General

Starting March 15th, Tesla Forums will become read only. To continue the conversation with the Tesla community visit engage.tesla.com.

President Biden should appoint E. Musk to solve the Climate Crisis

2456715

Comments

  • > @FISHEV said:
    > > @6EQUJ5 said: > You know it’s find it funny when people talk of climate “science based” policies to promote incrementalism when all the good science says the planet needs to halve emissions by 2030 to even put a dent in what’s coming. 2050 ain’t gonna cut it bub. That’s politics at work, not science."
    >
    > Scientists say otherwise.
    >
    >

    They’re saying we’re getting 1.5 - 2C of warming already and will have 4C if we mitigate to net zero by 2050. That’s civilization ending levels of warming.

    https://www.climaterealitycheck.net/

    Moreover, overconsumption of resources will get us sooner than climate change will, specifically deforestation.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63657-6
  • > @6EQUJ5 said: > > > @6EQUJ5 said: > You know it’s find it funny when people talk of climate “science based” policies to promote incrementalism when all the good science says the planet needs to halve emissions by 2030 to even put a dent in what’s coming. 2050 ain’t gonna cut it bub. That’s politics at work, not science."

    Again the consensus science is here. All for faster reduction, I've got solar house and driven and EV since 2019.

    "To avoid the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to reach “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner. Net zero means that, on balance, no more carbon is dumped into the atmosphere than is taken out."

    https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/solutions

    You can look at the curves to see where we need to be in 2030 to meet the 2050 goal. On a straight line we'd be about 30% to the goal in 2030 vs. the 50%.

    Zero emissions cars/trucks by 2035 regulatory goal is probably the single biggest factor followed by eliminating all coal plants by 2030.
  • All that a carbon tax will do is have the utility companies offload it onto their consumers. So I will be ready for it.
  • It also doesn't matter what goals or government policy wants by 2030 or even 2050. If there isn't a solution to replace coal, it's not going to happen. Tesla is a solution, a tax is not.
  • If you or you’re company put carbon in the air there should be a price to be paid. How it’s done without tax breaks will be a definitive moment for the future of “climate change”
  • Well that's basically 99% of things in this world. So all that's going to do is make everything more expensive and offer zero solutions.

    A solution is Tesla megapack that replaces a coal/gas peaker plant that costs so much less it pays for itself in the fist year or 2.

    A solution is an electric car that saves $10000 per year in fuel and maintenance and pays for itself before the loan period is up.

    Taxing the world and stifling economic growth or activity is not a solution.
  • > @"blue adept" said:
    > You see, they want you to think that this or that pollution emitting company/manufacturer of pollution emitting vehicles is being penalized by having to pay to fund the planting of trees or the reclamation of some industry devastated spot of land or some other such pro-green activity to offset their emissions, but this is all to distract you from the fact that the oil and gas industry, along with their subsidiary industries, are provided subsidies that cover such expenditures as merely the "costs of doing business" which they "write off" on their taxes.
    >
    > So don't buy into the "carbon tax" deception.

    Eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel industries, AND charge the carbon tax (representing all the downstream harms we all have to pay to fix on the back end) at the pump or shelf to reflect the TRUE cost of that form of energy.
  • > @andy_connor_e said:
    > Well that's basically 99% of things in this world. So all that's going to do is make everything more expensive and offer zero solutions.
    >
    > A solution is Tesla megapack that replaces a coal/gas peaker plant that costs so much less it pays for itself in the fist year or 2.
    >
    > A solution is an electric car that saves $10000 per year in fuel and maintenance and pays for itself before the loan period is up.
    >
    > Taxing the world and stifling economic growth or activity is not a solution.


    The thing you keep missing is something called unpriced externalities.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

    Educate yourself and understand that putting a price on these is correct, economically, to incentivize behavior which produces less harm.

    Used to be bi-partisan, these facts and things.

    For example income taxes could be reduced or eliminated if externalities were priced. We should not be taxing income (a good) whereas we should be taxing pollution (a bad).
  • > @blkice said:
    > If you or you’re company put carbon in the air there should be a price to be paid. How it’s done without tax breaks will be a definitive moment for the future of “climate change”'

    Tax breaks or penalties don't get results. People buy Tesla's ZEV credits and keep polluting. It does no good.

