Trump’s sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
Trump’s sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/09/trumps-sweep-could-be-a-big-setback-to-tesla-and-elon-musk/
121 comments
if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re...
it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re...
it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear
> it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him.
I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.
I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.
Agreed. I don't think he has any discernible political position. That would be too constraining. He's a salesmen and a deal maker. He's going to say what he needs to get support, then make hay while the sun shines. He and Musk will get along fine. They're peers. If there's a way to make money, increase economic growth, or otherwise trade the currency of Musk's brand, Trump will totally use it imo. Then he'll explain why it's the right thing to do to his followers and they'll be all in.
His positions were pretty clear. He's for all forms of energy, including coal. Wind too, but just not around his golf courses.
he doesn't know or care about any policy. just took every republican policy and took it to its farrest extent to get votes.
> I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance.
That's what makes this so interesting, his audience is now the whole country and now he actually has to do something.
That's what makes this so interesting, his audience is now the whole country and now he actually has to do something.
[deleted]
I recall earlier this year Musk on stage asked about the Presidential election. He was extremely careful about picking his words and at no time bashed or even mentioned Trump. There shouldn't be any bad blood there.
> he only truly cares about himself
that's one hell of a claim
that's one hell of a claim
He exhibits all the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder. These people, by definition, only care about themselves.
One of the criteria for a mental illness is that it's negatively affecting your ability to work, have social relationships, etc.
Trump just got elected President of the United States; it is not negatively affecting him. And people who work around him seem to like him.
Trump just got elected President of the United States; it is not negatively affecting him. And people who work around him seem to like him.
>it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...
>he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear
Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?
>he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear
Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?
You should put the "..." in brackets or even replace it with the original text, because you edited out the word "but".
The two aren't mutually exclusive. One can be notoriously difficult to pin down in general and yet clear on a few things.
doesn't seem like you actually read what I wrote but here's a relevant article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
Stands for: ambitious. Against: crystal clear.
It will be very interesting to watch the country for next few years.
The biggest difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was just working for some law firm and happened to be a senator from Illinois when his movement took off. He didn't have any strong grudges against people or companies more than me or you. Trump is different. He once purchased a property next to airport for the whole purpose of suing that airport for the noise levels. After he lost 2 times, he sold the property. This is someone that will go after you time and time just because he can shell out sometimes not his money to use court system against you. When he settles, he call it "winning", when others settle he call them "losing".
I don't see this administration having large scandals like Obama did where clearly his buddies are making billions of dollars either in solar or healthcare, etc. I think Trump will make some progress for USA with his business experience, but unless he can change 180 overnight (doubt), I'm sure we will see a few scandals where he uses his presidential position and/or government apparatus such as IRS/DEA/FBI to go after those selected few individuals/companies who he couldn't digest over the years... that I can bet on!
The biggest difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was just working for some law firm and happened to be a senator from Illinois when his movement took off. He didn't have any strong grudges against people or companies more than me or you. Trump is different. He once purchased a property next to airport for the whole purpose of suing that airport for the noise levels. After he lost 2 times, he sold the property. This is someone that will go after you time and time just because he can shell out sometimes not his money to use court system against you. When he settles, he call it "winning", when others settle he call them "losing".
I don't see this administration having large scandals like Obama did where clearly his buddies are making billions of dollars either in solar or healthcare, etc. I think Trump will make some progress for USA with his business experience, but unless he can change 180 overnight (doubt), I'm sure we will see a few scandals where he uses his presidential position and/or government apparatus such as IRS/DEA/FBI to go after those selected few individuals/companies who he couldn't digest over the years... that I can bet on!
>...it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...
He was pretty clear about it. He's for wind energy, just not on his golf course.
He was pretty clear about it. He's for wind energy, just not on his golf course.
“The wind kills all your birds. All your birds, killed. You know, the environmentalists never talk about that.”
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
Trump also said Wind farms are bad because it kills birds.
> He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:
He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.
I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.
[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.
He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.
I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.
[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.
Trump is bad for the environment (then again, all Presidents have been bad for the environment--nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done), but there are some bright sides. If you look at environmental harms in dollar terms, climate change isn't actually the most harmful thing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal.
Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.
Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.
Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.
Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.
> Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage.
Except that climate change will ultimately lead to absolute health damage for planet and all of its occupants.
That makes it way more important than health damage in the here and now, even though that's obviously easier to see and relate to.
Except that climate change will ultimately lead to absolute health damage for planet and all of its occupants.
That makes it way more important than health damage in the here and now, even though that's obviously easier to see and relate to.
You can grow new people (and voters). Takes about 18 years. However, making a new planet, or dropping the ocean levels, takes orders of magnitude longer.
It's not just presidents that don't have the balls, it's also consumers and other policy makers.
You do what you can.
