to a Model 3. Now I am starting to rethink what I want to replace my Prius with.
I'm surprised you're considering a new car. Best bang for the buck of course is a used car and you know how to fix them, so that's usually the part that scares people away from used cars and towards new ones. Around here, I'm seeing 2014 Mercedes E-350's go for 20-25k and some of the ones at 20k are pretty well loaded, they're higher up in mileage in the 60-80k range. If you go down to 30-50k they're more like the 25k range. Model 3 seems pretty basic, reviews call the interior cheap and unembellished compared to the C class or BMW 3 series. No Sirius nor Apple carplay/Android auto.
I would also question their parts/repair prices. Your only option is basically just Tesla and DIY can be difficult.
You raise a fair question. Yes, I can probably "manage" the upkeep of a late-model German car, but my familiarity with them is not quite at the same level as it is for other makes. My goal for a daily driver is to have as little maintenance/repair as possible, and in theory, an electric car will fulfill that purpose.
I actually went to the same Tesla retail location as the O/P and test drove a Model 3 on Saturday. While the car itself was nothing remarkable, the AutoPilot and Full Self Driving (FSD) features were quite well-executed and somewhat make-up for the deficiencies in the other areas of the car.
Originally Posted by The Critic
Were you able to drive one with the full self-driving capabilities?
I crunched out the pricing of a RAV4 Hybrid Limited (the one I want) and the price comes scary-close to a Model 3. Now I am starting to rethink what I want to replace my Prius with.
I'm surprised you're considering a new car. Best bang for the buck of course is a used car and you know how to fix them, so that's usually the part that scares people away from used cars and towards new ones. Around here, I'm seeing 2014 Mercedes E-350's go for 20-25k and some of the ones at 20k are pretty well loaded, they're higher up in mileage in the 60-80k range. If you go down to 30-50k they're more like the 25k range. Model 3 seems pretty basic, reviews call the interior cheap and unembellished compared to the C class or BMW 3 series. No Sirius nor Apple carplay/Android auto.
I would also question their parts/repair prices. Your only option is basically just Tesla and DIY can be difficult.
You raise a fair question. Yes, I can probably "manage" the upkeep of a late-model German car, but my familiarity with them is not quite at the same level as it is for other makes. My goal for a daily driver is to have as little maintenance/repair as possible, and in theory, an electric car will fulfill that purpose.
I actually went to the same Tesla retail location as the O/P and test drove a Model 3 on Saturday. While the car itself was nothing remarkable, the AutoPilot and Full Self Driving (FSD) features were quite well-executed and somewhat make-up for the deficiencies in the other areas of the car.
Originally Posted by Sunnyinhollister
Originally Posted by addyguy
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
The Model 3 is the future. Not for everyone and expensive.
But it is an amazing vehicle.
Not up here in the frozen north. Less than 50% range in extreme cold...kinda useless.
Nor is it that realistic around here with a $63k price tag, PG&E rates of ~$.40 peak and $.20 off peak and astronomical housing costs,
EV charger has a different rate plan, so you are not getting those 40c peak and 20c off peak pricing as the normal E1 rate.
The key to charging EV is to do it for free at work. Free work place charging and HOV lane access is the main reason many people buy them. If you have to pay for the electricity to charge at home, it may not be for you.
Originally Posted by addyguy
Originally Posted by JeffKeryk
The Model 3 is the future. Not for everyone and expensive.
But it is an amazing vehicle.
Not up here in the frozen north. Less than 50% range in extreme cold...kinda useless.
Nor is it that realistic around here with a $63k price tag, PG&E rates of ~$.40 peak and $.20 off peak and astronomical housing costs,
EV charger has a different rate plan, so you are not getting those 40c peak and 20c off peak pricing as the normal E1 rate.
The key to charging EV is to do it for free at work. Free work place charging and HOV lane access is the main reason many people buy them. If you have to pay for the electricity to charge at home, it may not be for you.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
I want a car that suits me.
Why should I have to change to fit my $63,000 purchase? It's a ridiculous thought.
Tesla's brand of "The Future" is not to my tastes, and clearly I'm not alone.
