Hyperloop

[tower912]

Musk is a big dreamer with big bucks.   It is a pipe dream (ha!), but it DID spark conversation.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Musk is a big dreamer with big bucks.   It is a pipe dream (ha!), but it DID spark conversation.

I tire of him...Tesla cars all over the place here in So. Cal...nice car, but more cost than it is worth.  He speaks and people fall over themselves sometimes.  He's a rich guy making electric cars for rich people...electric cars that have the same carbon footprint as a gasoline car.  It's pretty funny to watch.

[Coleman]

I tire of him...Tesla cars all over the place here in So. Cal...nice car, but more cost than it is worth.  He speaks and people fall over themselves sometimes.  He's a rich guy making electric cars for rich people...electric cars that have the same carbon footprint as a gasoline car.  It's pretty funny to watch.

The price will come down. It already is. In 5 years the price difference will be negligle between an electric car and a gas. The Volt can already be had for under 30k.

Tesla made a very smart choice to enter the luxury market. If you are going to charge 40-70k for a car, it better damn well be nice. And its worked for them. They are turning profits.

You are right about the carbon footprint...for now. The key is if you get a green grid (solar, wind, nuclear, even natural gas is a relatively clean fuel and by far the most plentiful out of these choices) - then the carbon footprint decreases dramaticaly.

You gotta start somewhere Chicos. You can laugh at it. But its not like you can just turn our country's 100 year dependence on oil upside down overnight.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The price will come down. It already is. In 5 years the price difference will be negligle between an electric car and a gas. The Volt can already be had for under 30k.

Tesla made a very smart choice to enter the luxury market. If you are going to charge 40-70k for a car, it better damn well be nice. And its worked for them. They are turning profits.

You are right about the carbon footprint...for now. The key is if you get a green grid (solar, wind, nuclear, even natural gas is a relatively clean fuel and by far the most plentiful out of these choices) - then the carbon footprint decreases dramaticaly.

You gotta start somewhere Chicos. You can laugh at it. But its not like you can just turn our country's 100 year dependence on oil upside down overnight.

We have more oil reserves in this country with shale than all of the Middle East combined.  Shame we choose to rely elsewhere for our needs.  I'm the son of a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist so  was educated on this stuff since a young pup.

As for the other stuff, you'll be happy to know that I have 17 solar panels being installed on my roof come next week.  I'm not against renewable at all, I'm against people thinking that these "clean" cars or "clean" sources of energy are clean.  Hardly, in fact often WORSE than what we have.  People aren't capable of seeing the big picture sometimes and understanding what it takes to produce that electricity, what goes into the batteries, where are the batteries disposed of, the mining for said components like lithium...all come at a cost both short term and long term.  That's really my point...we have a lot of jugheads out here on the coast puffing their chest on how green they are, but in reality they are pretty ignorant to not even understand that currently they are actually less green than everyone else.  The irony is totally lost on them.

As for the costs of the Volt and others, that's consumer costs.  They are still unprofitable and will be for some time as subsidies galore are fueling things now.  I see where GM just had to slash prices again just to move those cars.

[MUBurrow]

As I see it, the auto industry serves as a barometer for individual demand for cleaner energies. Sure, Musk and Tesla are over-deified given the relatively negligible environmental benefits of gas vs. electric cars, but i think thats a product of the relative helplessness individuals feel to effect energy policy.  Solar panels take a huge upfront investment - props btw Chicos - and the more affordable opportunity cost of an electric car is a way to try to make a difference.

Regarding US oil reserves - 60 percent of US oil consumption already comes from domestic production. 28 percent of what is imported comes from Canada with another 10 percent from Mexico. So while we definitely do import from Saudi Arabia, etc., its not like it makes up a lion's share of domestic usage. I've always wished Congress could come up with some sort of compromise tying expansion of domestic production to support for turning the grid over to renewable energy. Using current domestic production as a baseline, for every additional barrel derived from US lands, $__ goes toward renewable energy expansion. I understand there are a lot of kinks that would need to be worked out, the subsidy rate and the destination for the funds chief among them, but at least it would satisfy the call for increasing domestic production and would hopefully create some momentum for increasing renewable's production share.

[Strokin 3s]

Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables?  The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow.  Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas.  The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost.  When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.

[Coleman]

Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables?  The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow.  Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas.  The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost.  When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.

