51–60 of 122 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Tesla's whole philosophy, I think, was to get people to buy their cars simply because it's a better car, not for any environmental reasons. Oil prices will affect them, but can't destroy them
Oh, come on. A major reason people buy Tesla vehicles because they "want to do their part" for the environment.
He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources: "It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption." Fro…
He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.
I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.
[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural gas would have to be really cheap in order to beat spot prices for solar on sunny days, especially in the southwest. It's still good for peaker plants though. Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable unless Congress starts taxing solar directly, since it still can't beat solar spot prices and it's categorically unprofitable to run coal plants as peakers.
If we harvest Methane Hydrate deposits undersea and pipe them into coastal cities, then natural gas could become essentially free. That would be hard to beat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland) http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re... it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stand…
> it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Natural gas would have to be really cheap in order to beat spot prices for solar on sunny days, especially in the southwest. It's still good for peaker plants though. Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable unless Congress starts taxing solar directly, since it still can't beat solar spot prices and it's categorically unprofitable to run coal plants as peakers.
If we harvest Methane Hydrate deposits undersea and pipe them into coastal cities, then natural gas could become essentially free. That would be hard to beat.
If Tesla’s not competitive, then it’s not competitive. I’m glad to see the government involvement being reduced. Let the free market handle things.
I think Tesla will do okay, they've got a solid product that stands on its own. What I'm worried about is rooftop solar tiles. One of the thing that can make it cheaper than a traditional roof is that the whole thing will qualify for solar subsidies. If that goes away it could make things incredibly difficult for Solar City.
I guess it depends on whether you think that net metering is a subsidy and whose eyes are beholding the payments. Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland) http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-... https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re... it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stand…
> it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.
That's what makes this so interesting, his audience is now the whole country and now he actually has to do something.
It talks about Tesla, but I'm not really sure how much oil prices can really decline. I would be more worried about SolarCity and solar in general. Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those (and perhaps discontinuation of credits for renewable energy) would discourage new solar installations. What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energ…