Left my reusable plastic shopping bags at home again, so I took some out of the plastic bag recycling bin in the shopping centre. So then one of the staff from rhe supermarket told me I can take bags out of the plastic bag recycling bin because they belong to the company who recycles them.
What?
So, the situation we find ourselves in here is going to take some leadership.
Left my reusable plastic shopping bags at home again, so I took some out of the plastic bag recycling bin in the shopping centre. So then one of the staff from rhe supermarket told me I can take bags out of the plastic bag recycling bin because they belong to the company who recycles them.
What?
So, the situation we find ourselves in here is going to take some leadership.
Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.
Of course, he has also said some stupid things that are very anti-renewable when he has been in front of audiences that wanted to hear that (some parts of his base).
Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump? We will find out in time.
Of course, he has also said some stupid things that are very anti-renewable when he has been in front of audiences that wanted to hear that (some parts of his base).
Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump? We will find out in time.
> Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.
How is removing regulations from the EPA going to focus on "clean" coal? Trump is going to remove regulations.
How is removing regulations from the EPA going to focus on "clean" coal? Trump is going to remove regulations.
Forgive me for my skepticism, but "clean" coal is now the preferred nomenclature by most coal proponents, including those who have no intention of incurring a 30% efficiency tax on coal consumers. It is as meaningful as "natural" is on a food label.
>Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump?
The one that wants all forms of energy? Because that would make the most economic sense. Let the market compete.
The one that wants all forms of energy? Because that would make the most economic sense. Let the market compete.
The market only cares about profit, they don't care about the environment or the future beyond seeing growth in the next quarter.
Letting market compete means dialing back the net metering, discounts, cashbacks and preferential treatment for renewables, which in turn means huge decrease of their allure, which in turn means less of renewables
Not like I'm particularly sad, watching Germany fuck itself up so bad with renewables :/ (Price of electricy at least doubled), grid requires massive investments all the time (also, Germany had to decouple from Austria because they caused massive strain on countries in between due to volatility in Germany), the per year energy produced is still barely worth mentioning and the best part is, they effectively increased the emissions, since any energy intensive industry is long gone and relocated to China where it runs on coal PP with way lower emission standards
Not like I'm particularly sad, watching Germany fuck itself up so bad with renewables :/ (Price of electricy at least doubled), grid requires massive investments all the time (also, Germany had to decouple from Austria because they caused massive strain on countries in between due to volatility in Germany), the per year energy produced is still barely worth mentioning and the best part is, they effectively increased the emissions, since any energy intensive industry is long gone and relocated to China where it runs on coal PP with way lower emission standards
XJOKOLAT(1)
Awesome! Another reason for outrage. That's exactly what we need.
At this point, shouldn't he be trying to get the 'other' half of the country on his side instead of pissing them off further?
At this point, shouldn't he be trying to get the 'other' half of the country on his side instead of pissing them off further?
It talks about Tesla, but I'm not really sure how much oil prices can really decline. I would be more worried about SolarCity and solar in general. Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those (and perhaps discontinuation of credits for renewable energy) would discourage new solar installations.
What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energy companies... it would take a while to rebuild that, even if the policies are restored later on.
What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energy companies... it would take a while to rebuild that, even if the policies are restored later on.
The US, under Obama, has nearly doubled our oil production, largely through fracking, to the point where we are now producing more than we use, and also lifted the ban on exports. We're not in the business of trying to make oil cheaper anymore.
Fracking is an expensive way to get oil (compared to drilling), and we're near the break even price. The Saudis, who have been manipulating our politics for years by threatening to cut production to raise prices, have now started flooding the market with cheap oil in an effort to starve out both our fracking and our emerging electric car market.
Our response has been to pass a law making foreign nations liable for damages caused by their involvement in terrorism committed on US soil, and declassifying the 9-11 report, which shows enough Saudi involvement to open the door for a lawsuit. Considering how much they have in US assets, this could potentially be collected on. It's a threat. We're trying to pressure them into ending their flood of the market so prices will rise. The Saudis know it and have threatened to drop a trillion in US debt and holdings.
Say what you want about Trump's social issues, but he understands this kind of game. He's not going to expand a US product that is struggling to break even with intent to lower the sale price. He'll continue pressuring the Saudis to drop their production, oil prices will rise, and it will benefit both the US oil industry, and Elon Musk.
Fracking is an expensive way to get oil (compared to drilling), and we're near the break even price. The Saudis, who have been manipulating our politics for years by threatening to cut production to raise prices, have now started flooding the market with cheap oil in an effort to starve out both our fracking and our emerging electric car market.
Our response has been to pass a law making foreign nations liable for damages caused by their involvement in terrorism committed on US soil, and declassifying the 9-11 report, which shows enough Saudi involvement to open the door for a lawsuit. Considering how much they have in US assets, this could potentially be collected on. It's a threat. We're trying to pressure them into ending their flood of the market so prices will rise. The Saudis know it and have threatened to drop a trillion in US debt and holdings.