Do they give you the Kool-aid with the car, or do you have to buy and drink it on your own beforehand?
The same reason why people buy $10k designer handbag from Hermes, LV, Miu Miu, etc. People love luxury and the exclusiveness of such items. It is not for everyone (including not for me), but it doesn't means there's no market for it. If you like it and can afford it, good for you.
I want a car that suits me.
Why should I have to change to fit my $63,000 purchase? It's a ridiculous thought.
Tesla's brand of "The Future" is not to my tastes, and clearly I'm not alone.
Do they give you the Kool-aid with the car, or do you have to buy and drink it on your own beforehand?
The same reason why people buy $10k designer handbag from Hermes, LV, Miu Miu, etc. People love luxury and the exclusiveness of such items. It is not for everyone (including not for me), but it doesn't means there's no market for it. If you like it and can afford it, good for you.
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Energy cost is all over the place, and has always been a political issue no matter where you go in the world. EV may or may not be cleaner than gasoline but it sure is trading where pollution is generated (battery manufacturing site, mining site) vs where it is used (residential neighborhood).
Hybrid has come a long way, and it was criticized just the same as EV today when new. The $4-5 per gallon price gouging back in the late 2000s is what sow the seeds of today's EV and hybrid adoption. Without these hybrids and EVs oil companies will keep trying to gouge, knowing that we have no alternatives but to use gas. Competition and diversification are good, even if you don't use the alternatives.
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Energy cost is all over the place, and has always been a political issue no matter where you go in the world. EV may or may not be cleaner than gasoline but it sure is trading where pollution is generated (battery manufacturing site, mining site) vs where it is used (residential neighborhood).
Hybrid has come a long way, and it was criticized just the same as EV today when new. The $4-5 per gallon price gouging back in the late 2000s is what sow the seeds of today's EV and hybrid adoption. Without these hybrids and EVs oil companies will keep trying to gouge, knowing that we have no alternatives but to use gas. Competition and diversification are good, even if you don't use the alternatives.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by rooflessVW
I want a car that suits me.
Why should I have to change to fit my $63,000 purchase? It's a ridiculous thought.
Tesla's brand of "The Future" is not to my tastes, and clearly I'm not alone.
Do they give you the Kool-aid with the car, or do you have to buy and drink it on your own beforehand?
Yep. It is clear to me the Model 3 is not for everyone.
I am not sure that tastes other than yours means I am drinking kool aid.
I want a car that suits me.
Why should I have to change to fit my $63,000 purchase? It's a ridiculous thought.
Tesla's brand of "The Future" is not to my tastes, and clearly I'm not alone.
Do they give you the Kool-aid with the car, or do you have to buy and drink it on your own beforehand?
Yep. It is clear to me the Model 3 is not for everyone.
I am not sure that tastes other than yours means I am drinking kool aid.
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by KrisZ
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Energy cost is all over the place, and has always been a political issue no matter where you go in the world. EV may or may not be cleaner than gasoline but it sure is trading where pollution is generated (battery manufacturing site, mining site) vs where it is used (residential neighborhood).
Hybrid has come a long way, and it was criticized just the same as EV today when new. The $4-5 per gallon price gouging back in the late 2000s is what sow the seeds of today's EV and hybrid adoption. Without these hybrids and EVs oil companies will keep trying to gouge, knowing that we have no alternatives but to use gas. Competition and diversification are good, even if you don't use the alternatives.
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Originally Posted by KrisZ
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Energy cost is all over the place, and has always been a political issue no matter where you go in the world. EV may or may not be cleaner than gasoline but it sure is trading where pollution is generated (battery manufacturing site, mining site) vs where it is used (residential neighborhood).
Hybrid has come a long way, and it was criticized just the same as EV today when new. The $4-5 per gallon price gouging back in the late 2000s is what sow the seeds of today's EV and hybrid adoption. Without these hybrids and EVs oil companies will keep trying to gouge, knowing that we have no alternatives but to use gas. Competition and diversification are good, even if you don't use the alternatives.
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
Originally Posted by PandaBear
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Nobody knows what the future holds. There was a time when people thought jet engine cars were the future, then there was the flying car, then cars were suposedly be replaced by jet packs.
