patrick.net

MrMagic says

Patrick says

Solar is free energy falling from the sky down on every country, needing only to be collected and stored. Beats the fuck out of oil and Islamic terrorism.

Any idea how much environmental pollution is created by the production of solar panels and high capacity batteries and how much power it takes to make them?

I think the pollution is significant and there have been studies corroborating that, however if the production is done overseas or in China it will benefit the US and its citizens with cleaner air while polluting the place of manufacturing. So from a standpoint of Nimby-ism it could be regarded as successful.

They do. And only hire those who don’t pass.

jvolstad says

I guess they don't require drug testing at Tesla.

clambo says

All Teslas in the Bay Area are really running on natural gas anyway, Duke Power in Moss Landing burns it to make electricity.

Ahhh, just a minor technical correct on where electricity comes from.

Strategist says

In San Diego County, 44% of the electricity comes from renewables.

Even at night?

mell says

I think the pollution is significant and there have been studies corroborating that, however if the production is done overseas or in China it will benefit the US and its citizens with cleaner air while polluting the place of manufacturing. So from a standpoint of Nimby-ism it could be regarded as successful.

Musk is making batteries here in the Gigafactory 1 and solar panels here in Gigafactory 2.

mell says

Any idea how much environmental pollution is created by the production of solar panels and high capacity batteries and how much power it takes to make them?

I think the pollution is significant and there have been studies corroborating that, however if the production is done overseas or in China it will benefit the US and its citizens with cleaner air while polluting the place of manufacturing.

I have heard an argument like this a few years ago that claimed solar panels used more energy to manufacture than the energy it produced over 25 years. It was a good laugh because if it was true:
1. Pollution would increase and they would not bother making them.
2. The cost would be so high, they would never be economical to make. No country in their right minds would promote it.
3. The manufacturing costs of solar panels would not have fallen 80% in the last few years. Did the the cost of energy we always use fall 80%?
----
These are just oil company propaganda designed to slow down or eliminate the competition. It's too silly to even comprehend.

Strategist says

mell says

Any idea how much environmental pollution is created by the production of solar panels and high capacity batteries and how much power it takes to make them?

I think the pollution is significant and there have been studies corroborating that, however if the production is done overseas or in China it will benefit the US and its citizens with cleaner air while polluting the place of manufacturing.

I have heard an argument like this a few years ago that claimed solar panels used more energy to manufacture than the energy it produced over 25 years. It was a good laugh because if it was true:
1. Pollution would increase and they would not bother making them.
2. The cost would be so high, they would never be economical to make. No country in their right minds would promote it.
3. The manufacturing costs of solar panels would not have fallen 80% in t...

The cost says nothing about the pollution, I am not arguing the economic side. Also wrt solar panels I am unsure, but the batteries cause significant pollution. This is not propaganda. I am not against solar power, but I am not convinced at all so far that a Tesla is overall less polluting than a hybrid or (turbo) diesel that gets 50+ miles per gallon.

mell says

The cost says nothing about the pollution, I am not arguing the economic side. Also wrt solar panels I am unsure, but the batteries cause significant pollution. This is not propaganda.

Lets just use renewable energy to manufacture them. Problem solved.

Strategist says

mell says

The cost says nothing about the pollution, I am not arguing the economic side. Also wrt solar panels I am unsure, but the batteries cause significant pollution. This is not propaganda.

Lets just use renewable energy to manufacture them. Problem solved.

That's a good step, and for charging them. It's also the materials for the battery themselves and the extraction process for those that cause pollution beyond carbon footprint (which is currently significant). But I don't see why we should legislate this, sure demand efficient cars and make guzzlers progressively more expensive (of course you may harm the poor with this), but energy has always been and should always be a mix. Banning combustion engines is plain stupid IMO.

Good for him.

I have no issue with this whatsoever.

TrumpingTits says

DASKAA says

The freak-out is because of all the short-sellers drumming up any little thing in an attempt to make the stock dip.

Wrong. The short sellers are not driving the stock down. It is the collapsing stock that is drawing the short sellers in, instead.

Right. I bet the poor souls who got burned on shorting Volkswagen stock a decade ago wished it was that simple.

So those who like Musk do so because he is a proponent of solar energy, not because he is an effective CEO and not because Tesla makes any money besides corporate welfare.

At least we all have it straight.

CNG cars (which I like) don't make "smoke" and produce no particulates. CO2 produced is less than from burning gasoline also because of the chemical structure of methane.

CO2 also is not a pollutant despite the baloney from non-scientists like Al Gore (a hash achiever in college)

IMHO, solar panels have value in giving household energy independence. The mining processes that produce the special mineral material necessary for making batteries and high torque electric motors however are highly polluting. Natural gas, oil and even coal are renewable energy sources too: they are produced by radioactive decay of Uranium and Thorium inside the earth and earth-moon tidal force generating heat and high pressure environment below the earth's crust turning limestone (laid down at ocean floor then subducted into the earth at tectonic plate boundaries) and water into natural gas (CH4, methane); then bacterial action stripping hydrogen atoms (as bacteria's own food/energy source) turn CH4 into C2H6 (ethane) followed by further hydrogen-stripping and elongation of the carbon chain, eventually resulting in chains long than 4-carbon (carbon chain 5-40 in length is petroleum/oil). Eventually bacteria stripping away all hydrogen and leave behind carbon/coal. The real problems with burning coal are particulate/soot/sulpher pollution during combustion, human cost in mining and high transportation cost compared to pipelines.