Say what you want about Trump's social issues, but he understands this kind of game. He's not going to expand a US product that is struggling to break even with intent to lower the sale price. He'll continue pressuring the Saudis to drop their production, oil prices will rise, and it will benefit both the US oil industry, and Elon Musk.
Natural gas would have to be really cheap in order to beat spot prices for solar on sunny days, especially in the southwest. It's still good for peaker plants though. Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable unless Congress starts taxing solar directly, since it still can't beat solar spot prices and it's categorically unprofitable to run coal plants as peakers.
Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable
I was looking up the numbers.. and was happy to see renewables cost being lower. But take a look at this 2015 report from the EIA: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_g...
At the time at least, "clean coal" is more expensive than solar.. but if you eliminated the carbon capture requirement (ie: "conventional coal"), it significantly reduces the price, bringing it in under solar.
There is a 2016 version of this report.. but it gets rid of the conventional coal costs, because regulation prevents plants without carbon capture from being built. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
I was looking up the numbers.. and was happy to see renewables cost being lower. But take a look at this 2015 report from the EIA: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_g...
At the time at least, "clean coal" is more expensive than solar.. but if you eliminated the carbon capture requirement (ie: "conventional coal"), it significantly reduces the price, bringing it in under solar.
There is a 2016 version of this report.. but it gets rid of the conventional coal costs, because regulation prevents plants without carbon capture from being built. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
Coal does not compete against renewables, it competes against combined cycle natural gas plants.
Natural gas pushes the rest of coal out, with the benefit of being lower carbon impact and has the ability to throttle quicker before the evening peak when solar generation recedes. Wind and solar will of course continue to come down in cost, pushing out natural gas, with battery storage replacing the last of natural gas eventually.
Natural gas pushes the rest of coal out, with the benefit of being lower carbon impact and has the ability to throttle quicker before the evening peak when solar generation recedes. Wind and solar will of course continue to come down in cost, pushing out natural gas, with battery storage replacing the last of natural gas eventually.
Coal does not compete against renewables, it competes against combined cycle natural gas plants.
According to the 2016 report, it's tax credits that brings solar PV within 5% of combined cycle plants. Without the credits it's 33% more expensive. (And this is for plants entering service in 2022.)
According to the 2016 report, it's tax credits that brings solar PV within 5% of combined cycle plants. Without the credits it's 33% more expensive. (And this is for plants entering service in 2022.)
Maybe I'm missing your argument? I'm arguing moving to natural gas is a win regardless, even if it takes longer for the cost of solar to come down.
maybe (although I'm not really disagreeing with you). I'm more worried about continuing the increase of solar and other renewables.
I understand nat gas may be better and a temporary win... but I think the future should be renewables, and I'm concerned about policy changes that could damage and set back progress with solar, etc.
If solar is only competitive because of tax credits, then solar companies may have significant losses if those credits are discontinued.
I understand nat gas may be better and a temporary win... but I think the future should be renewables, and I'm concerned about policy changes that could damage and set back progress with solar, etc.
If solar is only competitive because of tax credits, then solar companies may have significant losses if those credits are discontinued.
I'm just as dismayed as you, and already researching damage control.
I have a CPA investigating how to use the ITC tax code to partner those with a tax liability to solar projects. You would estimate your tax liability, make a payment to the solar project, and their tax credit would then flow back to you when you file your taxes; whatever dollars you would've sent to the US government, you end up sending to a solar project instead.
If its doable, I'm putting a Django site together and starting to market it. The best renewable is the one that gets installed as soon as possible.
I have a CPA investigating how to use the ITC tax code to partner those with a tax liability to solar projects. You would estimate your tax liability, make a payment to the solar project, and their tax credit would then flow back to you when you file your taxes; whatever dollars you would've sent to the US government, you end up sending to a solar project instead.
If its doable, I'm putting a Django site together and starting to market it. The best renewable is the one that gets installed as soon as possible.
If we harvest Methane Hydrate deposits undersea and pipe them into coastal cities, then natural gas could become essentially free. That would be hard to beat.
The capital costs though...and if you ignore capital costs, sunshine is free.
They're huge and convenient. Capital costs paid once; gas flows for centuries. It'll amortize to almost nothing.
You have a cite for that? Gas is extraordinarily transportable already. If this were true, we'd be sucking those deposits already and shipping or pipelining the LNG already.
Just discovered and mapped. Japan is harvesting them.
Under your definition of "free", aren't current forms of natural gas "free"? Or any other form of hydrocarbon mining?
These deposits happen to be freakishly convenient (offshore coastal cities) and the technology to harvest is ready (offshore drilling). Also they are essentially endless (centuries of supply). Its like they were planted there to tempt us.
