You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
nonsense, talk about fake news. I didn't think anyone took mother jones seriously
Really? We should wait until something bad happens before complaining about the plan to do something bad?This whole concept of complaining about what someone MIGHT do is confusing to me.
I asked once before and I'll ask againThanks Mod (Doug_G)
I agree, I simply wanted to raise the topic and have a civil discussion where we could alert Elon Musk to the foibles in embracing this new administration too blindly.
trump has been known to say one thing and then do another, I see no reason to doubt he is planning to up-end the clean air laws to get his precious lobbyists goals of clearing way for greater oil and coal production. We would be fools to assume otherwise, given the anti-environmental rhetoric his espoused on the campaign trail.
I think it's safe to assume that the absolute neutering of the EPA, the organization that brought us from the chaotic filth of the 1980's to our somewhat cleaner current state, will be a challenge to environmental issues. Overstepping or not, the EPA made is possible to see my toes when standing in 3 feet of water off the Jersey coast.whether the limiting of many of the quasi legal edicts issued by the current crew in charge will hamper the issues of environmentalism, I think we'll have to wait and see,
Agreed. People who are used to having these black and white arguments, as if anyone could possibly be 100% correct, are having a tough time labeling Trump. I mean, the guy owns a Roadster after all. I see him as a far better for "our cause" than any of the other bought-out nominees in the Republican primary.the biggest problem many have with trump is that they can't seem to pin him down with any sort of labels that they're accustomed to using.
Are you 13? Or just from Florida?watching the process and the inability of the pundits to grasp the changes happening is quite amusing.
I asked once before and I'll ask again
what is the basis for this prognostication?
do you have first hand knowledge of how he plans on dealing with the varied issues involved?
or are you just harboring the perception that you've been conditioned to see.
my version of the reality is that he is not as soft on environmental issues as some of the opposition makes him out to be.
but you can be assured that he will unwind many of the edicts issued by over stepping governmental agencies.
whether the limiting of many of the quasi legal edicts issued by the current crew in charge will hamper the issues of environmentalism, I think we'll have to wait and see,
the biggest problem many have with trump is that they can't seem to pin him down with any sort of labels that they're accustomed to using. watching the process and the inability of the pundits to grasp the changes happening is quite amusing.
BTW - I'm no hypocrite. I love electromotive powertrains because of their superior characteristics. I'm smart enough to know that even the food I eat requires petroleum to get it to my table today.
I'm not blaming John Deere or Trump or some Saudi Sheikh.
you've made some valid and interesting points, I just want to note that you've ignored the very thin resume of the current occupant of the white house. His policies regarding energy were as absurd as anyone else'sT There have been other presidents with thin resumes, but none as thin and none who didn't make sure their inner circle didn't have a fair number of old salts at the jobs they were given.
But at this point all we can do is wait and see. I've been wrong before.
It is painful to agree with you on these points. I wish it were not so......
Bio fuels will help in some of these areas, but they have limits too. A fair bit of bio fuel can be made from what is agricultural waste today. That's how ethanol is made from corn. The part of the corn not used for animal feed is what you want to separate out to make ethanol, so it's a useful product from something that used to be thrown away.
However gasoline is 34 MJ/L and pure ethanol is only 21 MJ/L. (The best Li-Ion batteries available today are around 2.6 MJ/L, less than 1/10 the energy density of gasoline.) Ethanol is usually blended with gasoline to increase the octane rating (the speed at which it burns, the higher the octane the slower it burns) and to boost the energy density.
...
But at this point all we can do is wait and see. I've been wrong before.
The fact is we will need petroleum for transportation fuel for several decades at least, even with an aggressive plan to change. As Elon has pointed out, to complete convert just the world's production of passenger cars and light trucks to EVs is going to take 100 GigaFactories. That's going to cost around $1 trillion just for the factories. The resources to feed those factories also need to be brought online.
And that's just replacing the personal passenger vehicles being built. It's going to take a long time to get all the old ICE off the road. The average car on the road in the US today is 11 years old. That means 1/2 of the cars out there are more than 11 years old. Most of those people driving older cars can't afford a newer car.
That 100 GF doesn't include the batteries that need to be made for EV semis, railroad locomotives, and doesn't address what to do about ships and aircraft. The core technologies are there to replace cars and trucks on the highways, but they don't exist to replace aircraft propulsion with anything but liquid fuel and fossil fuels are still the best aircraft fuel because it's the most energy/weight of any fuel except nuclear (which has a few major problems as a fuel for aircraft). Battery tech isn't anywhere near the energy density to do anything more than to build novelty and demonstration EV aircraft right now.
Ships too need a compact energy source. High tech sails might help reduce their energy needs and it's possible a ship covered with solar panels might be able to derive some of its energy from the sun, but a cargo ship run on batteries is just not practical. Too much cargo space would have to be filled with batteries to make it practical and even at that the ship might not have the range.
Bio fuels will help in some of these areas, but they have limits too. A fair bit of bio fuel can be made from what is agricultural waste today. That's how ethanol is made from corn. The part of the corn not used for animal feed is what you want to separate out to make ethanol, so it's a useful product from something that used to be thrown away.
However gasoline is 34 MJ/L and pure ethanol is only 21 MJ/L. (The best Li-Ion batteries available today are around 2.6 MJ/L, less than 1/10 the energy density of gasoline.) Ethanol is usually blended with gasoline to increase the octane rating (the speed at which it burns, the higher the octane the slower it burns) and to boost the energy density.
In short we will need oil for some time to come. However a smart energy policy pushes to move towards other fuel sources as quickly as practical. Obama was hindered with an uncooperative Congress, but that was essentially his energy policy. He still encouraged the development of oil in the Bakkan while also encouraging alternatives. The oil business is essentially in a depression right now but that's due to the low cost of oil, not discouragement on the part of the government.
If the US boosts it's home produced oil while also reducing the demand through alternatives, that puts the US in a much stronger position than it is today. The US has been over a barrel since the 1970s because it became dependent on importing oil when domestic supplies couldn't meet demand.
I do think Trump's announced energy policy is very short sighted and would leave the US behind the curve as the rest of the world works to convert to other energy sources.
Personally I think the incoming administration is going to learn the hard way that running a large country and managing the foreign policy of that country is several orders of magnitude more difficult than they think today. There is a reason presidents tend to pick cabinet members who have previous governing experience. Even if they have some new ideas about policy, they at least know what the old policies were, how they were crafted, and they have some idea how complex the problems really are. Bringing in a lot of people with no policy making experience is, IMO, a big mistake.
I have no idea what the actual policies will actually be, if they ever get to the point of finalizing anything. The guy at the top can be somewhat capricious with his ideas, changing his mind 180 degrees on a whim. Sometimes in the same sentence. And the people around him have a lot of competing agendas.
Personally I think the incoming administration is going to make the administrations of Harding, Grant, Nixon, Andrew Johnson, Buchanan, and GW Bush look good just for the lack of experience and understanding of the job going in, Trump's personality aside. There have been other presidents with thin resumes, but none as thin and none who didn't make sure their inner circle didn't have a fair number of old salts at the jobs they were given.
But at this point all we can do is wait and see. I've been wrong before.