    What is needed are direct regs on level of emissions which must reduce on a fixed schedule.
  • Whether you like it or not, if the cost of carbon emissions go up, the cost of everything goes up for everyone. It's not a solution to the problem. Tesla's solutions are real solutions.
  • Car dealerships are a state level political juggernaut. EVs, particularly BEVs to them are poison. We know they will resist with everything they've got. As will big oil, and due to the difficulty, financial danger, and short term financial focus of OEMs, so will they. Each is a significant local, state and national political force.

    Elon/Tesla cannot do this by themselves. We need ALL OEMs to build BEVs, To do this they are going to need external pressure/forces/incentives. Tesla has provided a clear path. They have also provided some incentive in the form of competition. But to get there faster (fast enough) something like a carbon tax would be a good solution. It would put further financial incentive to convert and convert quickly.

    Leaving it to just one company simply will not work.

    If we don't, sadly, I think the only incentive that will really work is mother nature's wrath. I just hope that we are able to turn the ship before we sail into an extinction level event.
  • > @andy_connor_e said:
    > Whether you like it or not, if the cost of carbon emissions go up, the cost of everything goes up for everyone. It's not a solution to the problem. Tesla's solutions are real solutions.

    Whether you like it or not, the HUMAN and ENVIRONMENTAL cost of carbon emissions tolls regardless of taxation.

    The solution is to price the true costs of a product into the shelf or pump price, and eliminate all subsidies to carbon emitting industries so the true "free market" can determine consumer behavior.
  • You're just going to make everything more expensive and stifle the economy. The subsidies will get phased out as fossil fuels are replaced by real solutions like a Tesla battery in California. That saves everyone money.
  • > @andy_connor_e said: > You're just going to make everything more expensive and stifle the economy. “

    No just stifle whatever emits greenhouse gases allowing the sustaintainable economy to flourish.

    But we don’t have time for that slow and uncertain process to work.

    CA’s requirement of zero emissions car and trucks by 2035 is an example of good government regulation.

    Add same requirements for electric power generation and industrial process.
  • "No just stifle whatever emits greenhouse gases allowing the sustaintainable economy to flourish."

    Whatever emits greenhouse gasses is almost everything. The future shouldn't cost more as Tesla has demonstrated. If you force it via regulations, you can be certain that it will. Free market will win by offering low cost solutions that save businesses, individuals, and taxpayers money.

    It's not like there's some evil greenhouse gas producing company and they should pay. Greenhouse producing things are what get you food on your plate. Every single thing will go up in price with a carbon tax. Call your legislators or congressmen or whomever and tell them to buy a damn Tesla battery lol.
  • > @andy_connor_e said:
    > Whatever emits greenhouse gasses is almost everything. “

    A teaching moment. Here are the main sources of man made greenhouse gases, transportation, power generation and industrial process.

    Easy to make all those zero emissions.

    > The future shouldn't cost more as Tesla has demonstrated.

    Well Tesla has demonstrated that EV’s will cost about $20k more than similar ICE so we know that needs to be subsidized for 90% of buyers on side and by requiring it by 2035 on the other.

    Without a firm regulatory base with metrics and timelines, nothing will get done. Good example in EU and China.
  • If everyone is forced to go to electric vehicles will the grid be able to handle it or will changes need to be made in advance?

    My old neighborhood had rolling blackouts during the summer because the utility company couldn't handle about a thousand condos having their a/C units on at the same time. Imagine hundreds of thousands of cars charging each night in larger cities. Will more coal being used to produce electricity
    be worse than using gasoline in the event solar and wind can't handle the demand? Would nuclear power plants in remote locations be a better solution?
  • We have a carbon tax here in Canada. The only thing it does is make life much harder for poor people.
  • > @Tesla2018 said: Will more coal being used to produce electricity
    be worse than using gasoline in the event solar and wind can't handle the demand?"