I agree. Tesla's whole philosophy, I think, was to get people to buy their cars simply because it's a better car, not for any environmental reasons. Oil prices will affect them, but can't destroy them
Oh, come on. A major reason people buy Tesla vehicles because they "want to do their part" for the environment.
I think you've confused a Tesla with a Leaf :-)
At least out in my exurban area, upper middle class guys buy Teslas so they can race their sports-car in the carpool lane on the way to a middle management job.
At least out in my exurban area, upper middle class guys buy Teslas so they can race their sports-car in the carpool lane on the way to a middle management job.
Yes, true! But that's not the goal. The goal is the Model 3, which should have an industry leading TCO per mile, below the Prius, Honda Fit, etc.
Tesla has been explicitly thanking current buyers of Model S and Model X for doing their part providing cash for this environmentalist project. Elon's earliest statements admit that they can't compete on price as a startup. But they have been driving costs down rapidly and their philosophy as OP stated, is to be the best car available in all senses, and not rely on environmentalist good vibes for sales.
They already did this for acceleration, automation, and running costs. They still have some categories to go. But that doesn't invalidate the suggestion that their philosophy is about feature parity, as opposed to environmental charity.
Tesla has been explicitly thanking current buyers of Model S and Model X for doing their part providing cash for this environmentalist project. Elon's earliest statements admit that they can't compete on price as a startup. But they have been driving costs down rapidly and their philosophy as OP stated, is to be the best car available in all senses, and not rely on environmentalist good vibes for sales.
They already did this for acceleration, automation, and running costs. They still have some categories to go. But that doesn't invalidate the suggestion that their philosophy is about feature parity, as opposed to environmental charity.
Yea, but those folks won't change their behavior. If anything they will probably be more encouraged to do more.
I think what OP is getting at is that Tesla isn't aiming for just that demographic. Musk has always wanted to produce his cars so that they are desirable to everyone.
I think what OP is getting at is that Tesla isn't aiming for just that demographic. Musk has always wanted to produce his cars so that they are desirable to everyone.
Tesla needs to make desirable cars because otherwise the environmental reason alone is not sufficient for more people to make the move. Musk's goal is to get more people to use sustainable energy.
If they wanted to do that, they'd presumably buy a smaller electric car. People but Teslas to show off, to a large extent.
Except smaller cars don't have the range, which is important in an ev
Do you have any proof of that? For example: a major reason people in Belgium buy a Tesla is because you can tax depreciate the car at 120% of purchase value, and other cars only at 60-80%.
Not me. A Tesla is my dream car for the performance, style, and technology. The environmental impact has nothing to do with it.
Anytime oh come on I prepare myself for evidence backed statements ....jk
> Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those would discourage new solar installations.
This is completely illogical. Increased usage of coal or gas will result in higher prices of those resources, not lower.
In addition, switching back to coal and gas as electrical power sources means lower energy costs. Lower energy costs mean lower manufacturing costs, what will finally result in lower electric car/batteries and solar panels production costs.
Lower electricity costs will also result in lower operational costs of electric cars.
This is completely illogical. Increased usage of coal or gas will result in higher prices of those resources, not lower.
In addition, switching back to coal and gas as electrical power sources means lower energy costs. Lower energy costs mean lower manufacturing costs, what will finally result in lower electric car/batteries and solar panels production costs.
Lower electricity costs will also result in lower operational costs of electric cars.
He wants to increase supply, which will lower prices.
This makes rest of my statement even more true (lower resources costs -> cheaper electricity -> cheaper manufacturing of electric vehicles -> better business for Tesla).
All they need to do is keep being focused on their primary business, instead buying SolarCity.
All they need to do is keep being focused on their primary business, instead buying SolarCity.
Electricity is basically free compared to gasoline. If you cut the price of electricity in half, it wouldn't move the needle at all on EV sales.
It's significantly cheaper, but it is far from free (unless you are actually not paying for it). Even at a generous $0.10/kWh a Tesla costs about $0.029/mile. At $2.20/gallon, a 30MPG cat costs about $0.073/mile.
Energy used for production of electric cars/batteries (or any other thing manufactured in modern factories) isn't made from gasoline...
Tesla and its customers enjoy a fair bit of subsidies. According to the LA Times that number is around $5bn. Trump has stated he wants to cut these types of subsidies and others for renewables as part of his belief that climate change is a "Chinese hoax." I think Elon has a right to worry here as his products are probably too expensive without these subsidies. Even the Model 3 is pricey without that $7,500 tax break. Probably bad news for the Lead and Bolt as well.
The Model 3 is going to blow through those subsidies within a year of shipping. They're only available for a limited number of cars, then they go away. Tesla clearly thinks that they're viable without the tax credit.
