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

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



  • I'll be ready for demonizing carbon.
  • So a c> @andy_connor_e said:
    > I'll be ready for demonizing carbon.

    So a carbon tax will be bad in all cases? There is a thing called excess polluters, that’s what a carbon tax should be used for. To stop or change the worse abuses. IMHO
  • > @andy_connor_e said:
    > I'll be ready for demonizing carbon.

    Why did you ignore what I posted. I actually thought you were smarter than @MitchP85D but your inability to onboard even the most basic of economic concepts indicates that your mind is calcified.

  • I read it but externalities don't have any relevance to the reality that our entire society runs off fossil fuels, so if you increase the cost of everything, people are not going to just accept lower margins. Everything will go up. Unless it's a strategic tax and doesn't blanket tax everything that has emissions.
  • @blkice

    Not necessarily. You can't just tax everything that produces emissions. Because that's practically everything.
  • Personally, I think we should simply enforce existing property laws.
    One can only pollute the air above the property which one owns. One should be arrested for polluting the air over any property which one does not own, just as one cannot trespass or put one's possessions on someone else's property.
    Note: This includes any pollution one creates that is blown by the wind to the property of others.
    Note2: This also includes water pollution: one is welcome to dump anything into the ground as long as 100% of it remains within the borders of the land one owns. If anything seeps off of their property- same thing as air.
    Carbon regulation may take some new laws . . .
  • > @"Earl and Nagin 08 RDS 359" said > You're right that all EVs charging at night will certainly increase demand at night. "

    But this is years in the future before any real impact on the grid because there are so few plug in cars and trucks. That low plug-in population will be true for likely next 10 years.

    Plenty of time to build up wind, solar and battery backup systems which can easily provide 100% of US energy needs.
  • edited November 2020
    For the uninitiated, fishev has a long history of misunderstanding or misrepresenting energy requirements, electricity generation, basic mathematics, and the primary scientific relationships between things like power and energy.

    The best such examples, maybe, are in these threads:

    Keep a mountain of salt handy when he makes claims about what battery backup systems can easily provide.
  • Talked to my liberal sister in Albuquerque, NM. She told me that she is using some of our estate funds to buy solar panels and the Tesla battery backup. Altogether, nearly 29K! She said there is a big tax credit to go along with that and her net will be 18K. I'm sure a good bit of that is New Mexico because they have an income tax there. I don't know what the Federal tax credit is for that, if any. I told my sis she can be a good solar power guinea pig for me, and let me know how well it works out for her, and if it is worth the cost. She is convinced that the solar panel + Tesla battery combo will pay for itself. I don't know about that. She is 67 now, and she will have to live an awfully long time for that expensive combo to pay for itself. But, her money, her decision. What do y'all think?
  • “But, her money, her decision. What do y'all think?”

  • "What do y'all think?"

    Bad decisions run in the family.
  • So Pepperhead, my sis made a bad decision with solar?
  • > @MitchP85D said:
    > But, her money, her decision. What do y'all think?

    Maybe that’s what makes her feel good about her place in this world, at 67 if it feels right do it, she’s future proofing with optimism, cool
  • Yes and No.

    Yes. Odds are low that she'll make her money back.

    No. If her electricity was generated by a fossil fuel, having solar would be better for the environment.
  • So, that leads to the next question. Is buying solar panels really worth it? I have my doubts. In Texas, we have a wide selection of energy plans to choose from. There is one plan where almost all of the energy you pay for comes from renewable energy. When my sister lived in Texas, she chose that plan, and as I recall it was considerably more expensive. The plan I have is a mixture of everything - wind, nuclear, solar, natural gas, coal. I'm not sure exactly how our green energy plan works, but it seems to me that we are all hooked up to the same grid in Texas. There is no way you can send the flow of electrons generated from wind and solar directly to the home of whoever ordered the green energy plan. We all use the same electricity. So, the way I look at it, the green energy plan is basically a voluntary tax in the state of Texas to support the infrastructure of renewables. And that should tell you something. The cost of renewable energy is not competitive with coal and natural gas.

