How about an Indian reservation.
You would only have to deal with federal laws not state laws
All bogus. Extreme events of EVERY kind are at multidecade lows, though the "building on a flood plain" phenomenon magnifies impacts. If you want special interests, try the multi-billion dollar dependencies on flogging subsidy-sucking renewables, etc.http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/
As for fracking, it is single-handedly (helped by the unprecedented Obama Recession) responsible for slashing US CO2 output, unlike Europe and Asia's. They're getting desperate to catch up.
Brian H, cherry-picking again. No evidence of contrary is real, no matter how abundant, all evidence of what I like is real.
Cherry picking my rosy rump. There is NO evidence of current warming, and AGW is a defunct laboratory fantasy. The real climate swamps and swallows CO2 effects far below the level of detection.
Looks like Verity Jones does not have any scientific knowledge about environment. She is just a blogger. Denialist like you. You can't use her writings as any kind of authority. Besides wasn't appeal of authorities "one of the most childish of logical fallacies"?
Unfortunately real science is not made using blogs.
Mike83, this is a thread about the possible location of the factory. It is not a place to attack Tesla enthusiasts.
Mike83 sounds intolerant to me.
Apparently you have not read the thread. Brian started the global warming argument and I posted evidence while he posted opinions not addressing the comment. In a nutshell the state that gets the gigafactory should be in favor of fighting global warming and that is not Texas, again my pick is Nevada if you had been following the posts. Who is intolerant?
Mike83, You really have an attitude and I do not know why. You have bee a contributor to this forum and I have enjoyed your posts.
Now for my short rant.
I have no interest in how many miles your Prius gets on or off the highway.. I think making up crazy accusations is silly, and whether your gas mileage is higher on the highway or in the city does not seam to add anything to a global warming debate.
It really is better when the discussion stays on topic and not criticizing other Tesla enthusiasts.
That was a quick post Mel. Are you angry about something?
Whats your state pick? I don't mind a critique but basing it on some facts would be nice.
AGW, false on all counts.
One last post on climate change. Now don't get offended or take it personal. http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-global-warming-neil-de-g...
Have a great evening.
Not by youtube either, Brian. HTH.
Nevada sounds good place to me for US-based gigafactory. Sun and wind in desert that is void from much life.
Drivel. Extreme weather, droughts, etc. are signficantly down in the last several decades. And are connected to cooling, like the Little Ice Age, anyway. Totally bass-ackwards.
I would like to suggest something when it comes to the global warming debate I feel like using some choice language here but I won't
I say screw the debate I'm tired of this debate let's change the focus to the fact we're putting tons of poison into our air then there is no debate and it doesn't matter how good your highway mileages is
This debate is stupid there shouldn't even be one it's been going on for too long change the focus
Stop putting poison into my air
Sorry I'm done with my rant now
@church70 as long as you acknowledge that CO2 is not poison, it is the stuff of LIFE.
Try breathing in a room with just CO2 for awhile but have a doctor watch and be ready to pull you out as soon as you begin to pass out.
Try breathing pure Nitrogen or Argon. What's your point? You exhale about 40,000 ppm CO2 (4%). That's why talking (up close) to your houseplants etc. is so good for them!
Try breathing in room with just H2O for awhile. Same thing. Not poison, just suffocation.
I have sometimes thought about road rages and lack of oxygen. Maybe there is a bit correlation between the two in some cases. Like in near-standstill multi-lane traffic jam when there is little or no wind. Combustion is a good way to kill free oxygen from air. That is why it is also major threat in space (in addition to much higher oxygen level and lower pressure than in here). Already stressed and then getting mildly intoxicated by lack of oxygen might trigger strong behavioral change in otherwise mellow people.
Not that there is too much CO2, but too little O2. I'm not sure if this has been researched ever. Maybe it has and results were that there is nothing to report so no papers. I don't know. What I do know is that I really would like to get rid of those smoke-factories around me in traffic, even more so in slow traffic.
Exactly so much CO2 is not being converted to O2 since the rain forest is being decimated and the CO2 being absorbed by the ocean is causing acidification, another aspect of Global Warming. The ocean produces 20% of Oxygen that enters the atmosphere. As evidence by coral reef demise the phytoplankton which produces oxygen is also dying, note the dead zones in the ocean. Anything can be considered a toxin if it kills you. But what do I know?
Toxin (disambiguation) is of course a debatable issue which is CO2 of course. But biological or synthetic toxins are quite different.
I believe Tokyo has oxygen bars where people can pay for some fresh air.
When I am traveling through a polluted or heavy traffic area I use the recirculation setting.
