Elon Musk says humanity is currently running 'the dumbest experiment in history

[jesmu84]

http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-talks-fossil-fuels-with-wait-but-why-2015-8

He's not wrong. Which, I suspect, is why many of the current oil/coal companies are investing in other energy sources.

[MU82]

http://www.techinsider.io/elon-musk-talks-fossil-fuels-with-wait-but-why-2015-8

He's not wrong. Which, I suspect, is why many of the current oil/coal companies are investing in other energy sources.

Get with the program, jesmu: Drill baby drill!

[jesmu84]

Get with the program, jesmu: Drill baby drill!

I have no problem with the US obtaining oil on our own land - assuming the extraction is cost-efficient as well as doesn't disrupt the eco-system or result in disasters.

However, there still is a limit to what is out there. And, especially for the military, since we need to have a set amount of "emergency supply", the consumer portion will be the first to run out. Converting our military over at some point to electricity or whatever will also cost a pretty penny.

[GGGG]

The marketplace will take care of it.  "It's possible that we'll discover more oil trapped in tar sands or deep under the ocean, but it just gets more expensive and riskier to extract."

And when that happens, alternatives will be a more viable option.  We are heavily dependent on fossil fuels because it is the cheapest way to generate power.

[GOO]

You hear less and less about "peak supply" in oil then you used to.  Not only because of new sources of oil, but because demand for oil is not keeping up with growth.  With "peak supply" meaning when we can't take out as much out of the ground as we used to be able to. Peak supply used to mean we were going to be doomed...but we now have competitive alternatives.

 But now the talk is "peak demand." 

What the Saudis have talked about, and one of the reasons they want lower prices (read under $80 a barrel, I think they prefer $70 to $80 a barrel), is that they fear "peak demand."  That demand is going to peak for oil.  There will be less and less demand for oil over time.

I've seen projected "peak demand" sometime around 2025 to 2030.  (I realize another reason the Saudi's want cheap oil, in the short term, is that they want prices low to hurt the US producers and Iran).  However, the Saudi's feel that it won't be lack of supply that is the reason that a bunch of oil is left in the ground, it will be lack of demand.  Lack of demand will peak before lack of supply. 

Why a lack of demand for oil, because of tech changes of course.  We are seeing these changes now.

The Saudi's have said that it wasn't a lack of stones that brought on the bronze age... it was tech changes.  Just like it won't be a lack of oil that brings on the post-oil age, it will be tech changes.

Each time oil gets close to $100 a barrel, the peak demand for oil gets closer and closer as R and D ramps up.  The Saudi's know that $100 plus oil only brings us closer to peak demand that much quicker as money gets pumped into tech.

Solar has gotten cheap and wind is getting cheaper.  The only thing holding these back from replacing oil/coal/gas is the cost of storage/batteries.  If the trend continues, batteries will be cheap enough in 10 years where oil can be economically replaced.  Battery costs have been cut in half since 2007 and will probably do so again over the next 7 years, and maybe sooner with Tesla pushing the market.   

[MU82]

I have no problem with the US obtaining oil on our own land - assuming the extraction is cost-efficient as well as doesn't disrupt the eco-system or result in disasters.

However, there still is a limit to what is out there. And, especially for the military, since we need to have a set amount of "emergency supply", the consumer portion will be the first to run out. Converting our military over at some point to electricity or whatever will also cost a pretty penny.

I was just joking. I can't make my interwebs voice sound like Quitter Palin.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm still waiting for Musk to tell us how he plans on disposing of all his batteries, what he thinks is going to fuel the electricity for his batteries, and why the efficiency for solar sucks so bad (I say this as a solar customer).

As for Peak Supply....as the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ GeoPhysicist I learned long ago what a sham that was and shared that here many times.  That was boogeyman scare nonsense just like we're going to be under water by 2015.  But people eat that crap up left and right.

There is so much oil left on this planet it will last thousands of years.  Musk has every reason to push his vision, it lines his pockets full of money.  Good for him, but he needs to still answer some very important questions that he has either half answered or ignored altogether.

[MU82]

I'm still waiting for Musk to tell us how he plans on disposing of all his batteries, what he thinks is going to fuel the electricity for his batteries, and why the efficiency for solar sucks so bad (I say this as a solar customer).

As for Peak Supply....as the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ GeoPhysicist I learned long ago what a sham that was and shared that here many times.  That was boogeyman scare nonsense just like we're going to be under water by 2015.  But people eat that crap up left and right.