The real issue I see with Musk is that, his recent actions seem to indicate a man who wants to be fired by the board. Who knows, perhaps getting fired would allow him to sell his shares in a sinking ship?

Reality says

IMHO, solar panels have value in giving household energy independence. The mining processes that produce the special mineral material necessary for making batteries and high torque electric motors however are highly polluting.

Mining anything from the earth is polluting. The gasoline engine pollutes while it materials are mined, during the manufacturing process, while being used, and when it reaches the landfill. The crude oil that will be used is even more polluting while being extracted, transported in ships and pipelines, during the refinery process, during the distribution process, and when it's used.
Claiming we should not use batteries and and electric cars because it pollutes while being mined is plain silly when we know the lifetime pollution caused by gasoline engines is overwhelming by any standard.
It's Big Oil propaganda to mislead Joe Sixpack and nothing else. If I was to lose $trillions I would lie to protect it too. I don't see the scientific world buying this nonsense.

clambo says

So those who like Musk do so because he is a proponent of solar energy, not because he is an effective CEO and not because Tesla makes any money besides corporate welfare.

At least we all have it straight.

It's irrelevant how good of a CEO Musk is in this context.
It's irrelevant wether Tesla makes money or even ceases to exist.
What is relevant is that fossil fuels are well on it's way to being replaced by a clean, free, and abundant fuel. The benefits to mankind are just immeasurable.

Good time to BUY Tesla

Do not buy Tesla stock.

They 1. don't sell many cars 2. don't make money 3. are in danger from competitors 4. are losing the Federal subsidy of $7500 per car (i.e. soon Tesla price rises by $7500) 5. have bad management 6 upper managers are leaving like rats jumping from a ship

I'm inventing a zero point energy car that will make Tesla obsolete. I just have to find the zero point energy.

Ceffer says

I'm inventing a zero point energy car that will make Tesla obsolete. I just have to find the zero point energy.

I think the Cave Men already invented that. They called it a wheel going downhill.

No more lag between Model3 order and delivery: cars are available immediately to reservation holders. Still no standard-range trim though.

I expect the oil interests to fight back with a lot of propaganda about how polluting solar cells and batteries are, but solar is not inherently polluting the environment the way oil is.

Note that every green plant on earth is a solar cell. Takes sunlight, makes sugars. Farms are giant solar cells. They even look like solar cells when viewed from an airplane. The only question is how to maximize efficiency while minimizing pollution.

Aphroman says

DASKAA says

clambo says

The fact that Musk may be a pothead is not so significant.

Eh? He specifically stated that he doesn't smoke that stuff regularly because it hurts productivity. Can a person with this kind of view on MJ be legitimately classified as "pothead"? What's next: calling a guy who drinks a six-pack over a weekend an "alcoholic"?

Who other than alcoholics drink a six pack of beer over the weekend?

Pretty much everybody except the fucking pothead zombies who's stoned 24x7x365. :-P

Aphroman says

I’m pretty sure that someone who drinks a six pack every weekend is by definition, an alcoholic. They’re exhibiting dependence of alcohol.

I'm pretty sure that a person capable to not drink any alcohol for 5 days and then consuming only 6 bottles of weak juice over 48 hours will not fit the definition of an alcoholic.

Let's see: "In a medical context, alcoholism is said to exist when two or more of the following conditions are present: a person drinks large amounts over a long time period, has difficulty cutting down, acquiring and drinking alcohol takes up a great deal of time, alcohol is strongly desired, usage results in not fulfilling responsibilities, usage results in social problems, usage results in health problems, usage results in risky situations, withdrawal occurs when stopping, and alcohol tolerance has occurred with use.[1] Risky situations include drinking and driving or having unsafe sex, among other things."

Nope, doesn't fit.

DASKAA says

Aphroman says

I’m pretty sure that someone who drinks a six pack every weekend is by definition, an alcoholic. They’re exhibiting dependence of alcohol.

I'm pretty sure that a person capable to not drink any alcohol for 5 days and then consuming only 6 bottles of weak juice over 48 hours will not fit the definition of an alcoholic.

Let's see: "In a medical context, alcoholism is said to exist when two or more of the following conditions are present: a person drinks large amounts over a long time period, has difficulty cutting down, acquiring and drinking alcohol takes up a great deal of time, alcohol is strongly desired, usage results in not fulfilling responsibilities, usage results in social problems, usage results in health problems, usage results in risky situations, withdrawal occurs when stopping, and alcohol tolerance has occurred with use.[1] Risky situations include drinking and d...

I'd say it's more binge then alcoholic if we're looking to categorize it somehow. Just consuming a lot at one time, but that's it for a while. I know very, very few people who don't consume in this way. And yes 3 beers a day over a weekend is a nothing burger.

Even my buddies that are like 130lbs will throw back 6 beers on a Saturday night over 4-5 hours. A beer an hour on average is pretty minimal if you're hanging out for a while. These guys smoke the reefer while doing this and they seem pretty straight at the end of the night or after a round of golf (no, they don't drive - carpool or cab/uber).

I agree alcohol is not good for you, but throwing down a 6 pack every Saturday night (especially with a light beer) is likely to not have any serious long term consequences. It's the daily usage where you run into health risks. Or massive binges of 10 plus drinks in a short period of time.