Archived how did elon musk make his billions? i know paypal rips off people a lot but what lse did he do? (AskVoat)
submitted ago by JonReed
Posted by: JonReed
Posting time: 3.4 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 9/29/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 676
SCP: 2
5 upvotes, 3 downvotes (62% upvoted it)
Archived how did elon musk make his billions? i know paypal rips off people a lot but what lse did he do? (AskVoat)
submitted ago by JonReed
view the rest of the comments →
[–] JohnPaulJones 0 points 1 point 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.
[–] CrustyBeaver52 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
We are probably not going to see eye to eye on all of this:)
That said - we do agree on much of it - we are starting in a similar position and reaching different outcomes. I believe Musk's actions on the car side are in fact aimed directly at solving the "not scalable" issue - he sees it as well - he cannot manufacture large numbers of cars without the reliable supply of batteries - so he is building the battery plants. The rest of the car is not an issue. Mitsubishi has finished that part already. (not including that self driving stuff - that needs a lot of work.) He also needs to recharge the batteries, hence he needs the solar company combined with the home recharging stations. Scalability requires the batteries plus the ability to recharge them. He is addressing that. On the materials side, the batteries are actually made from abundant and inexpensive materials - so I expect mass production will lower the unit costs.
Truth is, you can use any electricity source to recharge the charging stations - so there is no need to go with the solar - but I also understand the need to sell a complete package system for the end consumer. Currently, my brother in law just uses the grid wall outlet in his garage - as opposed to setting up any kind of self powered system.
I agree the government IS picking winners and losers here - but I hasten to point out they are also doing that in the entire energy industry - not just the green stuff. Bribery seems to be the determining factor that rules these decisions at the moment - maybe Trump can change that. The whole global carbon trading system is a globalist scam driven by international central bankers - they wish to tax global carbon - so the bribery here is excellent. I did mention they were throwing 80 cents a kilowatt hour at me to build that plant - which is outrageous - solar didn't even cost that much in 1975. Overpaying is easy when you print the money I guess.
As far as Tesla goes - everything rides on the success of the battery factory - because without that the mass production of the cars isn't going to happen. That factory is coming on line right about now - so we will know a lot more soon enough.