    I assume many of you here want to expand BEVs and eliminate ICE vehicles. And as long as the cost of electricity is cheaper than the cost of gasoline, the incentive is there for the public to buy BEVs. But what happens when you knock out coal and natural gas from the equation of power generation? You dramatically increase the cost of electricity, that's what happens. And when the cost to fuel BEVs goes up, what incentive will there be for the public to buy SUVs? There will be no incentive. Therefore, this intense effort by you so-called progressives to eliminate fossil fuels will not give you the results you are aiming for. I suggest you should leave power generation to our scientists and engineers. Your finger snapping for direct government intervention solves nothing. It only creates problems.
  • Correction: ..what incentive will there by for the public to buy BEVs?
  • > @MitchP85D said: > So, that leads to the next question. Is buying solar panels really worth it?

    TX has a 12 year payback vs. CA's 6 year payback. Either one is worth it at the retail level in the context of 15-30 year mortgage.

    On emissions, in Texas a Model 3 LR AWD would produce 140 grams a mile of green house gases based on TX electricity grid. In Oregon, 90 grams a mile.

    Paying extra for sustainable power doesn't change the overall mix of a state's electricity emissions though it, in theory, pays the utility to better the mix going forward.

    So charging at home with solar eliminates the 140 grams a mile of emissions while also cutting the home GHG emissions which are roughly 30% of people's carbon footprint. Car and home on solar, saves money, big reduction in greenhouse gase emissions.
  • The incentive does not depend solely on the cost of electricity vs gasoline.

    For me, the incentives to buy an EV are:
    -Lower cost of ownership.
    -Free charging at work.
    -The driving experience.
    Tesla specific incentives are:
    -OTA updates.
    -The Tesla Mission.

    I doubt the cost of electricity will ever be more than gasoline but if that were to actually happen, there are always other options like solar or wind that one could take advantage of.

    Please don't overthink why people buy EV's and stop politicizing their decisions to do so.
  • What the heck TabascoGuy? Stop politicizing decisions? That is all what you so-called "progressives" do. You all are constantly politicizing by making mandates onto others to make them abide by the rules you impose on them. You don't want the public to make choices for themselves. You want to tell them what they should be allowed to have in life.
  • I attempted to answer your questions.

    You brought politics into the conversation, I did not.

    I politely asked you to stop.

    Don't get too upset if choose to ignore your rants.
  • There are also services that pay you to use less electricity at peak times. The utility pays them to reduce demand if there is a forecasted peak power time. I think this is only in California, but I'm sure it will grow. With your permission, they can automatically turn off your EV charging and other items for an hour. They pay you for how much power you reduce during that hour.

    Here is more info on Ohmconnect and other rebate programs for EVs:
  • The only point I am trying to make is that it is better by far to allow the scientists and engineers to take charge of our power generation. After all, they are the ones who have to figure out how to supply enough electricity to meet the demands from the public. They also are the ones who have to figure how to incorporate a highly variable source of energy like wind and solar into the grid. On days of very little wind and sun, natural gas power has to be fired up to make up for the energy deficit. On some days there is too much wind, and the wind turbines have to be disconnected because of the excess electrical charge has nowhere to go.

    Our scientists and engineers have enough problems on their hands. The last thing in the world they need is some state or federal bureaucrat telling them how to do their jobs when those bureaucrats don't have a friggin' clue how it is to be done.
  • Or, perhaps the government could work with the scientists.

    Maybe we aught to give that a try.
  • > @"" said:
    > Here is more info on Ohmconnect and other rebate programs for EVs:
    Ohmconnect is awesome! Been with them for six years.
  • > @MitchP85D said: >You don't want the public to make choices for themselves. You want to tell them what they should be allowed to have in life. “

    You don’t get a choice to destroy everyone’s ecosystem so you can “have a life” while destroying everyone else’s life. Your don’t have the freedom to burn down the house.

    Industrial pollution is now life threatening for all so all have to stop using oil and coal. Since there is no downside to it just more jobs, less emissions, less military costs, less oil import costs, less water pollution, clearer skies, cooler oceans and fresh water bodies.

Sign In or Register to comment.