jeffmori7 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Some reading here for Cardboard, and others, about renewable energy. I encourage you to read this to get a good idea of what is really going on: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/4/14942764/100-renewable-energy-debate https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies And a good one from the same author about self-driving car, shared mobility, etc. : https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/5/18/15604744/self-driving-cars-cities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Do you have a car Jeffmori7? If so why don't you use Uber only? If so, do you have tires on your car Jeffmori7? Plastics? Where do you think that comes from? Do you enjoy travelling Jeffmori7? Do you use airplane transportation? Do you know how much that pollutes? Before trying to educate others why don't you look around you and examine what you are doing? Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Some of these visionaries are... 1- It is already proven that using taxis is cheaper than owning your own car for the vast majority of people. And now with Uber, it is even cheaper and more efficient. Forget about rural/urban. So now all of a sudden people will stop buying their own car because the "autonomous" driving is done by a robot instead of a human? Remove a guy inside the vehicle that makes $20,000/year and now the cost advantage is life changing? 2- I also love their fascination for making obsolete fossil fuels. Again, how do you produce the electricity? Why is an autonomous car propelled by electricity any different than an electric car in terms of function? If there are fewer cars, so they run all the time, how do you beat the instantaneous recharge of a fossil fuel car? How much technological advance is required so that electric car can compete if oil is at $25/barrel? What they also seem to forget is that if society is so advanced in terms of movement, then other areas have also advanced dramatically which may make this whole debate just a side show. Cardboard These are some good interesting points. Regarding point number 1. First let me say that I am a car guy, but also when I lived in London I enjoyed not having a car and being able to take cabs. Right now I live in the suburbs of Toronto so I need a car. No, taking cab/uber places would not be cheaper. I eventually see myself moving downtown but even then I would need to have at least one car in my household. The reason as I see it? What if my kid gets sick or injured and I need to rush to the hospital? Am I going to take a chance that an Uber driver is not going to take me because he doesn't want my kid's gushing blood staining his car? No. Also those trips to parents' and inlaws' houses which cost $150 a pop help diffuse the cost of car ownership a lot. The above is just some things that I think about. I'm sure other people have their own reasons for car ownership in an urban setting. In all those Toronto condo sky scrapers the parking lots are full. There's a reason for that and I doubt that those reasons are going to change much if you lower the cost of transportation by 10-15%. Regarding point 2. When it comes to efficiency between combustion power and EVs even if you make power out of fossil fuels (though it's not all fossil fuels) the thing is that a power plant is much, much more efficient than a car's combustion engine. However on the other side a very good point is made on how you charge these vehicles that are running a lot. Yes you could be using Tesla's with 600km per charge but that's really stupid/inefficient so that's not a very good solution. In my view a lot of this is just Silicon Valley talking it's own book. But furthermore, I think they are truly underestimating how hard all of this is. Up to now they've been writing this piece of code or that piece of code. They've moved from electronic device to that electronic device. This is a whole different can of fish. It has real life, life and death implications and I don't think they fully grasp the enormity of that and what is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTermView Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 In my view a lot of this is just Silicon Valley talking it's own book. But furthermore, I think they are truly underestimating how hard all of this is. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when reading their 95% figure mentioned earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Do you have a car Jeffmori7? If so why don't you use Uber only? If so, do you have tires on your car Jeffmori7? Plastics? Where do you think that comes from? Do you enjoy travelling Jeffmori7? Do you use airplane transportation? Do you know how much that pollutes? Before trying to educate others why don't you look around you and examine what you are doing? Cardboard Cardboard, once again, I will repeat that I don't want to make it in a fight between you and me and the way we live. I was honestly just sharing some reading for a journalist very knowledgeable about energy stuff. I sincerely invite you to at least read those links I shared. You keep telling that we use a lot of oil and that it will always be so...there are some ways to reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, for the sake of humanity, and EV and renewable are part of the solution. Concerning EV, even if electricity they use emit GHG, their efficiency make the well to wheels emission better than ICE cars in most states and provinces already, and electricity production is getting cleaner and cleaner mostly everywhere. About how I live, if you want to know, I already answered that in an other thread, here you go: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/general-discussion/trudeau-approved-some-pipelines!