Average coal miner salary is ~$22/hr, or ~$42k/year.
Social security safety net is better than 0, which is where coal is going to regardless, no matter how much we attempt to prop it up. Can't compete against fuels with zero marginal cost. Every coal company in the US is currently bankrupt.
I am open to better ideas if you have them. My proposal removes coal-fired generation and provides for workers at the same time, affordably.
We're talking a difference of $10k/year, that's a lot of money. And you're speaking of miners at the lowest rungs of the ladder: what of those more experienced, or the geologists and mining engineers who are paid 2--3 times more?
Your solution doesn't provide for the workers. I'm sure you're sincere, but a handout from the government is not perceived as a substitute for challenging, meaningful, and respectable work. Basic income proposals don't generally seem to consider pride, other than what I see as nebulous handwaving about how one would be free to pursue their dreams. What dreams are there in coal country when there is no coal? I don't see BI alone as helping to sustain or resurrect a community and associated way of life whose primary industry is one you've eliminated.
I haven't figured out how to make myself happy in life; creating a societal structure that allows for everyone to find what makes them happy is far beyond my limited capabilities. Ensuring that people don't go hungry or die from exposure is within my grasp.
you bull-shiting from your arm chair is your attempt to solve this issue of pride meaningfulness in life. this is pretty meta, but are you really lacking this much self-awareness? Workers want to do productive meaningful work. This is why many flock to startups with all its risk. People want interesting work and yet you do not seem to understand that.
You make good points. We do have to figure out ways to transition out of a particular industry. Open questions (not aimed at parent): Have transitions like these been made successfully in the past? Are there particularly bad examples of what we should make sure we avoid (Detroit)? We can't be the first to have thought about this. Anyone know of studies/histories we can refer to?
> Not only has Tesla created the greatest external challenge to the German auto industry that I can think of.
The greatest challenge they faced is one they still face: the Japanese auto manufacturers. Toyota remains unbeatable on quality; the pursuit of Toyota is claimed as an element of VW's recent fall from grace. At this point Tesla is barely a blip on the radar in comparison considering volume (current and planned) or quality.
> I believe one of VW, Mercedes Benz and BMW will bankrupt in 5-10 years. None of them have taken EV serious yet and I fear it's soon too late.
Daimler took it seriously enough to invest in Tesla, and to use Tesla as a supplier in their own B-class EV sold in the US. The BMW i series feature some pretty innovative thinking with respect to construction, materials, and design. The payoff is that the BMW i3 is the most efficient EPA-certified vehicle, more efficient than any of Tesla's models: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/extremeMPG.jsp (e: and the i series are likely produced under a more efficient and sustainable production process, but it's hard to find a single link in support of this claim)
> Both are still concept cars but they represent what they expect their EVs should look like.
They are concepts, and so are explorations of design elements, features, etc. DFM changes the design significantly, even if one tries to keep to the concept.
> How are the Germans going to catch up?
They already have, they are just much more conservative in releasing their products because of earned experience. e: When the demand is present, the Germans and other incumbent manufacturers will be ready. This article reflects Tesla playing catchup with respect to automation, something the incumbents have already figured out.
Toyota ought to be the big threat. But their management made a terrible mistake. They went for a car powered by hydrogen.
This is a real car, the Toyota Mirai.[1] You can buy one right now in California. They've sold about 700 cars. $57,500, including 3 years of hydrogen fill-ups. 312 mile range. 5 minutes to refuel, not including the drive to one of the few hydrogen stations.
Here's the only hydrogen station near San Francisco, on S. Airport Blvd.[2] Hydrogen stations are subsidized by the State of California through 2023, unless somebody stops that. (Remember Arnold and the hydrogen-powered Hummer?)
Is it really a mistake? I'm under the impression that automakers pursue FCVs because of the government incentives. I would think that a portion of the R&D could support other alternative fuel vehicle systems, so even if FCVs aren't the future (and it doesn't seem so) it perhaps isn't necessarily a mistake to investigate them if it's incentivized.
