0
1

[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He isn't Hughes, Ford, or Wright. Those guys built something from the ground up with their own ingenuity. Musk is essentially just using government funds to put together other peoples know how and doing it for a loss. While Space X is definitely the most viable option among his efforts post-paypal, it's not like Musk is in the lab doing this shit by himself. People have this overinflated sense of who he is. Nothing he has done post paypal has been in any way surprising. He took a bunch of government money to fund labs to pursue ideas that were essentially already out there. People having been working on solar cells, electric cars, and private space travel for a while now. It hasn't seen the success that Musk has had because it hasn't gotten the type of funding Musk has. Engineering for the most part isn't as magical as people think it is. If you throw enough money behind competent engineers you are going to see some measure of results. The issue here is Musk has created a largely undeserved cult of personality around himself.

Electric cars and solar cells are just technologies that aren't ready yet. They are great ideas on paper but the science hasn't been cracked yet (if it ever will). While we are getting incrementally better in both regards, his efforts by and large are a bit of a shell game. His electric car amounted to the government handing him a bunch of money to make cars for rich people on the premise that the technology would develop but the battery issue makes the technology at best under developed and in reality an ecological nightmare. Those things are hard to produce and even harder to dispose of. Long story short we just aren't close enough to the fundamental tech needed to make battery powered electric cars a good idea. Everyone involved knows this too. Solar cells are much of the same story. Musk took a bunch of money to fund Obama's war on coal. Solar cells have not been anywhere near efficient enough. This is why they needed ridiculous tax breaks otherwise the lifecycle payout remains a marginal positive or a net negative (depending on local energy costs). Solar cells (in America) remain only viable when people are willing to pay above cost for the benefit of being energy independent. SpaceX is more or less a result of defunding NASA's space efforts (to redirect funds into climate research). Once again handing over the intellectual property of the American people to private enterprise. This guys whole career here has been vastly overstated. His companies are vastly over priced bubble markets. Many of the smart investors are only investing because of the massive subsidy not the "magic" of Musk.

0
0

[–] CrustyBeaver52 ago 

LOL - Okay:) I'll bite:)

I've been involved in this industry since 2000/2001 - I know more than average bear when it comes to this. My brother in law owns a Tesla and has been driving it for years - it is an excellent car - there are no problems - it costs fuck all to drive. That is the point. The fuel cost of this vehicle is almost non-existent - which offsets the upfront cost substantially. The bottom line here is literally a question of math.

Cult of personality - I've been there - it happens all by itself when you are in charge - you don't need to do anything to encourage it - although it can certainly go to your head - which I feel has happened somewhat to both Trump and Musk - some of that is to be expected when you are constantly in the limelight. It can work both for you and against you.

Electric vehicles are not the big difficulty they are made out to be - we have had electric cars and trains since at least as early as the 1930's. The tech is very well known. The majority of trains in continental Europe and in Russia are electric trains, as opposed to the diesel electrics we tend to use. (Bombardier in Canada builds 1/3rd to 1/2 of all electric trains used in Europe.) Problems that do occur in the vehicles are related to the newer battery tech - batteries are difficult - the newer batteries are much better than the usual vehicle battery (deep cycle marine.) All of the batteries remain expensive for now - but the costs are coming down, and performance is way up.

Solar is expensive - but it is also a hell of a lot cheaper than it was 20 years ago - and it also yields a lot more electricity than it used to. Saying it is not viable is completely incorrect - solar is now almost as inexpensive as hydro electric power on a cost per kilowatt basis - and if the trend holds it will be the cheapest form of electricity available soon enough. It is already cheaper than gasoline on a per mile cost basis. You must remember, you can get 20 to 30 years of electricity out of a good solar panel - so yes it is a lot up front - but after that it has an extended lifespan with minimal maintenance expenses - like a hydro dam.

None of that is the real issue when it comes to solar and batteries - the real issue is not the cost today - or 20 years ago - the real issue is that per mile costs decline every year, have been declining for the last 20 years, and are likely to continue to decline through the next 20 years. That is not happening with internal combustion technology. That technology is mature and is at the end of it's life cycle. There are no expectations that internal combustion will be 100% more efficient in 20 years, while there is every expectation that solar and batteries will continue their substantial cost to output performance improvement - which occurs every year. 200% better in 20 years is not unreasonable at the current improvement rates.

Big energy knows all about these trends - they write many interesting industry advisor papers on this exact subject - they know that as this evolves they lose subscribers to the new tech - just like cable loses subscribers to the internet - and that drives up the costs to the remaining users. They know it is getting harder to recoup costs on large project investments - and that the risks of failing to get their money back out are going way up. A lot of the information that is being put out is precisely designed to convince people that the new tech is not viable - and this is being done in a deliberate effort to slow the rate of the transition - and it is somewhat effective - but in the end we are going to transition into the new tech - because the new tech is cheaper, safer, cleaner and more efficient. Most importantly to big energy, the new tech is decentralized, and that is the end of their gravy train. To delay this end as long as possible is their objective now.