/msg282486/#msg282486 About plastics, I have nothing against them, they are really useful in our modern lives. But we can try to reduce our usage of disposable stuff to reduce our plastic consumption... Anyway, plastic is less than 10% of the oil we use, and it is not the main source of GHG emissions. Let's start by reducing our burning of fossil fuels and keep some for our plastic usage! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTEJD1997 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Hey all: Using taxis is cheaper for the vast majority of people? whut WHUT??? The vast majority of people that live in Manhattan? Here in the midwest "wastelands" we sometimes have to drive different places. For example, I am going to downtown Detroit in a few minutes to work on a project. I need to get there quickly. A cab would probably cost $30+ Uber would be 2/3 of that? When will I be done? Don't know, might be lunch time, might be 3 PM, might be 6-7. How hard is it to get cab/uber before 8 AM? After that, I'm going to a distant suburb to look/evaluate real estate. I need to be able to drive around a parcel(s). Also might pick up some food. Whoops, I almost forgot! I might have to go to a supplier to pick up some computer parts...that supplier is 20 miles off course. If I had to take a taxi, it would take forever, and I would be bankrupted. The vast majority of people that I know would have the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If you live and work in NYC it is certainly possible to live without a car today, many do, but that isn't the case for the vast majority of Americans. Cars are necessary and having your own vehicle always available at a moments notice is very convenient. I wouldn't give up my cars for a 10-15% savings, it would have to be an 80+% savings before I'd even consider it. There is no way to achieve that if human drivers need to be paid. Also, I don't want to ride with strangers in the car, so even Uber as it currently exists is unacceptable for that reason alone even if it was cheaper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanielGMask Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Thinking this way is thinking within the current context and paradigm, not within the new one Seba talks about. 1) If gasoline is no longer necessary and there's no driver, then miles traveled won't be as expensive as they are today. 2) If his view of autonomous cars driving almost all of the time (less parking needed and almost full utilization) is correct, then rushing to the hospital or wherever you need won't be a problem either since there will always be a car available near you. I don't know if Seba is correct with the timeframe of his prediction, but I certainly see a world where people pay fraction ownership (ala Netjets) for hours/miles traveled in cars and a company selling that service and having an enormous fleet of autonomous EVs available for picking you up within a few minutes of your request. A lot of people don't own a car, at least in the US. Leasing is equivalent to renting, not owning! I think he is correct with his assessment of car ownership (in a world with full autonomous EVs it will decrease a lot). And I think he is also correct with his assessment that a lot of current parking space will be repurposed for better uses since those autonomous EVs will be used a lot more hours than current cars drived by humans. From the comments I infer some of you haven't listen to the full talk or read his paper. I think it's worth the time, most of his views make a lot of sense and in my view it's not an "if" question, but a "when" question. And in that he may certainly be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I never said that we will use lots of oil forever. It is simply the current situation and probably to your chagrin demand is growing every year. They estimate another 1.3 million barrels/day for 2017 globally or just over 1.3%. And what is worldwide population growth forecast for 2017? 1.1%. And the 1.3 million estimate is likely too low just like it was low-balled last year and in previous years by IEA. So if these so called very knowledgeable journalists, scientists, professors are so bang on with their research then why do we keep on seeing demand growth for oil still above population growth? It is called human development, people wanting a better life and for that oil has been the best/cheapest recipe to date. It does not mean that things won't change in the future. My vision would be for everyone to have a solar panel on their roof producing straight hydrogen. This would be fantastic and this will come. You could heat, cool your home and power your vehicle with zero CO2 emission. You would get rid of all line losses, power plants and all that energy infrastructure and I think that is