Yes, this is important. Tesla could blow through all of the credits in 2018. Tesla could technically benefit from the EV tax credit being cancelled after that, since its products would no longer qualify, but the other OEMs that have sat on the sidelines waiting for cheaper batteries would not be able to jump in and take advantage of having a subsidy available to them, but not to Tesla, Nissan, and GM that would have used up their credits.
The design of the EV tax credit is really bad.
The design of the EV tax credit is really bad.
The benefit to competitors would be limited, since as soon as they created a product that sold in high volumes, they'd use up their subsidy too.
Isn't getting rid of corporate welfare a good thing?
Depends... are we talking about eliminating subsidies for transactions with positive externalities, or are we talking about undoing some regulatory capture?
I think the talk of expanding coal production in particular was mostly talk aimed at a segment of the electorate (although I haven't followed Trump closely enough to realize the extent to which he realizes this).
The demise of Appalachian coal was mostly due to the rise of both natural gas and Wyoming coal, as well as exhaustion of readily available resources. Though Appalachian coal is higher grade, it requires expensive and dangerous mining practices such as room and pillar mining, mountaintop removal, or more traditional practices in increasingly small and geometrically complicated seams. The coal from Wyoming is basically at the surface and can be strip mined at scale very cheaply, with lots of automation.
Unconventional oil and gas production is also at odds with coal production. As you've said, oil can't get that much cheaper, and gas is pretty similar, and has more substitution with coal. Many of the restrictions on unconventional production (i.e. fracking regulations) are done at the state level, and given the concern over recent seismicity in associated with injection of post-fracking wastewater, the states probably won't budge that much. If as pro-oil a state agency as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the main regulatory agency in OK) is tamping down on production processes, there is very little a Trump administration can do to shift the needle.
Similarly, we (he) won't be able to simply deregulate and re-invigorate mining. Too much of the demand is based in China, and a trade war there will simply depress prices further. Additionally, many of the resources are in states that are not overly favorable to Trump, and the state EPAs have a lot of sway, especially in a more 'states rights' environment. Rare Earths, for example, are mostly found in the US near Las Vegas but across the state line in Mountain Pass, California. And NV isn't as red as it used to be either.
Lithium production could increase, but I think the problems there are there just aren't a lot of good sources, not environmental regulations. Lithium is tied up with salts or brine (salty water) from hypersaline lakes that dried up and concentrated metals that were already especially abundant due to particular geology. Lithium mining is often just pumping salty water out of aquifers or dredging it from lakeshores. It's not like copper or gold mining/processing that involves nasties like mercury and arsenic.
Trump's policies will probably mostly involve somewhat symbolic, macroeconomically insignificant, and locally damaging exploitation of currently off-limits areas like ANWR, offshore CA and the east coast, and possibly many of the new national monuments in the West that may have uranium or other metals.
Eliminating the tax incentives for renewables is also likely, but may not yield as much permanent damage as environmental degradation; some companies may lose market share or capitalization, some may bust, but this won't turn the tide.
The demise of Appalachian coal was mostly due to the rise of both natural gas and Wyoming coal, as well as exhaustion of readily available resources. Though Appalachian coal is higher grade, it requires expensive and dangerous mining practices such as room and pillar mining, mountaintop removal, or more traditional practices in increasingly small and geometrically complicated seams. The coal from Wyoming is basically at the surface and can be strip mined at scale very cheaply, with lots of automation.
Unconventional oil and gas production is also at odds with coal production. As you've said, oil can't get that much cheaper, and gas is pretty similar, and has more substitution with coal. Many of the restrictions on unconventional production (i.e. fracking regulations) are done at the state level, and given the concern over recent seismicity in associated with injection of post-fracking wastewater, the states probably won't budge that much. If as pro-oil a state agency as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the main regulatory agency in OK) is tamping down on production processes, there is very little a Trump administration can do to shift the needle.
Similarly, we (he) won't be able to simply deregulate and re-invigorate mining. Too much of the demand is based in China, and a trade war there will simply depress prices further. Additionally, many of the resources are in states that are not overly favorable to Trump, and the state EPAs have a lot of sway, especially in a more 'states rights' environment. Rare Earths, for example, are mostly found in the US near Las Vegas but across the state line in Mountain Pass, California. And NV isn't as red as it used to be either.
Lithium production could increase, but I think the problems there are there just aren't a lot of good sources, not environmental regulations. Lithium is tied up with salts or brine (salty water) from hypersaline lakes that dried up and concentrated metals that were already especially abundant due to particular geology. Lithium mining is often just pumping salty water out of aquifers or dredging it from lakeshores. It's not like copper or gold mining/processing that involves nasties like mercury and arsenic.
Trump's policies will probably mostly involve somewhat symbolic, macroeconomically insignificant, and locally damaging exploitation of currently off-limits areas like ANWR, offshore CA and the east coast, and possibly many of the new national monuments in the West that may have uranium or other metals.