There is so much oil left on this planet it will last thousands of years.  Musk has every reason to push his vision, it lines his pockets full of money.  Good for him, but he needs to still answer some very important questions that he has either half answered or ignored altogether.

Elon Musk is a bit of a loon. Maybe more than "a bit."

And, Chicos, I agree there is oil aplenty.

I'd argue that just because there is oil aplenty doesn't mean we have to drill on every available inch of the planet, but that's another discussion for another time.

Time for this left-leaning moderate to hit the hay. I stayed up too late on Scoop last night!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Elon Musk is a bit of a loon. Maybe more than "a bit."

And, Chicos, I agree there is oil aplenty.

I'd argue that just because there is oil aplenty doesn't mean we have to drill on every available inch of the planet, but that's another discussion for another time.

Time for this left-leaning moderate to hit the hay. I stayed up too late on Scoop last night!

We are in agreement MU82.  Though I think it is fair to say we hardly drill every inch or anywhere close.  I'm all for new forms of energy, but there has yet to be one invented that doesn't have a downside, that includes hydrogen, wind, solar, etc. 

[MU82]

We are in agreement MU82.  Though I think it is fair to say we hardly drill every inch or anywhere close.  I'm all for new forms of energy, but there has yet to be one invented that doesn't have a downside, that includes hydrogen, wind, solar, etc.

Yep, we used to drive a Prius, and I'd drive a hybrid again. I like to think we were doing more good than harm. But I have read many reports about the energy used in making the batteries and about the difficulties in disposing of them and I wonder if that's true.

It's yet another example of an issue that has all kinds of shades of gray. I'm pretty sure "drill baby drill" isn't the answer and I'm pretty sure "mine more coal" isn't the answer, either. But I don't pretend to know what the answer actually is at this time in the history of humankind.

[Benny B]

I'm still waiting for Musk to tell us how he plans on disposing of all his batteries, what he thinks is going to fuel the electricity for his batteries, and why the efficiency for solar sucks so bad (I say this as a solar customer).

As for Peak Supply....as the son of a Petroleum Geologist \ GeoPhysicist I learned long ago what a sham that was and shared that here many times.  That was boogeyman scare nonsense just like we're going to be under water by 2015.  But people eat that crap up left and right.

There is so much oil left on this planet it will last thousands of years.  Musk has every reason to push his vision, it lines his pockets full of money.  Good for him, but he needs to still answer some very important questions that he has either half answered or ignored altogether.

1. Musk hasn't told us where he plans on disposing of his batteries because he may not have to.  The lithium in the batteries can be recycled an infinite number of times, and though it's not cost-effective right now, rumor is that a large portion of his R&D is being poured into recycling, refreshing or remanufacturing used batteries in a cost-efficient manner.

2. Of course the efficiency of solar sucks... because Musk is seeking to improve upon it.  Just like when the car mfg's come out year and say, "last year's models suck, but don't worry, we'll be releasing next year's model very soon."

[GooooMarquette]

Yep, we used to drive a Prius, and I'd drive a hybrid again. I like to think we were doing more good than harm. But I have read many reports about the energy used in making the batteries and about the difficulties in disposing of them and I wonder if that's true.

It's yet another example of an issue that has all kinds of shades of gray. I'm pretty sure "drill baby drill" isn't the answer and I'm pretty sure "mine more coal" isn't the answer, either. But I don't pretend to know what the answer actually is at this time in the history of humankind.

Agreed.

We have one Prius and I like to believe it's probably a bit better for the environment than non-hybrids, but I doubt it's as much better as the MPG implies.  The focus seems to be on reduction of hydrocarbon emissions, which is of course a good thing...but people often forget to balance that against different types of  pollution that might be caused by battery manufacturing and disposal.  Are all-electric cars even better?  Really hard to say at this point....

[tower912]

Technology and profits will move forward.   More than likely, by the time the current generation of batteries are kaput, a way to profitably recycle them will exist.   

What will really make electric cars take off is the elimination of range anxiety.    What I envision is a system of replaceable batteries, like you have for your drill, your weed-whacker.   Drive 200 miles, stop by a refueling station, swap out a suitcase-sized battery, exchange it for a fully charged one on a charger, drive another 200 miles.  Like anything else, it will require a universal size, charger, etc.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

I will cut my balls off before getting a Prius.  But to each their own....I get the draw for some people.

I like providing food (carbon) for the trees with my truck and being able to haul stuff around. 

