Unbelievable that this would be published in 2015: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/o...-powering-electric-cars.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
I can't believe that almost 3 years after the Model S launch, and after the Broder debacle, that the New York Times would publish something like this. Doesn't the Times have editors and fact checkers that would flag this stuff before publication? What is this garbage?
At any rate, the reader response was quick and devastating in the comments section, with many people calling out Mr. Nocera for failing to mention Tesla at all.
Is the Times really this incompetent?
Or is this deliberate?
Steve LeVine became interested in batteries in the wake of the financial crisis. LeVine is the Washington correspondent for Quartz, a news site covering the global economy, and he sensed, he told me recently, “a loss of confidence in the U.S. in our ability to create a real economy” — one based not on financial instruments or a real estate boom, but real products that would help create entire new industries.
The battery could be such a product. Not just any battery, of course, but a battery designed for electric cars and capable of powering them for 200 miles or even 300 miles per charge. A battery that could compete with — and eventually replace — the internal combustion engine and transform the electric car from a niche product to a mass-market automobile.
Such a battery does not yet exist.
I can't believe that almost 3 years after the Model S launch, and after the Broder debacle, that the New York Times would publish something like this. Doesn't the Times have editors and fact checkers that would flag this stuff before publication? What is this garbage?
At any rate, the reader response was quick and devastating in the comments section, with many people calling out Mr. Nocera for failing to mention Tesla at all.
Is the Times really this incompetent?
Or is this deliberate?