My point regarding C02 is that it is the necessary gas for photosynthesis, the most important chemical reaction on the planet. It is where we get Oxygen, which makes CO2 absolutely necessary for life, the more the better. Increased C02 means increased plant growth and production, more life, more food, better for humans. This is a fact that seems to be entirely lost on those captured by global warming pop science. The fossil record shows that there have been time periods where CO2 levels were far higher than they are today. It went from as high as 7,000 parts per million during the Cambrian period about 500 million years ago to as low as 180 parts per million during the Quaternary glaciation of the last two million years. In 2013 it was 395 parts per million. There was not a runaway greenhouse during the Cambrian period, quite the contrary, there was some glaciation. The idea that C02 levels necessarily lead to a runaway greenhouse effect are simply untrue. Even if the CO2 levels were as high as 17.5 times higher, it would be no worse for us than for the vigorously growing life of the Cambrian period. That is my point.
By the way, I appreciate the discourse level of this forum. There is far more willingness to actually grapple with the science and facts than I have found elsewhere. I always appreciate a good, rational discussion devoid of ad hominem attacks.
Back on topic, bring it to San Antonio. Best option, hands down, to those who look in depth.
Au contraire. The rain forests, like all other biomes on the planet, are benefiting greatly from increases in CO2. NASA recently revealed that the "lungs of the planet" meme is false, anyway. The Amazon breaks even in releasing O2 in the day and using it at night. The benefit actually comes from runoff fertilizing phytoplankton in the Atlantic.
This is why I object against biofuels. If natural forests are cut to make those you just made things that much worse.
Again there is no debate about humans causing global warming. It is curious that those so angry about it have to bring in rationalizations that have little to do with any scientific facts. To counter these disingenuous types here is a link that helps those who wish to confront the angry deniers:
Nevada I hope.
WRONG. There is great doubt that any warming whatsoever beyond the (fortunate) rebound from the Little Ice Age has occurred, and it is ceded by almost all that modification of human emissions, in the best case and at horrific global expense, may possibly, assuming much unproven theory is spot on, reduce a hypothetical increase by a few hundredths of a degree within a century, or delay the increase a century out by a few weeks. Insanity. Very, very expensive insanity.
Have you considered southern New Mexico for the gigafactory? There is an abundance of cheap land. With the New 400 million union Pacific rail yard going up in Santa Teresa,nm,access to interstates 10 and 25 and access to Mexico and it's twin plant possibilities? The huge work force provided by the El Paso area is more than than enough to sustain a long term operation.New Mexico is also a right to work State. El Paso has recently approved 400 million in quality of life bonds.Tesla would also have access to U.T E P. And it's engineering school.The new EL Paso administration is pro business as well.My city has let opportunities slip by in the past.I would hate to see it happen again.Mr.Musk is known for taking risks and coming out on top. The Paso and southern New Mexico area would ensure that in my opinion.Tesla would not have to fight the good ole boy network of politics and oil in Texas. It would be right across the border and still gave access to all if the abovementioned.
"Great doubt" in ignorant general public thanks to very loud denialists (probably funded by big oil), scientific community, no doubt.
South + desert anywhere close to equator in stable country is a good place.
Isnt nevada the largest lith supply in the US? Wouldnt you want to take advantage of that being close to the factory?tons of sun for the plant as well... And boardering cali.nevada seems to vote very truthfully toward freedom as well from the past election and nomination seemed honest. There are companies mining there too it seems to set up a supply chain and efficientcy. Who knows right???
@Timo "...ignorant general public...(probably funded by big oil)" are classic cases of the often used logical fallacy of ad hominem attack. It is what you use when your argument has no merit and is the logical equivalent of admitting defeat.
As to the appropriateness of 'ignorant general public' being a fit description of all 'deniers' would that include the emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, and Former UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Lindzen?
Would you also include among your 'ignorant general public' the many PhD scientists on this list? (and these are only some of them)
And now to complete blow your mind, Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis
I think it is clear that the global warming belief system is more of a religious belief than a scientific one and, as such, is quite immune to challenge and reconsideration.
There is no debate? Of course there is. To claim otherwise is to lose all credibility.
The Bloggies Awards are out for 2014, and skeptic sites swept the board.
General public is generally very ignorant about sciences. That's just sad fact. A bit of information or misinformation said by someone with authority leads them to believe it, no matter how that reflects to reality. Politics and religions are great examples of the thing.
Brian H said "Appeal to authority, one of the most childish of logical fallacies.". That's what you just did. If what I said is sign of defeat, so is what you did. If we both lose then who is the winner :-)
"And now to complete blow your mind" My mind is blown, 99.4% agree that climate is changing.
You should read that study that James Taylor linked, because his writings about that study is bullshit. Half-truths IE. lies. He probably trusts that no-one else actually reads the study. It is more sociological study from large variety of people than actual study about climate studies. A "who says what and what motivates that opinion" -study.
Can we all agree to disagree on climate change and return the focus of this discussion to "what state the giga plant will be built?"?
I check this column every day simply because I'm curious about the original topic. The climate change discussion seems to me to be a very unnecessary distraction.
EDH AL +1
I agree to drop the issue if others agree as well. Didn't want to write in first place, but felt obligated to correct claims without factual background.