Out here, they are trying to pass an additional $.12 per gallon tax.  Meeting heavy opposition from people that actually work for a living, including the poor.  Fun times.

[augoman]

all gimmicks until someone invents a storage battery that can be manufactured without fouling the planet worse than a coal burning generator.  Musk is the master of sucking on the taxpayers teat by saying what we want to hear.  He should have kept his 'pay pal' money (he hasn't had a profitable venture since if you discount the government gifts).  I wonder how many taxpayer dollars he'll get to build his (so far nonexistent) 'energy cell' factory.

[Benny B]

I wonder how many taxpayer dollars he'll get to build his (so far nonexistent) 'energy cell' factory.

Lots more than you could imagine. But it's Nevada taxpayer money, not Federal, so basically, it's casino-financed.

[CTWarrior]

I will cut my balls off before getting a Prius.  But to each their own....I get the draw for some people.

I like providing food (carbon) for the trees with my truck and being able to haul stuff around. 

Out here, they are trying to pass an additional $.12 per gallon tax.  Meeting heavy opposition from people that actually work for a living, including the poor.  Fun times.

Chicos, I have always heard that Connecticut has the highest gas tax, but when I was in San Francisco last month the gas prices were a full dollar/gallon higher than they are here.  I'd think about fuel efficiency if faced with that.

[jficke13]

At some point gas prices motivate people to consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. Some people consider hybrids. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be caught dead in a vehicle as ugly as a Prius when Honda/Ford/others had the good sense to just retrofit existing successful models with hybrid technology.

The Prius is on par with the Aztek and the Cube for ugliest cars on the road.

[MU82]

At some point gas prices motivate people to consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. Some people consider hybrids. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be caught dead in a vehicle as ugly as a Prius when Honda/Ford/others had the good sense to just retrofit existing successful models with hybrid technology.

The Prius is on par with the Aztek and the Cube for ugliest cars on the road.

My wife actually thought our Prius was "cute." I never really thought so, but I certainly don't think it was ugly on par with the Aztek.

It also got nearly 60 mpg, and that was back when gas was about $4/gal. Including the large tax credit we got when we bought it, it was a very good financial choice at the time.

Unfortunately, it got totaled in an accident a few years ago and I haven't really liked the car we replaced it with.

I do agree that the hybrid Camry or something like that is far more pleasing to the eye than the Prius, though my wife might not agree. I mean, she has stuck with me this long, so there's no accounting for taste!!

[GOO]

My oh my.  There is so much misinformation in this thread that I couldn't sit back and not respond.  I've ignored the "cost of a Prius doesn't offset the cost of gas, etc" arguments that should take anyone a few minutes to realize doesn't make sense.  Well, unless you assume the Prius will be junked in 5 years or inflate the cost of the hybrid upcharge (even at 2.50 gas).   I don't want to get into a debate/long thread and waste an hour of my life, so I'll say my peace and that will be it. 

The problem is that there is so much bad info out there that it is hard to know what to believe and plenty of web sites to pull up to defend any position, many created by the GM's of the world when gas prices were high and by the Koch brothers and those like them who have a vested interest interest in junk science/info. 

E.g. the coal used to make electricity to charge electric vehicles is worse than burning gas (way off for so many reasons, it would take too long to list, look up how inefficient gas engines are to get a clue on where to start). 

Or that the energy to produce a battery that will last for 10 to 15 years is worse than the gas savings of those batteries. 

Or that a hummer is better for the environment than a Prius (yes, there were articles put out taking this position, totally wrong and off base, but there were put out there by GM when gas prices were high.  Basically the article assumes that a Prius is junked at 109K miles and the hummer gets 379K or so and also ignore the energy costs of producing the extra steel, etc...but GM got an article into the main stream press with crappy science.  My bet is on the Prius lasting longer than the Hummer and we know the prius is very likely to go 205K without major problems). 

Or some of the above stuff on battery's being these toxic things that are useless and not recycled...  really bad info.  Politics and money have done some strange things to internet.   

Tesla:  Car batteries have 70+ capacity left when they are no longer viable for us in a car.  The plan, to resell these for energy storage which they are still good for and recycle after that.  These companies have gone out of their way to use formulas that are recyclable.

Prius:  Car batteries are recycled.  Toyota pays a few hundred bucks for each battery to make it worth the effort to recycle them with Toyota.
The Prius NiMH battery is not some toxic, mess. It's nickle and potassium hydroxide, neither of which are "toxic", though potassium hydroxide will burn your flesh if splashed on it.

