Tesla in turmoil after Elon Musk smokes marijuana on live show and top executives resign

[Bernardo de La Paz]

41. Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

When I wrote

Your analysis is a little facile and shallow (the little bit you revealed)
You undoubtedly have thought about this much more, but the tiny bit you wrote does not make a case.

... I would have hoped it was clear I was referring to what you wrote rather than what you might know or think. I'm sorry if that wasn't clearer and I am sorry if you feel I have impugned your character. Perhaps I too often assume that people are able to separate an attack on their thinking from an attack on their person. I'm disappointed you have taken to attempting to insult me as "smug" and a dupe victim of Dunning-Kruger and "conservative". I carefully did NOT say you were shallow; rather that is was shallow to make a bald statement of a contentious assertion without any explanation. Thank you for taking the time to expose some of your analysis. Please accept the following disagreements for what they are: disagreements on specific points of your argument and not with your person. I am still struggling to understand the assertion in the first paragraph of your post #14.

The reason coal grew so much is because of China and India. That is old news. China in particular is now making a very determined effort to switch away from coal, not the least because of air pollution. You can't blame the US for China's coal problem. Do you mean to say that the US should give up and go back to coal because China and India are not doing their "fair" share by some accountings? Rhetorical question and the answer is no, of course not.

2 Trillion in 10 years does not compare to a GNP in one year. Apples and oranges to begin with because of different time scales. 2 trillion is the GNP/GDP of India for one year (2014), not 10 years, so you are off by a factor of 10.

Further you are comparing the world to one country. Again apples and oranges. Your link to the report is a defunct/bogus/broken link. Nice try.

Well then, you are not the only one who knows the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
1. You can't win.
2. You can't break even.
3. You can't get out of the game.

Yes, of course, a battery wastes energy. But so does a coal plant, a nuclear plant, a thermal plant, a hydroelectric plant, solar, and wind. Any energy system "wastes" energy. : eyes : A battery does provide storage for that cost. Just how much it wastes varies on the type of battery, charging / discharging parameters, and how long the charge is stored. Just because a battery is not 100% round-trip does not mean it is useless.

What is hard to understand is the contentious statement that "on a pure thermodynamic basis electric cars are environmentally disastrous" (unimportant paraphrase unless you feel the "affectation" is the issue and electric cars in principle are not). You haven't really explained the thermodynamic objection. Energy has to be sourced somehow and then converted into mechanical motion. If no point of the path from source to conversion to mechanical involves generation of CO2, then if it is less efficient thermodynamically than a CO2 generating path, surely that is a reasonable cost of avoiding CO2 (unless perhaps outlandishly inefficient). Note: capital CO2 costs can be mitigated, reduced, and optimized as civilization develops experience with a different more sustainable infrastructure and builds it out.

Yes, sanitation is important. But it does not mean we drop everything to do one thing. Further, sanitation requires water which is in short supply in many areas where it is needed and will be in shorter supply in many of those areas as global warming increases and weather patterns are disrupted.

So, ... in the end, ... what do you propose for an energy source, ... that is not a "mindless" "asinine" "fantasy"? I'm guessing it is nuclear, which has its own problems. There are fantasies of their own among nuclear proponents. Further, the conversion of infrastructure to a nuclear dominant economy is even more severe than the adjustment converting infrastructure to a mixed sourcing energy economy.

An electric car infrastructure has to get its energy from somewhere. I don't think you propose a distribution system of converting other energy sources into hydrocarbons and distributing those to power cars, trucks, and buses. Or do you propose the end of personalized transportation and restriction solely to bus and bicycle travel?

However I might take a second look at your Depleted U document later. Thank you for sharing your studies.