SpaceX is a military industrial complex company - just like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, etc. All of the MIC gets government preferential treatment - but most of them keep a much lower profile than Musk. SpaceX is deeply involved in the Pentagon space effort - and their resupply rocket for the Space Station is basically an enlarged NASA Apollo module. Did they hand it to him - yes they did - but they were phasing out the shuttle program and without Musk they have to rely on the Russians to resupply the station. Could they have given it to one of the other rocket companies? Sure - but they gave it to Musk. The Pentagon also has other spacecraft that Musk has nothing to do with.

I am not saying there is anything magical about Musk - he is an engineer - and I know a few of those. Engineers, by default, are already highly intelligent people - if not a little strange - socialization is not their strong point. They are geeks through and through - but they do not lie about engineering - it is illegal for them to do so, even in America. Telling the absolute truth about engineering is the beginning and the end of their culture - and it has to be because society needs them to be reliable. The technology side of Musk's efforts are likely all within reach - the economics of it all depends on market forces - and government money is very much a part of the business environment - however we may not want it to be.

So you don't like the guy - I get it - I think he is a bit pompous myself - and he leans lib, which rubs me the wrong way - but if you are looking at the business itself - you need to do it from a neutral perspective and look closely at the markets now and into the future. Musk may be the CEO now - but CEO's come and go - the business isn't going under any time soon.

I built a 10KW solar power plant under the FIT program in 2010 - the government offered an outrageous subsidy that was simply too good to resist - indeed, the only risk factor on the project was that the government would change and the subsidy contract would be cancelled - lucky for us, that has not happened so far. There are 6 years remaining on the contract until the project recovers it's full investment of $89,000. All investors will be bought out by then and we will own it 100%. Investors received annual 5% interest on our private issued debentures until we buy them back - which is done once each year through lottery. The government has loosely pledged to continue funding it through 2030. With minimal equipment upgrades ($10,000,) the existing solar panels are expected to produce enough electricity to power a church and three residential homes through 2040. If we built this same plant today we could do it for about $45,000 - $55,000. Like I said, costs are dropping and output is increasing. In our jurisdiction, 10KW is the maximum output for a power plant to remain under the micro power legislation - which is minimal regulation - anything over that and it becomes a regulatory nightmare here... costs go way up on licensing, inspection, paperwork, etc.

Now, the FIT program was part of the Rothschild's / UN / Gore global carbon scam involving the accumulation of green carbon credits - and all of the green credits produced by this plant are purchased by the government. I didn't agree with this plan, and I hope it collapses as it appears to be doing so - but in the meantime the Government offered us 80 cents per KW hour - later reduced to 56 cents - still a massively overpriced subsidy - but it was still worth the risk involved because they have cranked up the grid rate here to 16 cents with projections for increasing it again next year - and if we have to disconnect the plant, it produces power at a rate that is far lower than that.

I don't care what energy tech we use - and I know the carbon thing is a scam - but I do look at the math when it comes to the money.

0
1

[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Electric trains =/= electric cars entirely different animal and the arguments against electric cars largely do not apply to trains.
As far as the $/kWhr you conveniently compared it to not one of the big three (coal, gas, nuclear). I don't doubt that alternative fuel sources might very well be the future but massive governmental subsidies skew the picture of just how much solar costs. We could easily drive down the cost of natural gas, gas and coal to bury alternative fuel sources for the next fifty years or so by opening up new methods fuel exploration and untapped reserves. As explained in your post much of the cost associated with traditional fuel sources by alleviating regulations. The government is picking winners here.
I know plenty about engineering and I know when I'm being fed a load of bs [not implying here that you are feeding me bs but rather the justification behind the subsidies]. The whole drive behind the solar subsidies was transitioning to a "green" economy. While solar cells might very well be the power source of the future (although will likely never completely eliminate traditional sources because of how our power grid works) it isn't nearly as viable today as it's made out to be.
Let me clear. I have nothing against Musk. He is doing exactly what every other business in the market today is. That being said it doesn't make him a genius or anything special.
Also you conveniently neglected the biggest issue with electric cars. The tech is simply too expensive and not scalable as of yet. Also they aren't any more environmentally friendly than cars when you consider full life cycle environmental impacts which of course was the justification for the subsidy.
All of this tech is significantly better than it was twenty years ago but it is still a ways away from being able to compete with traditional power sources also it isn't entirely clear that the future is electric or solar for that matter. There is a somewhat convincing argument for hydrogen if power generation costs can be significantly cut by new power sources (potentially fusion). The problem with all of this in my eyes is that it represents a fundamental failure of how science works particularly in the context of the market. You don't assume to know what the tech will be 10/20/30 years down the line. You invest in research and as breakthroughs are made you incorporate the new tech with the old tech and make the slow march of scientific progress. Right now we are limiting our options by throwing massive amounts of money down the drain to pursue what are still immature technologies. There is a very good argument that if flooded the market with cheap traditional power sources (ignoring "global warming") we could increase economic output and funding for future tech at the same time.