    Wrong question but the real answer is that solar and wind power at utility and user level with battery backup at utility and user level will be able to supply 100% of US energy needs.
  • @Tesla2018,
    EVs could be a problem but, given most charging practices it won't be a problem since most is naturally done at night, when the grid is lightly loaded, even in summer.
    If folks do charge during peak time due to laziness and/or ignorance, it is easy to adjust fee incentives to discourage this behavior.
    Also, the fact that, especially with long-range EVs such as Tesla makes, it is quite possible to use EVs for demand adjustments. Most people's charging can easily tolerate a few minutes to hours of charging interruption if the grid needs extra momentary surge capacity.
    EVs actually can help with demand problems more than they cause them.
    Nuclear power plants as the US Navy uses in their submarines and aircraft carriers would be fine technically because they produce almost no radioactive waste and the few tablespoons per year that they do produce is very low grade. Unfortunately, in order to make these safe, clean reactors, the cost per KWh is prohibitively expensive. This makes them economically non-competitive versus wind+storage, solar+storage, hydro, coal, or natural gas. The Navy has to live, literally, on top of their reactors so they pay more to make them safe. The utilities externalize the risks and radioactive waste, letting other people deal with them - later.
  • > @"Earl and Nagin 08 RDS 359" said:
    > EVs could be a problem but, given most charging practices it won't be a problem since most is naturally done at night, when the grid is lightly loaded, even in summer.


    If there's millions of people charging their cars for hours every night, wouldn't this make the infrastructure no longer lightly loaded during these times? Wouldn't it actually now be considered a mid peak or even high peak time for the infrastructure?
  • > @Tesla2018 said:
    > If everyone is forced to go to electric vehicles will the grid be able to handle it or will changes need to be made in advance?
    >
    > My old neighborhood had rolling blackouts during the summer because the utility company couldn't handle about a thousand condos having their a/C units on at the same time. Imagine hundreds of thousands of cars charging each night in larger cities. Will more coal being used to produce electricity
    > be worse than using gasoline in the event solar and wind can't handle the demand? Would nuclear power plants in remote locations be a better solution?

    When they closed the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant they screamed that there would be blackouts. There wasn't any because California provided credits to install ROOFTOP solar which was well received. Also many Tesla owners calculated the economic benefits of installing PV panels to charge their cars vs. gasoline.
    In fact building a new home in California requires Solar PV be installed.

    https://cleantechsandiego.org/san-diego-ranks-1-nationally-solar-panel-installations/

    https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2019-total-system-electric-generation/2018

    This is older data. More installations are coming like the Tesla Powerpacks at Moss Landing.

    V2G is another source.
    In addition Solar is very cheap now. We plan to install more Solar when Tesla comes to our area. $1.49/watt.

    Nice to use a free fusion reactor.
  • Solar PV coupled with PW2 battery storage is capable of addressing all EV charging requirements. Our 13.2 kWh PV system installed in 2012 coupled with our 2 PW2's installed in 2018 enable us to provide all our home electricity needs (all electricity home with heat pump and heat pump water heater) over past 8 years, including charging both our Tesla's (MS and M3), and we have exported around half our excess solar energy back to grid. I live in Edmonds, WA not the most solar intensive state. Solar is a no brainer for folks living in states with lots of solar, especially Florida, etc. Solar costs are coming down dramatically. Our solar panels are paid off and it feels good knowing we can operate independent of the grid for ~9 months of the year with our PW2 batteries up in Washington State.
  • @PteRoy,
    You're right that all EVs charging at night will certainly increase demand at night. There are at least 2 possible reasons this won't be a problem:
    1) 30 amp charging and 30 amp air conditioners are about the same demand. The grid needs to be able to handle at least 30 amps to all houses at the same time. This would handle both heavy loads
    2) If demand changes, or, with EVs, "requests" change, EV charging can be very flexible. If solar begins to dominate, I can envision how daytime, workplace charging may be even become preferable. Before noon, solar is good but air conditioning demand is low. This can easily be incentivized.
    EVs with reasonable range, generally only need to charge any time(s) during a 24 hour period. This provides flexibility that the grid has never had the luxury of. It will make life easier for grid control.
    It is actually sometimes possible to determine the demand on the grid, simply by measuring the voltage and current phase. From this, a charging station can actually assess whether it should be charging or not.
  • In the previous heat wave, they asked us to pre-cool our homes so that we wouldn't run the AC during the peak hours starting at 4 pm or so. Charging could occur at off peak time and not everyone needs to charge a full battery ever day.

    The pre-cooling didn't help much. It got uncomfortable after about an hour or two. I think we'll just get into the Tesla next time there is a Flex alert, and watch Netflix during peak hours. We'll be comfortable and not need to cool down our house.
Sign In or Register to comment.