Cuz renewables are the only thing the government subsidizes... Nope no corporate welfare for oil companies at all

[ChicosBailBonds]

Cuz renewables are the only thing the government subsidizes... Nope no corporate welfare for oil companies at all

Good thing the "oil" companies aren't producing renewables   

[MUBurrow]

Why would you tie domestic production increases to "turning the grid over" to renewables?  The fact is sometimes the sun doesn't shine and sometimes the wind doesn't blow.  Until there is sufficient technology to store this energy during times of high wind and high solar peaks the grid will always and inevitably need a baseline of energy from sources such as nuclear, coal, nat gas.  The reason those methods are used is simple, reliability and cost.  When renewables are more cost effective I would fully endorse them, but that also includes eliminating the subsidies currently required to prop them up.

Because I think it would be a terrible waste to expand domestic oil production with no semblance of a plan to get away from those fuels. Its a situation just begging for responsible compromise. The system we have now took public-private partnership over the past seventy-five years to grow to the behemoth that it is today; now, it drowns out any potential competitors. To claim that energy generation and transmission resembles a "free" market where any competitor survives or dies on its own merit was never, and is not currently true. That's not even meant to be a criticism of the public support that the modern day fossil fuel grid has received - its meant to point out that demanding any alternative energy survive through entirely private investment isnt reflective of how energy policy is or ever has been forged.  When fossil fuel energy generation is expanded, its "infrastructure." When there's talk of turning that generation over to renewables, its "big government" or "corporate welfare." That's a sad dissonance.

Tying domestic fossil fuel production to alternative energy expansion is a compromise that will actually benefit fossil fuel producers more than anyone. It could essentially be drawn up as a forced investment program whereby the oil companies themselves retain rights in the alternative energy technologies that are developed. After all, as Chicos pointed out, they might be best positioned from an R and D standpoint to bring alternative energy technologies to market. It permits the oil companies to profit from increased domestic fossil fuel production while simultaneously wrapping its arms around the alternatives market. Given the carrot of increased profits from drilling domestically, thats just about the most gentle stick you'll ever see.

[KirbyRoloff]

We have more oil reserves in this country with shale than all of the Middle East combined.  Shame we choose to rely elsewhere for our needs.  I'm the son of a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist so  was educated on this stuff since a young pup.

As for the other stuff, you'll be happy to know that I have 17 solar panels being installed on my roof come next week.  I'm not against renewable at all, I'm against people thinking that these "clean" cars or "clean" sources of energy are clean.  Hardly, in fact often WORSE than what we have.  People aren't capable of seeing the big picture sometimes and understanding what it takes to produce that electricity, what goes into the batteries, where are the batteries disposed of, the mining for said components like lithium...all come at a cost both short term and long term.  That's really my point...we have a lot of jugheads out here on the coast puffing their chest on how green they are, but in reality they are pretty ignorant to not even understand that currently they are actually less green than everyone else.  The irony is totally lost on them.

As for the costs of the Volt and others, that's consumer costs.  They are still unprofitable and will be for some time as subsidies galore are fueling things now.  I see where GM just had to slash prices again just to move those cars.

I do completely agree with you.. Alternative sources of energy are not clean as it seems to be...There are many factors which needs to be considered before using them.

[Benny B]

I do completely agree with you.. Alternative sources of energy are not clean as it seems to be...There are many factors which needs to be considered before using them.

Wow... this necro has "campaign intern" written all over it.

[mu03eng]

Additional food for thought

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/26/autos/tesla-funding/

[ChicosBailBonds]

Oil oil everywhere.  My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers.  He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html

[forgetful]

Oil oil everywhere.  My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers.  He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html

I completely agree with you that most things that are talked about as being "green" are indeed not "green", similarly GMO foods aren't going to kill you are harm you (there affect on biodiversity is a completely different issue), but that does not make fracking a good idea either. 

That's like saying, all these fad diets aren't really very good for you and all these healthy people following them aren't that healthy…so I'm going to go ahead and mainline bacon grease into my blood stream.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Doesn't the peak oil theory just state that at some point we will have pumped 50% of the oil in existence. 

From mineralwebs.com:
One of the weaknesses of the peak oil theory is that it can’t really be used to determine when the peak will occur. Many years after the fact it will be obvious, but the theory does little to predict the future. This means that nobody really knows when oil will peak.

So if it's true we won't know......until we know.  New use of old technology like fracking is keeping oil pumping at highs, but who's to say that's not temporary?