Eliminating the tax incentives for renewables is also likely, but may not yield as much permanent damage as environmental degradation; some companies may lose market share or capitalization, some may bust, but this won't turn the tide.
Agreed. But ironically the biggest pressure on solar now (and in the last 5 years) is price manipulation by China - something he promises to fight (though not necessarily for the sake of green tech).
I think that the lack of competition for consumers in the energy sector will reduce the impact on solar. I don't expect utility companies to necessarily pass along their savings (if there are any) to consumers.
Interestingly, much the same thing happened in Germany in 2010 - a new chancellor called Merkel decided to revise her predecessor's decision to exit nuclear power. This led to massive phobic protests and upheaval among green energy companies. The decision was only revised after Fukushima, some 6 months later.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/06/germany-extend...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/06/germany-extend...
I was really surprised by TSLA not taking a very rough and immediate hit. It took a slight hit after a while though,
If Tesla’s not competitive, then it’s not competitive. I’m glad to see the government involvement being reduced. Let the free market handle things.
It's probably cheaper for government and taxpayers in the long run to for the govermnent to aid in the development of markets for alternative energy that can reduce the negative externalities of pollution, the international control of conventional fuel sources, and ease the transition from finite nonrenewables as supply diminishes, than to sit it out completely and deal with the aftermath.
Not many private investors invest on the >50 year timescales that energy transitions require.
Not many private investors invest on the >50 year timescales that energy transitions require.
Serous question, why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Then when it's ready to bring to market give them a huge investment for the infrastructure to combat the high barrier to entry in return for something we want as a society, like say, a cap on battery costs or an open charging protocol.
Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.
Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.
> why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive?
Because R&D isn't all that's needed. It takes time to grow an industry. It's one thing to project future economies of scale, quite another to demonstrate that those economies are already being realized.
IIRC, battery prices are on track to fall by another 50% by 2023 or so. That will be a game-changer, and there's no way it could have happened through R&D alone.
Because R&D isn't all that's needed. It takes time to grow an industry. It's one thing to project future economies of scale, quite another to demonstrate that those economies are already being realized.
IIRC, battery prices are on track to fall by another 50% by 2023 or so. That will be a game-changer, and there's no way it could have happened through R&D alone.
Electricity isn't a primary energy source. Electric cars are only as environmentally friendly as the power generation plants that make it. If you're in Seattle, your Tesla is pretty low-CO2 because it runs on hydropower. If you're in the northeast, your Tesla runs on coal, and if you're in CA, it runs on natural gas. But the combustion doesn't happen in the middle of the cities, and is centralized, so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more, there's less smog, etc.
Renewable power plants/companies receive both tax incentives and R&D subsidies from state and federal government, and there is research being done directly by the DOE at national labs, as well as at universities etc. from DOE grants. There are also private companies that get DOE research grants for a range of pure through applied research.
It's unlikely that grid-scale renewables could be developed in a wholly R&D environment then deployed at once. And then what would the government do? License or auction technology that hasn't been field tested at scale? Utilities, local governments and private companies would still probably need intermediaries to set things up. So it makes sense to provide some direct funding and some tax incentives to allow companies to do their own R&D, collaborate with government researchers, and work with utilities to bring systems online. Market disruption due to sudden, untested new entrants is less appealing with utility power than with phones--it makes sense to work for a gradual transition.
As far as consumer-scale power generation (rooftop solar or whatever), I think what you've suggested is pretty much what's happening, but I don't follow it. (I'm not a homeowner but have done DOE funded geothermal research with a private R&D company, Altarock LLC.)
edit: Electric cars are also abstracted from the type of power plant that produces the energy, unlike internal combusion cars, so having more of them is more amenable to a somewhat rapidly evolving power generation landscape.
Renewable power plants/companies receive both tax incentives and R&D subsidies from state and federal government, and there is research being done directly by the DOE at national labs, as well as at universities etc. from DOE grants. There are also private companies that get DOE research grants for a range of pure through applied research.
It's unlikely that grid-scale renewables could be developed in a wholly R&D environment then deployed at once. And then what would the government do? License or auction technology that hasn't been field tested at scale? Utilities, local governments and private companies would still probably need intermediaries to set things up. So it makes sense to provide some direct funding and some tax incentives to allow companies to do their own R&D, collaborate with government researchers, and work with utilities to bring systems online. Market disruption due to sudden, untested new entrants is less appealing with utility power than with phones--it makes sense to work for a gradual transition.
As far as consumer-scale power generation (rooftop solar or whatever), I think what you've suggested is pretty much what's happening, but I don't follow it. (I'm not a homeowner but have done DOE funded geothermal research with a private R&D company, Altarock LLC.)
edit: Electric cars are also abstracted from the type of power plant that produces the energy, unlike internal combusion cars, so having more of them is more amenable to a somewhat rapidly evolving power generation landscape.