the future. Regarding this and what RB said also, it is a big mis-conception: "Concerning EV, even if electricity they use emit GHG, their efficiency make the well to wheels emission better than ICE cars in most states and provinces already, and electricity production is getting cleaner and cleaner mostly everywhere." The Brayton cycle has the same efficiency or better than most combined cycles and is at par with the gas turbine. You now have more and more ICE cars shutting themselves down at a stop light and combustion and overall efficiency has improved massively in recent years thanks to Obama!!! A car that used to do 12 liters per 100 km is now at 8. Now, there is a solution to make power plants more efficient or to achieve your statement: cogeneration. With it, power plants increase their efficiency by at least 50%. However, there is a huge problem: "Not in my backyard". And with it goes down massively the need for cogen or essentially steam captured from heat loss that could be used for multiple applications in large cities. Human habits also play a huge role in technology adoption. I don't want to pick on RB because we all have these but, look at this statement: "What if my kid gets sick or injured and I need to rush to the hospital? Am I going to take a chance that an Uber driver is not going to take me because he doesn't want my kid's gushing blood staining his car? No." So someone would not rely on a Uber driver but, on his own car which maybe will not start at all? What about calling an ambulance if your kid is injured? That would be a lot more responsible especially in a city like Toronto where traffic is really bad. And most people are insured for the cost... So things will change but, it will happen in ways that we cannot imagine today or I should say accurately forecast. I read a book in 1998 where the author basically thought that the need for transportation would simply collapse because we could now move ourselves at the speed of light using teleconferencing. A massive cost cutting idea. Interestingly almost 20 years later, we keep on moving ourselves at 100 km/h and slightly faster with planes (if you count all the wasted time not in the air) and teleconferencing is used a lot. And one thing that I want to make crystal clear. If you want to buy that Volt or Tesla fine. Just don't come pick money from my pockets to do it. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I wanted to put some real numbers on this, so I thought I'd figure out what my current two cars cost me per year in total assuming I keep them both for 15 years. I purchased a 2007 Hyundai Elantra in 2007 and a 2006 Toyota Sequoia in 2011. The rest are my best estimates trying to overestimate not underestimate and then round up. 2007 Elantra estimate from 2007-2022: Purchase price: $15,000 3 sets Tires: $3,000 2 timing belts / major services: $4000 Estimate Other Problems (brakes/struts/exhaust/etc): $8000 Gas @ $35/week: $27,300 Oil changes 2/year: $1500 Inspection stickers: $525 NH Registration: $3000 Full coverage Insurance: $9,000 ----------------------- Total for 15 years: $71,325 call it $75-80K 2006 Sequoia estimate from years 2011 - 2025 (I don't put anywhere near the number of miles on this per year as I do the Elantra, but it is more expensive to fix/fuel/insure/etc, so these numbers take that into account) Purchase Price: $25,000 2 sets Tires: $3,000 1 timing belt / major services: $4000 Estimate Other Problems (brakes/struts/exhaust/etc): $8000 Gas @ $40/week: $31,200 Oil changes 2/year: $1500 Inspection stickers: $525 NH Registration: $4000 Full coverage Insurance: $12,000 ----------------------- Total for 15 years: $89,225 call it $90-95K So $165-$175K for 15 years which is $11-12K per year. Damn, cars are expensive even if you buy them infrequently and drive them a long time. So to save me 80% the service for my wife and I would have to cost us about $2200 per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Cardboard, just two little things: I do totally agree with you, about many things and this Seba presentation, that human habits play the largest role in technology adoption and the cost is only one variable. Second, I also agree that people use oil and that is useful...I just want that people pay the real price, because externalities exist and are not often accounted for. Afeter that, of course people can choose hey they live. To all: what Seba is talking about will possibly happen, but the time frame is incertain, and of course urban area will see that happening first. But I think that to completely disregard what he envision is not useful, as some of it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 And you are assuming to drive your cars for 15 years, bought the Sequoia used and your insurance cost is relatively low. For someone with a less frugal lifestyle, I would think that car ownership is closer to $10,000 per car/year. Considering that most people have them parked 97% of the time, I am not crazy suggesting that using taxis/Uber, and I would add public transportation, cost less for the majority of people. Many studies have actually been done on this. I made a mistake by using the word: "vast". So it is not a purely economic decision even if you live in Manhattan. It is a convenience, freedom thing and I like it. So screw