So even if the battery did end up in a land fill it would have little to no effect on the environment.

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/01/05/replacing-prius-batteries-can-be-good-for-the-environment-and/

That's my peace. Plenty of junk articles out there with bad info, but at least think before believing everything you read if it doesn't pass the smell test.  Oil in the ground to gas doesn't happen by magic. Heavier cars that use a lot of stainless and steel and chrome (both of which uses a lot more nickel than in a NiMH battery) come at a cost.

Here is my favorite example of junk science from this year, unrelated to this thread (that eating chocolate helps you loose weight):

http://io9.com/i-fooled-millions-into-thinking-chocolate-helps-weight-1707251800

[GooooMarquette]

At some point gas prices motivate people to consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. Some people consider hybrids. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be caught dead in a vehicle as ugly as a Prius when Honda/Ford/others had the good sense to just retrofit existing successful models with hybrid technology.

Because some of us bought a Prius at a time when Toyota was still light years ahead of Honda and Ford in hybrid technology.

Also, I've been able to fit my road bike in the back of my Prius without removing the wheels, and we recently hauled a twin sized mattress to my daughter's apartment.  Try doing that in an Accord or Fusion.

[GOO]

At some point gas prices motivate people to consider more fuel-efficient vehicles. Some people consider hybrids. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would be caught dead in a vehicle as ugly as a Prius when Honda/Ford/others had the good sense to just retrofit existing successful models with hybrid technology.

The Prius is on par with the Aztek and the Cube for ugliest cars on the road.

I can't say what is true now, but for me six years ago:

Prius: Hatch back (and if you have never owned a hatch back, then you probably won't understand, I am a convert and would find it hard to go back.  I hope the Tesla Gen III is paying attention); Great, great tech included in lower end models without much cost, 50 plus real world mpg, it's a toyota and I want a car that will get 100K plus without having issues that will cost me anything (and prefer 150K without issues).  But to me, getting a 100K without issues is a key and the main reason I unfortunately have had to avoid american cars. I want a car that will run great after 10 years or more.

Ford Hybrid:  At that time it looked more like a conventional care, but the back seats would not fold down and it had a trunk.  Ford was the only american car that I'd consider at that time (and probably still is, but I'd have to research it) but the quality was still no where near a Prius, tech features not very advanced,  real  world mpg below the sticker and the sticker was only around 40, I believe.

Honda: Hybrids. Bad hybrid system, toyota had the better tech by far.

American Hybrids:  Ford Fusion was a possible contender. The others were all bad cars with worse "hybrid" systems - they were really just engines with a battery to assist at times.  Many had limited impact on mpg.

As for the looks, I like simplicity in looks.  I like the function to decide the form, not the other way around.  The Prius has the function of getting somewhere and did it by cutting through the air much better than any other vehicle and the interior is large for the size of the car due to some great engineering and use of space.  Form followed function nicely.  Not let's make it look good so we can market it and who cares about the engineering, looks sell (the Chrysler/Jeep model of building a car). 

I have as little ego in what I drive and don't really care much about the "looks" and actually avoid "conspicuous consumption."  I have no need to impress anyone with material items or the looks of a car... or by what I drive or think that the shape of my car somehow reflects on who I am.

[jficke13]

I have not driven a hatchback and have no intent to. I don't like them.

I drove a friend's Prius a couple times back at or near the 1st generation (2004ish). I found the sight lines odd and the feel of the vehicle on the road unpleasant. It was not a pleasant vehicle to drive. I was not, however, trying to fit a twin sized mattress in it so maybe I would have sung a different tune had I been. It held our tennis stuff nicely I will concede.

I think the Prius looks awful and it's not like a drive a flashy car (Nissan Altima for what it's worth). Maybe Toyota has the finest hybrid technology out there; they sure have been in the industry the longest so I'd expect them to. If that's the case, then I'd look at the Camry hybrid long before I'd look at a Prius.

[MU82]

I like providing food (carbon) for the trees with my truck and being able to haul stuff around.

I'm sure you can come up with 7 links and 4 polls that unequivocally prove that trucks, Hummers and other gas-guzzlers are actually good for the environment.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Goo, do you think Popular Mechanics is biased against green initiatives?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a3259/electric-cars-pollute-more-than-gasoline-cars-17535339/

How about this study that producing Lithium batteries ADDs to the pollution in China?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-14/teslas-in-california-help-bring-dirty-rain-to-china


Etc.