> At this point Tesla is barely a blip on the radar in comparison considering volume
They're far more than a blip. They are easily outselling their Japanese and German competition in their segment. Luxury cars.
> Daimler took it seriously enough to invest in Tesla, and to use Tesla as a supplier in their own B-class EV sold in the US.
They did. However, they still do not have an EV sedan or SUV in the market.
> The BMW i series feature some pretty innovative thinking with respect to construction, materials, and design.
It does. However, they still do not have an EV sedan or SUV in the market.
> The payoff is that the BMW i3 is the most efficient EPA-certified vehicle, more efficient than any of Tesla's models
Because it's tiny. It's like a clown car.
The simple fact is that the Germans know if they put out an EV sedan or SUV, they will cannibalize their own market share and their investments in combustion engine manufacturing, which are massive, will be lost. They are trying to slowly transition to EV. Tesla is using that to their advantage and eroding their market share.
That sales comparison you're using is based on the assumption that the Model S competes with large luxury cars, and it ignores the overlap between similar models (e.g., S-class and CLS). On features and price however, the Model S more closely competes with midsize luxury cars. I think the Model S is unique and looking at either large or midsize comparibles alone isn't informative, but I think it's closer to midsize than large.
The i3 is efficient not because it is tiny, but because it is light weight. Weight reduction is hard and it is a lesson Tesla has yet to learn.
> The simple fact is that the Germans know if they put out an EV sedan or SUV, they will cannibalize their own market share and their investments in combustion engine manufacturing, which are massive, will be lost.
They haven't put out an EV sedan or SUV yet because the market isn't profitable yet. The trend for engines has long been towards becoming a commodity sourced from elsewhere and tuned in-house or a scalable design, i.e., except for models where the engine is a selling point you're not investing your money in engines. As to cannibalizing their own sales, I don't understand your point.
I agree with you, that is not a tiny clown car. For the first time seeing it on photos I thought the same, but when you put it next to other cars, it looks surprisingly big (however, I have never tried it if its interior is also so roomy as it looks like):
Is the current free Supercharger access tied to the owner or the car, i.e., if I bought a pre-2017 Model S where the previous owner had free Supercharger access, would I also have access?
It was a secondary discriminating sensor, but the latest Autopilot 8 upgrade retasks radar to be "a primary control sensor without requiring the camera to confirm visual image recognition": https://www.tesla.com/blog/upgrading-autopilot-seeing-world-...
The documentation that the NHTSA is requesting are things that would already exist for a properly designed product. They are not asking for it to be generated de novo (and in fact, it cannot be done in that manner if they are operating under a proper design process).
This letter is designed to give pause to (e: previously I wrote "kill") a company operating with complete disregard for proper operations in a regulated industry.
They're asking for documentation that any serious vendor would already have. That we believe this would kill comma.ai is really more a testament to our priors that George doesn't keep anything resembling rigorous test documentation.
And even then it wouldn't have to kill comma.ai, it could simply lead to Hotz selling the company to a party willing to dot the i's and cross the t's but retain the technology and Hotz himself as a partner/minority shareholder/employee.
Sorry, I thought I was in and out before anyone had seen my comment. I added a clear edit mark to fess up.
I originally wrote "kill" to mirror your original comment, but I changed it because it (as I perceive the word) presumes a level of intent that I don't think NHTSA operates with: I don't think that NHTSA has any intent to destroy this company. In fact, if comma.ai reached out to NHTSA, I would expect NHTSA to assist (within reason) in answering the letter.
I do think that these are straightforward questions for a group that has its act together. Part of having one's act together in a regulated environment is maintaining open lines of communication with regulators, so that questions would be asked should come as no surprise. Keeping up to date with the regulatory environment would also be expected, and given the recent autonomous driving publication the content and scope of these questions should come as no surprise.
If these questions kill the company, I don't see that as being the fault of NHTSA, I see that as being the fault of whoever is in charge of regulatory affairs at comma.ai.