> so some aspects of the pollution can be controlled a little more
ALL aspects of the pollution can be controlled in big power generation plants.
For example coal power plants have advanced filter systems, which can reduce pollutants by more than 99% in some cases.
http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png
http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x
Moreover, in power plants, coal burns in a much more optimal conditions, what results in less pollutants being generated.
> According to Environment Canada, coal-fired power plants in Alberta in 2011 emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 of human-made emissions (excluding wildfires).
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue...
The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant.
ALL aspects of the pollution can be controlled in big power generation plants.
For example coal power plants have advanced filter systems, which can reduce pollutants by more than 99% in some cases.
http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png
http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x
Moreover, in power plants, coal burns in a much more optimal conditions, what results in less pollutants being generated.
> According to Environment Canada, coal-fired power plants in Alberta in 2011 emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 of human-made emissions (excluding wildfires).
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue...
The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant.
Letting the free market handle things works, IF your only goal is economic. And while that is important, there are bigger pictures to worry about. Like, preserving a habitable planet.
yes because we can undo china and india's record breaking smog and pollution. /s
Assuming manufacturing got moved back to America then yes, it can be solved.
Even if not, giving up on doing the right thing just because other countries aren't helping is a very short-sighted approach to worldwide leadership. We can lead the efforts towards a better world.
[deleted]
It's much easier to make a buck if you're not held accountable for negative externalities.
If you're not paying for the carbon externalities, the free market has failed.
And yet subsidies for fossil fuels continue...
You clearly don't have a basic understanding of the issues here. Cars that use gas incur the additional penalty of environmental damage that is unaccounted for in the value of those vehicles relative to their cost. For example, a gas car may cost $1000, and bring $1500 of value to the owner, but incur $200 of damage to the environment. This is not priced into the value of the car. If you want to learn more you can read the first few chapters of an introductory economics textbook where they cover market failure.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think Tesla will do okay, they've got a solid product that stands on its own.
What I'm worried about is rooftop solar tiles. One of the thing that can make it cheaper than a traditional roof is that the whole thing will qualify for solar subsidies. If that goes away it could make things incredibly difficult for Solar City.
What I'm worried about is rooftop solar tiles. One of the thing that can make it cheaper than a traditional roof is that the whole thing will qualify for solar subsidies. If that goes away it could make things incredibly difficult for Solar City.
I guess it depends on whether you think that net metering is a subsidy and whose eyes are beholding the payments. Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?
My understanding is that the extra complexity of the network to support a multitude of small generation points precludes most of the gains from the extra energy supply.
Large generators get paid wholesale prices and have to deal directly with the market (which means they occasionally sell electricity for $0, or pay someone to take it).
There are prices below 20 per Megawatt-hour here right now http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/learning-center/price-ticker.as...
That's less than $0.02 per kw-h. As the amount of solar installed increases, that will be $0 on cooler sunny days that don't create a lot of demand for cooling.
There are prices below 20 per Megawatt-hour here right now http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/learning-center/price-ticker.as...
That's less than $0.02 per kw-h. As the amount of solar installed increases, that will be $0 on cooler sunny days that don't create a lot of demand for cooling.
I don't think that's the critical subsidy. My understanding is that with a solar roof, your whole solar freaking roofway is subject to the solar installation subsidies.
> Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?
Because they haven't bribed the governor.
Because they haven't bribed the governor.
Hey Elon, just move all your assets and manufacturing to Europe!
> he will roll back regulations on fossil fuels
Does it mean no more subsidizing fossil fuel companies?
Does it mean no more subsidizing fossil fuel companies?
[deleted]
On the plus side for Tesla, though, there's probably going to be fewer liberals buying cars from the Rust Belt states.
This is based on completely the wrong premise, Tesla is an unsubsidized car company. Even if the Solar City deal goes through and the value goes to $0 within a year Tesla will still be a great thriving company.
Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant), they create cars that are better and more performant then competing gasoline cars, they do it at much higher margins.
Tesla is hopping to produce about 500k cars within 2 years while the average automobile manufacture produces about 10MM cars per year. And they plan to do it at a 20-30% margin.
Even if gas prices go down by 75% they would then only match the price of fueling a Tesla, which in itself would be an incredible feat given how subsidized oil already is.
Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant), they create cars that are better and more performant then competing gasoline cars, they do it at much higher margins.
Tesla is hopping to produce about 500k cars within 2 years while the average automobile manufacture produces about 10MM cars per year. And they plan to do it at a 20-30% margin.
Even if gas prices go down by 75% they would then only match the price of fueling a Tesla, which in itself would be an incredible feat given how subsidized oil already is.
> Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant)
Except that they use a ton of automation. I'm very curious how this will play out under Trump. Because even if he does all the things he's been talking about (pulling out of trade deals and raising tariffs) and even if it has the intended short-term effect of bringing more manufacturing back to America, there will be a lot of automation and it probably won't look very much like it did in the pre-globalization good-old days that his base wants to revert to.