It's hard to predict technology and electric cars, contrary to the hype, are not the environmental saviours many paddle them to be. Since it's the governments around the world pushing heavily for them, not the market forces, it's pretty clear that other motivators are behind this trend and environmental protection is being used as an excuse.
A lot of that is the national energy security issue. Unlike US with a huge fleet of aircraft carriers, many nations can be blockade in a conflict and embargo, literally crippling their energy source before a war is started.
You raise a good point about energy security and I believe it also applies to US. Energy diversity is a good thing and having a healthy mix, where it makes sense, is not something I'm opposed to. But the way it is portrayed today for personal transportation, anything fossil related is considered "dirty" and therefore should be eliminated and only electric cars are considered clean and "sustainable". Considerations such as photoelectric cells being a toxic waste and non-recyclable, raw material processing needed for the batteries produces some very toxic by-products, acres of old wind farms abandoned and rusting waiting to be cleaned up, if ever. All of these are simply not even being discussed in any meaningful way, as to not to upset public's opinion on these "clean" sources.
To me, this type of deliberate manipulation of facts being discussed goes far beyond the need of having energy diversity.
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
Originally Posted by Kjmack
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Maybe if you buy your water at the airport or at a movie theater.
Around here, a gallon of water is less than a dollar.
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Maybe if you buy your water at the airport or at a movie theater.
Around here, a gallon of water is less than a dollar.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Wolf359
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
In searching, I found the following quote as an answer to what was essentially the same question:
Quote
In the late 1980s there were as many as 3,000 of the 14,000 wind turbines installed in California that were in various states of disrepair. For the most part, there were no laws or regulations that specifically required the operators to remove these turbines. They became eyesores. These junk turbines as I called them joined the burned out hulks of abandoned automobiles, the discarded sofas, trash and urban detritus that littered the peri-urban fringe where most of these turbines were located.
Fortunately, over the years nearly all those turbines have been removed and of the 11,000 wind turbines in California today only some 500 remain derelict.
So, by 2012, there were only about 500 abandoned ones remaining in California, not sure what the situation is at present, but I'd imagine there would be less, given the direction
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
In searching, I found the following quote as an answer to what was essentially the same question:
Quote
In the late 1980s there were as many as 3,000 of the 14,000 wind turbines installed in California that were in various states of disrepair. For the most part, there were no laws or regulations that specifically required the operators to remove these turbines. They became eyesores. These junk turbines as I called them joined the burned out hulks of abandoned automobiles, the discarded sofas, trash and urban detritus that littered the peri-urban fringe where most of these turbines were located.
Fortunately, over the years nearly all those turbines have been removed and of the 11,000 wind turbines in California today only some 500 remain derelict.
So, by 2012, there were only about 500 abandoned ones remaining in California, not sure what the situation is at present, but I'd imagine there would be less, given the direction
Originally Posted by Quattro Pete
Originally Posted by Kjmack
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Maybe if you buy your water at the airport or at a movie theater.
Around here, a gallon of water is less than a dollar.
I suspect a gallon of water at those places is LOT more than $3.00 a gallon!
Originally Posted by Kjmack
At 3.00 a gallon I think gasoline is a pretty good value with all that goes into it , it's cheaper than bottled water .
Maybe if you buy your water at the airport or at a movie theater.
Around here, a gallon of water is less than a dollar.
I suspect a gallon of water at those places is LOT more than $3.00 a gallon!
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
So, by 2012, there were only about 500 abandoned ones remaining in California, not sure what the situation is at present, but I'd imagine there would be less, given the direction
The most prominent location was Altamont Pass, visible from I-580. I don't recall any necessarily being abandoned. The big deal they had there was the issue with bird strikes and deals made to replace existing ones.
One that I don't see any more are the vertical-axis turbines. I looked it up and they were operated by a company called FloWind. Their issue was that they suffered from joint failure and couldn't be economically repaired. Eventually they were scrapped, but they did seem to stand unused for years. I wondered what happened to them.