[ZiggysFryBoy]

I completely agree with you that most things that are talked about as being "green" are indeed not "green", similarly GMO foods aren't going to kill you are harm you (there affect on biodiversity is a completely different issue), but that does not make fracking a good idea either. 

That's like saying, all these fad diets aren't really very good for you and all these healthy people following them aren't that healthy…so I'm going to go ahead and mainline bacon grease into my blood stream.

you can do that?  tell me more.

[brandx]

Oil oil everywhere.  My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers.  He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better than most.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/fracking-is-turning-the-us-into-a-bigger-oil-producer-than-saudi-arabia-9185133.html

So you trust geologists/physicists, but not meteorologists/climatologists?

Which other sciences are for real

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Oil oil everywhere.  My dad is giggling somewhere, he would tell the Peak Oil people they were completely off their rockers.  He was right....of course as a petroleum geologist \ geophysicist he knew better

Used to sail the Channel Islands with a petroleum engineer who lectured around the world. He used to say that as best he could figure oil was still being made and impending limit was nonsense. By the way, oil seeps out of the ground everywhere in Cal. Including under the ocean. Not uncommon to have to use something to get it off your feet after a beach walk.

[brandx]

Used to sail the Channel Islands with a petroleum engineer who lectured around the world. He used to say that as best he could figure oil was still being made and impending limit was nonsense. By the way, oil seeps out of the ground everywhere in Cal. Including under the ocean. Not uncommon to have to use something to get it off your feet after a beach walk.

While it is not an infinite source, oil is surely still being formed underground. Same forces still at work - although we are using it much quicker than it is being formed. But it will almost certainly last longer than we have been told.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

There's also the abiotic oil theory that according to the abiogenic hypothesis, petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits, perhaps dating to the formation of the Earth.  Thus oil will just keep seaping out.  I only hear dof it because it was tied into a Steve Berry novel.

[Benny B]

So you trust geologists/physicists, but not meteorologists/climatologists?

Which other sciences are for real

Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor."  Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.

Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.

[brandx]

Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor."  Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.

Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.

Ah.....right

[forgetful]

you can do that?  tell me more.

The trick is that bacon grease really isn't that soluble and is quite viscous, so you need to dilute it in something first.  Dimethyl Sulfoxide is a good choice, can usually be found at a pharmacy.  I recommend a 5% DMSO, 90% water, 5% bacon grease mixture.

Disclaimer:  The above paragraph is not to be taken seriously.  Only a licensed medical practitioner should do any bacon grease injections…and even then they should lose their damn license.

[Coleman]

Calling a meteorologist or climatologist a "scientist" is tantamount to calling a chiropractor a "doctor."  Sure, it may be regarded as technically correct, but come on... even dentists won't let them sit at their table at the doctors' country club.

Meteorology and climatology more closely resemble astrology than they do geology.

Except for the fact that 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community accepts their findings. Benny, do you have your PhD in climatology? I think I'll go with the actual scientists in this debate, thanks.

The only people who discount the science of climatology are not scientists, or they are one of the handful who are bankrolled by right-wing interest groups.

 

[Benny B]

Except for the fact that 99.9% of the rest of the scientific community accepts their findings. Benny, do you have your PhD in climatology? I think I'll go with the actual scientists in this debate, thanks.

The only people who discount the science of climatology are not scientists, or they are one of the handful who are bankrolled by right-wing interest groups.

Listen... I'm not making a political statement here.  I'm simply sharing the observation that a) climatology and meteorology generally have not attracted the best and brightest of the scientific world, and b) anyone who advocates one side or the other is a lemming at best.  Frankly, both sides of the table have completely butchered their arguments on climate change as it pertains to what can be factually, and statistically, supported.  For example, there is some truth in your 99.9% "acceptance" statement, but elaborate on what "findings" are actually being "accepted" and it paints a very different picture than the one being implied.  On the flip side, there are people who will accept the statistical findings that the earth is warming, yet blindly attribute it to cyclical changes while completely rejecting any possibility of influence by humans (e.g. "we had an ice age once, so of course it's getting warmer... that doesn't mean my SUV has anything to do with it").  Neither side is correct when it comes to climate change... there are still questions that have to be answered before there can be anything close to a true consensus.  

All of this is just a long way of expressing that, in my opinion, had guys like Enrico Fermi decided to take up climatology instead, we probably would have had that consensus by now.