What then? They'll need somewhere other than trade deals to point the blame.
Except that they use a ton of automation. I'm very curious how this will play out under Trump. Because even if he does all the things he's been talking about (pulling out of trade deals and raising tariffs) and even if it has the intended short-term effect of bringing more manufacturing back to America, there will be a lot of automation and it probably won't look very much like it did in the pre-globalization good-old days that his base wants to revert to.
What then? They'll need somewhere other than trade deals to point the blame.
That's a good point though they still employ a lot of people.
It'll be interesting when people start trying to deal with the job loss from automation. I'm not sure how you can practically restrict the use of software and robots.
It'll be interesting when people start trying to deal with the job loss from automation. I'm not sure how you can practically restrict the use of software and robots.
Sure, oil is subsidized. But it's disingenuous to claim Tesla doesn't play the regulation arbitrage game either.
Not only is demand for Tesla's cars _partially_ sustained through consumer tax rebates, but Tesla's _profitability_ has historically relied on selling ZEV credits. Both of these factors may be cut short by the changing political tides now that the [federal] executive, legislative, and (soon) judicial branches will be majority led by a party that has a rough consensus on switching priorities from the past decade or so.
I'm not trying to antagonize against Tesla specifically, nor prop up the virtues of a truly ecologically-damaging industry that plays by a similar rulebook, but anytime a company's business model relies on a certain political climate rather than _solely_ on efficiency gains through technological innovation, the door swings both ways given a long enough time scale.
Cue discussion about how innovative R&D is not possible without initial government investment, especially against already subsidized industries that don't have to factor in tremendous externalities... but that's a more politically subjective debate compared to just stating how I don't agree with the claim of Tesla being 'unsubsidized.'
Not only is demand for Tesla's cars _partially_ sustained through consumer tax rebates, but Tesla's _profitability_ has historically relied on selling ZEV credits. Both of these factors may be cut short by the changing political tides now that the [federal] executive, legislative, and (soon) judicial branches will be majority led by a party that has a rough consensus on switching priorities from the past decade or so.
I'm not trying to antagonize against Tesla specifically, nor prop up the virtues of a truly ecologically-damaging industry that plays by a similar rulebook, but anytime a company's business model relies on a certain political climate rather than _solely_ on efficiency gains through technological innovation, the door swings both ways given a long enough time scale.
Cue discussion about how innovative R&D is not possible without initial government investment, especially against already subsidized industries that don't have to factor in tremendous externalities... but that's a more politically subjective debate compared to just stating how I don't agree with the claim of Tesla being 'unsubsidized.'
Tax credits will be all exhausted by the time they release the model 3 since it applies for only so many vehicles per manufacturer.
Also the ZEV credits are being sold for less then $0.50 on the dollar if they can find a buyer at all since they don't produce polluting cars themselves (per Teslas latest earnings call) and contribute negligibly to their bottom line.
Not to say that Subsidies haven't helped to get Tesla to where they are, only to say they won't be necessary moving forward.
Also the ZEV credits are being sold for less then $0.50 on the dollar if they can find a buyer at all since they don't produce polluting cars themselves (per Teslas latest earnings call) and contribute negligibly to their bottom line.
Not to say that Subsidies haven't helped to get Tesla to where they are, only to say they won't be necessary moving forward.
More typical anti-trump propaganda. Tesla is a private company. Trump supports free market and private business. He even went as far to say he wants to improve our efforts in space.
This is also from the Washington Post. The mainstream media has zero credibility at this point.
This is also from the Washington Post. The mainstream media has zero credibility at this point.
Trump received a 40-year, $120 million full tax abatement from NYC for the Grand Hyatt (Newsweek 6/17/90) . He sought a residential tax abatement for Trump Tower, an abatement designed for low- and middle-income housing (NYT, 8/6/1983), and an abatement for another luxury tower, Trump Palace, and for Trump International Hotel (NYT 7/17/94). He sought a $356 million low-interest loan from the federal government for the West Side Yards, received a $34 million tax abatement in Florida, and had the assessed value of a Las Vegas property lowered from $180 million to $8.6 million (LA Times, 5/11/2011).
I'm shocked that a businessperson would take the tax breaks and cheap loans provided to them.
please explain to me how this has anything to do with tesla
Well, if you read the article, it mentions the tax breaks that Tesla buyers get, and that the "future of these tax credits may come into question based on Trump's opposition to the government picking winners and losers."
How is constantly seeking government hand-outs capitalism? How is taking those hand-outs not allowing the government to pick winners and losers?
How is constantly seeking government hand-outs capitalism? How is taking those hand-outs not allowing the government to pick winners and losers?
"It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption."
From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-ele...