Seba and his forecasts! There is nothing like driving a Ferrari La Ferrari downtown and have all the chicks turn their heads around ;D Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dustin T Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 I don't think a public autonomous EV sounds very attractive as a sole mode of transport. I'd love to have one deliver groceries or run errands for me. My car will always be more comfortable then any commercial plane, subway car or taxi, which is inevitably what a public option looks like. I would want my own autonomous vehicle. Knowing it could be outfitted as a mobile office, mobile theatre, mobile exercise complete with spin machine helping add a few watts to the car battery or a dozen other uses. These would all add value to my life and make travel more enjoyable or productive. I've got no doubt sharing something that sits 90% of the time has a lot of economic benefit and many would choose that option. I also think many middle class and many more upper class families will choose a comfortable, convenient and customizable option. They may go from three vehicles to one, but there are many reasons to keep that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 And you are assuming to drive your cars for 15 years, bought the Sequoia used and your insurance cost is relatively low. For someone with a less frugal lifestyle, I would think that car ownership is closer to $10,000 per car/year. Considering that most people have them parked 97% of the time, I am not crazy suggesting that using taxis/Uber, and I would add public transportation, cost less for the majority of people. Many studies have actually been done on this. I made a mistake by using the word: "vast". So it is not a purely economic decision even if you live in Manhattan. It is a convenience, freedom thing and I like it. So screw Seba and his forecasts! There is nothing like driving a Ferrari La Ferrari downtown and have all the chicks turn their heads around ;D Cardboard Yes I realize not everyone wants to drive the same car for 15 years and NH is one of the cheapest states to own a car , I paid more than double for insurance when I used to live in MA, so maybe $2K per person is a more reasonable threshold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rohitc99 Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If you look at china and india, where a lot of incremental demand is coming in - ICE vehicles are simply unsustainable. you have visit a bejing or new delhi during the winter months to believe it. you cannot breathe in the open. both the countries are already putting plans in place to move to EV/ Solar due to these issues. In a lot of these places, it has gone beyond the point of cost - the externalities have become huge. I can share a personal example - when india went from gasonline to natural gas in cities, the drop is pollution was quite big. moving to EV is becoming critical in a lot of cities also all these countries have very high population densities. so the problems of low population density in midwest (where i live) is a non issue in these places Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelagic Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If you look at china and india, where a lot of incremental demand is coming in - ICE vehicles are simply unsustainable. you have visit a bejing or new delhi during the winter months to believe it. you cannot breathe in the open. both the countries are already putting plans in place to move to EV/ Solar due to these issues. In a lot of these places, it has gone beyond the point of cost - the externalities have become huge. I can share a personal example - when india went from gasonline to natural gas in cities, the drop is pollution was quite big. moving to EV is becoming critical in a lot of cities also all these countries have very high population densities. so the problems of low population density in midwest (where i live) is a non issue in these places The fact that India and China get around 70% of their electricity from coal probably has more to do with this than ICE vehicles. Modern internal combustion engines have comparably very low particulate emissions. It's one thing to plan to replace coal with solar/wind, it's another thing entirely to actually do it. Both countries currently receive about 4% of their electricity from wind while solar and other non-hydro, non-wind renewables account for around 1%. The process of actually replacing the 3,700 TWh of electricity generation in China derived from coal with renewables is daunting and a lot harder than some bureaucrat saying ok, no new coal plants we're only building solar and wind facilities from now on. It's not that China and India don't want clean air and low emissions, it's just that the scale involved in mind boggling. China is already the world's leading installer of wind and solar with the most installed capacity of each and together they barely makes up 5% of their total energy production. I think China and India will need to utilize clean coal technology extensively, as well as as much natural gas as they can get their hands on, I just don't see renewables scaling fast enough to address particulate emissions in the timeframe Chinese and Indian citizens want them addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winjitsu Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If you look at china and india, where a lot of incremental demand is coming in - ICE vehicles are simply unsustainable. you have visit a bejing or new delhi during the winter months to believe it. you cannot breathe in the open. both the countries are already putting plans in place to move to EV/ Solar due to these issues. In a lot of these places, it has gone beyond the point of cost - the externalities have become huge. I can share a personal example - when india went from gasonline to natural gas in cities, the drop is pollution was quite big. moving to EV is becoming critical in a lot of cities also all these countries have very high population densities. so the problems of low population density in midwest (where i live) is a non issue in these places Nuclear. The fact that India and China get around 70% of their electricity from coal probably has more to do with this than ICE vehicles. Modern internal combustion engines have comparably very low particulate emissions. It's one thing to plan to replace coal with solar/wind, it's another thing entirely to actually do it. Both countries currently receive about 4% of their electricity from wind while solar and other non-hydro, non-wind renewables account for around 1%. The process of actually replacing the 3,700 TWh of electricity generation in China derived from coal with renewables is daunting and a lot harder than some bureaucrat saying ok, no new coal plants we're only building solar and wind facilities from now on. It's not that China and India don't want clean air and low emissions, it's just that the scale involved in mind boggling. China is already the world's leading installer of wind and solar with the most installed capacity of each and together they barely makes up 5% of their total energy production. I think China and India will need to utilize clean coal technology extensively, as well as as much natural gas as they can get their hands on, I just don't see renewables scaling fast enough to address particulate emissions in the timeframe Chinese and Indian citizens want them addressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelagic Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 If you look at china and india, where a lot of incremental demand is coming in - ICE vehicles are simply unsustainable. you have visit a bejing or new delhi during the winter months to believe it. you cannot breathe in the open. both the countries are already putting plans in place to move to EV/ Solar due to these issues. In a lot of these places, it has gone beyond the point of cost - the externalities have become huge. I can share a personal example - when india went from gasonline to natural gas in cities, the drop is pollution was quite big. moving to EV is becoming critical in a lot of cities also all these countries have very high population densities. so the problems of low population density in midwest (where i live) is a non issue in these places Nuclear. The fact that India and China get around 70% of their electricity from coal probably has more to do with this than ICE vehicles. Modern internal combustion engines have comparably very low particulate emissions. It's one thing to plan to replace coal with solar/wind, it's another thing entirely to actually do it. Both countries currently receive about 4% of their electricity from wind while solar and other non-hydro, non-wind renewables account for around 1%. The process of actually replacing the 3,700 TWh of electricity generation in China derived from coal with renewables is daunting and a lot harder than some bureaucrat saying ok, no new coal plants we're only building solar and wind facilities from now on. It's not that China and India don't want clean air and low emissions, it's just that the scale involved in mind boggling. China is already the world's leading installer of wind and solar with the most installed capacity of each and together they barely makes up 5% of their total energy production. I think China and India will need to utilize clean coal technology extensively, as well as as much natural gas as they can get their hands on, I just don't see renewables scaling fast enough to address particulate emissions in the timeframe Chinese and Indian citizens want them addressed. I'm not sure what the lead time is on a new nuclear plant in China or India but if you wanted to build a new nuclear plant today in the US, you likely wouldn't be producing power from it for at least a decade. This site is showing that new nuclear plants coming online today, as opposed to additional reactors at an existing site, started roughly 7-8 years ago which likely doesn't factor in the design/permitting phase prior to construction. On the bright side, new construction is projected to complete in roughly 5 years. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx Certainly nuclear is an option and will take some of the burden off renewables and displace coal, but nuclear projects tend to take a long time to complete and be expensive relative to other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Sure, building a nuclear power plant may take a while, but how long does it take to build the 12,000 MW of solar which is sort of the equivalent of a 4 reactor plant? Probably a quite a bit of time as well. On top of all this, nuclear is base load power which directly displaces coal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted May 25, 2017 Share Posted May 25, 2017 Coal gasification to produce hydrogen and import our beautiful LNG from Western Canada. If they are serious about it, they will breath fresh air in no time and avoid the 1000's of years needed to deal with nuclear waste. A problem that even developed nations have not figured out yet in over 50 years. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffmori7 Posted May 29, 2017 Share Posted May 29, 2017 For those who always argue that EV are not greener than ICE cars, there are some good data: http://climatefriendlycars.climatecentral.org/report/ and https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 For those who always argue that EV are not greener than ICE cars, there are some good data: http://climatefriendlycars.climatecentral.org/report/ and https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php Interesting in that some states that use a lot of coal, like HI, KY, CO, NM, Hybrids pollute the least of all, whereas most states full electric is the least. Some states which use very little fossil fuels other than Natural Gas such as CA or NH the difference between gas and EV is extreme. I can't find any state where gas wasn't the worst (I didn't look at them all though). EDIT: It looks like the two extremes are Vermont and West Virginia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 My family has two cars. Uber has already rendered one of them obsolete (it sits forlornly outside the house and I really ought to sell it). A driverless (=cheaper) service, with more flexible usage models (e.g. the ability to book ahead, or the ability to book a car for the weekend), and wider geographic coverage (so that we could get back from the weekend away we have just taken), would render the second one obsolete too. In fact my family would adopt it in an instant and my wife and I have already decided never to buy another car due to concerns that residual values will collapse. (We will lease until we no longer need a car.) Travelling with strangers will be an issue for some people but that's very culture-dependant. I'm from the UK, where everyone uses public transport as a matter of course, so the idea of ridesharing for e.g. commutes doesn't seem so odd. In fact I currently commute packed like a sardine on the London Underground, so the idea of sharing a car with 4-10 people running a more or less point-to-point route (as opposed to regular stops) sounds like a dream. I accept the article is overoptimistic on adoption in urban areas, but that depends entirely on population and fleet density. Much of Europe will be coverable, for example. The critical point about the article, I think, is the speed of adoption. Here I think it is directionally plausible: 1. Big corporations with tons of cash will aim to saturate markets rapidly - this transition will not be driven by individuals deciding to switch AEVs for ICEs. The corporations will be willing to accept up-front losses to dominate markets. 2. Costs will collapse. Utilisation will rise many-fold, cutting cost per mile. This immediately makes EV's the only option, as it minimises their disadvantage (higher up front costs get spread across more miles) and maximises their advantage (lower fuel and maintenance costs per mile). Optimising the supply chain for fleet AEVs will take out yet more costs (EV production becomes commoditised and modularised; designs are optimised for mileage rather than their performance, look, or penis-extending qualities; parts are no longer designed with planned obsolescence). 3. Once the markets are saturated, the convenience and low cost will attract a lot of demand. Slowly thereafter, many people will abandon their cars as they will simply not use them enough. Box 5 on p20/21 jumped out at me - some of the cost claims are starting to be proven out, and if Teslas can really do 1.5m miles then we are in a new world. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarbutt Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Fascinating topic. At this point, I like what is said towards the end of the second link (Vox link) that jeffmori7 provided: "Above all, the haziness of the long-term view argues for humility on all sides. There’s much we do not yet know and cannot possibly anticipate, so it’s probably best for everyone to keep an open mind, support a range of bet-hedging experiments and initiatives, and maintain a healthy allergy to dogma." Let's keep moving then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Fascinating topic. At this point, I like what is said towards the end of the second link (Vox link) that jeffmori7 provided: "Above all, the haziness of the long-term view argues for humility on all sides. There’s much we do not yet know and cannot possibly anticipate, so it’s probably best for everyone to keep an open mind, support a range of bet-hedging experiments and initiatives, and maintain a healthy allergy to dogma." Let's keep moving then. Totally agree. The only thing I am fairly certain of, having followed solar for a decade, is that some sort of disruption is likely! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now