So, by 2012, there were only about 500 abandoned ones remaining in California, not sure what the situation is at present, but I'd imagine there would be less, given the direction
The most prominent location was Altamont Pass, visible from I-580. I don't recall any necessarily being abandoned. The big deal they had there was the issue with bird strikes and deals made to replace existing ones.
One that I don't see any more are the vertical-axis turbines. I looked it up and they were operated by a company called FloWind. Their issue was that they suffered from joint failure and couldn't be economically repaired. Eventually they were scrapped, but they did seem to stand unused for years. I wondered what happened to them.
Originally Posted by Wolf359
]
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
I still see quite a lot of them on the Altamont pass, which I frequent quite often. The trick is to stay off of the main freeway. If you stay on the 580 freeway you will see all the new turbines. The old ones are hidden away by the hills, but if you take the side roads, there is a whole slew of them. They are not as easy to pick up from a bankrupt company as you make it sound. I think the main reason is because they were abandoned once the state and fed subsidies dried up. After 2008 those subsidies started soaring high again, and guess what? Wind farms are profitable again. Rinse and repeat, all for "sustainable" power and the taxpayer and rate payer ends up footing it all. And from the looks of it, they are extremely happy to do it.
]
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
I still see quite a lot of them on the Altamont pass, which I frequent quite often. The trick is to stay off of the main freeway. If you stay on the 580 freeway you will see all the new turbines. The old ones are hidden away by the hills, but if you take the side roads, there is a whole slew of them. They are not as easy to pick up from a bankrupt company as you make it sound. I think the main reason is because they were abandoned once the state and fed subsidies dried up. After 2008 those subsidies started soaring high again, and guess what? Wind farms are profitable again. Rinse and repeat, all for "sustainable" power and the taxpayer and rate payer ends up footing it all. And from the looks of it, they are extremely happy to do it.
Originally Posted by KrisZ
Originally Posted by Wolf359
]
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
I still see quite a lot of them on the Altamont pass, which I frequent quite often. The trick is to stay off of the main freeway. If you stay on the 580 freeway you will see all the new turbines. The old ones are hidden away by the hills, but if you take the side roads, there is a whole slew of them. They are not as easy to pick up from a bankrupt company as you make it sound. I think the main reason is because they were abandoned once the state and fed subsidies dried up. After 2008 those subsidies started soaring high again, and guess what? Wind farms are profitable again. Rinse and repeat, all for "sustainable" power and the taxpayer and rate payer ends up footing it all. And from the looks of it, they are extremely happy to do it.
So there aren't really 14,000 abandon windmills out there just rusting away. Altamont pass had 4930 and some have been removed, repowered and it's still in operation, not abandoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_wind_farm
Originally Posted by Wolf359
]
Just curious where these abandoned wind farms you're talking about are. Typically with any industrial project, when they go bankrupt, eventually the price gets so low that someone buys them up and keeps them running. Of course when the economics aren't there, it's common to see a project go bankrupt several times before something finally happens with it. See it all the time at various industrial sites. I think someone at one pointed mentioned some abandoned wind farms in some pass, but when I looked it up, it seemed that someone else had gotten them going again and had updated it. Just like casinos that go bankrupt, eventually someone buys them and they keep running, they don't really get torn down and razed to the ground. Nuclear power was like that at one point too, lots of them went bankrupt when those cost overruns went crazy. Got bought out by different companies and now with repowering, they're making more electricity than before and are profitable. Didn't start out that way.
I still see quite a lot of them on the Altamont pass, which I frequent quite often. The trick is to stay off of the main freeway. If you stay on the 580 freeway you will see all the new turbines. The old ones are hidden away by the hills, but if you take the side roads, there is a whole slew of them. They are not as easy to pick up from a bankrupt company as you make it sound. I think the main reason is because they were abandoned once the state and fed subsidies dried up. After 2008 those subsidies started soaring high again, and guess what? Wind farms are profitable again. Rinse and repeat, all for "sustainable" power and the taxpayer and rate payer ends up footing it all. And from the looks of it, they are extremely happy to do it.
So there aren't really 14,000 abandon windmills out there just rusting away. Altamont pass had 4930 and some have been removed, repowered and it's still in operation, not abandoned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altamont_Pass_wind_farm
- Status
