Trump’s sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
"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."
From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-ele...
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 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. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear
>he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear
Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
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.
He was pretty clear about it. He's for wind energy, just not on his golf course.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/290093-trump-wi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/11/19/do...
that's one hell of a claim
Trump just got elected President of the United States; it is not negatively affecting him. And people who work around him seem to like him.
The biggest difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was just working for some law firm and happened to be a senator from Illinois when his movement took off. He didn't have any strong grudges against people or companies more than me or you. Trump is different. He once purchased a property next to airport for the whole purpose of suing that airport for the noise levels. After he lost 2 times, he sold the property. This is someone that will go after you time and time just because he can shell out sometimes not his money to use court system against you. When he settles, he call it "winning", when others settle he call them "losing".
I don't see this administration having large scandals like Obama did where clearly his buddies are making billions of dollars either in solar or healthcare, etc. I think Trump will make some progress for USA with his business experience, but unless he can change 180 overnight (doubt), I'm sure we will see a few scandals where he uses his presidential position and/or government apparatus such as IRS/DEA/FBI to go after those selected few individuals/companies who he couldn't digest over the years... that I can bet on!
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.
Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.
Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.
Except that climate change will ultimately lead to absolute health damage for planet and all of its occupants.
That makes it way more important than health damage in the here and now, even though that's obviously easier to see and relate to.
Left my reusable plastic shopping bags at home again, so I took some out of the plastic bag recycling bin in the shopping centre. So then one of the staff from rhe supermarket told me I can take bags out of the plastic bag recycling bin because they belong to the company who recycles them.
What?
So, the situation we find ourselves in here is going to take some leadership.
Of course, he has also said some stupid things that are very anti-renewable when he has been in front of audiences that wanted to hear that (some parts of his base).
Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump? We will find out in time.
How is removing regulations from the EPA going to focus on "clean" coal? Trump is going to remove regulations.
The one that wants all forms of energy? Because that would make the most economic sense. Let the market compete.
Not like I'm particularly sad, watching Germany fuck itself up so bad with renewables :/ (Price of electricy at least doubled), grid requires massive investments all the time (also, Germany had to decouple from Austria because they caused massive strain on countries in between due to volatility in Germany), the per year energy produced is still barely worth mentioning and the best part is, they effectively increased the emissions, since any energy intensive industry is long gone and relocated to China where it runs on coal PP with way lower emission standards
What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energy companies... it would take a while to rebuild that, even if the policies are restored later on.
At least out in my exurban area, upper middle class guys buy Teslas so they can race their sports-car in the carpool lane on the way to a middle management job.
Tesla has been explicitly thanking current buyers of Model S and Model X for doing their part providing cash for this environmentalist project. Elon's earliest statements admit that they can't compete on price as a startup. But they have been driving costs down rapidly and their philosophy as OP stated, is to be the best car available in all senses, and not rely on environmentalist good vibes for sales.
They already did this for acceleration, automation, and running costs. They still have some categories to go. But that doesn't invalidate the suggestion that their philosophy is about feature parity, as opposed to environmental charity.
I think what OP is getting at is that Tesla isn't aiming for just that demographic. Musk has always wanted to produce his cars so that they are desirable to everyone.
I was looking up the numbers.. and was happy to see renewables cost being lower. But take a look at this 2015 report from the EIA: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_g...
At the time at least, "clean coal" is more expensive than solar.. but if you eliminated the carbon capture requirement (ie: "conventional coal"), it significantly reduces the price, bringing it in under solar.
There is a 2016 version of this report.. but it gets rid of the conventional coal costs, because regulation prevents plants without carbon capture from being built. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....
Natural gas pushes the rest of coal out, with the benefit of being lower carbon impact and has the ability to throttle quicker before the evening peak when solar generation recedes. Wind and solar will of course continue to come down in cost, pushing out natural gas, with battery storage replacing the last of natural gas eventually.
According to the 2016 report, it's tax credits that brings solar PV within 5% of combined cycle plants. Without the credits it's 33% more expensive. (And this is for plants entering service in 2022.)
I understand nat gas may be better and a temporary win... but I think the future should be renewables, and I'm concerned about policy changes that could damage and set back progress with solar, etc.
If solar is only competitive because of tax credits, then solar companies may have significant losses if those credits are discontinued.
I have a CPA investigating how to use the ITC tax code to partner those with a tax liability to solar projects. You would estimate your tax liability, make a payment to the solar project, and their tax credit would then flow back to you when you file your taxes; whatever dollars you would've sent to the US government, you end up sending to a solar project instead.
If its doable, I'm putting a Django site together and starting to market it. The best renewable is the one that gets installed as soon as possible.
Fracking is an expensive way to get oil (compared to drilling), and we're near the break even price. The Saudis, who have been manipulating our politics for years by threatening to cut production to raise prices, have now started flooding the market with cheap oil in an effort to starve out both our fracking and our emerging electric car market.
Our response has been to pass a law making foreign nations liable for damages caused by their involvement in terrorism committed on US soil, and declassifying the 9-11 report, which shows enough Saudi involvement to open the door for a lawsuit. Considering how much they have in US assets, this could potentially be collected on. It's a threat. We're trying to pressure them into ending their flood of the market so prices will rise. The Saudis know it and have threatened to drop a trillion in US debt and holdings.
Say what you want about Trump's social issues, but he understands this kind of game. He's not going to expand a US product that is struggling to break even with intent to lower the sale price. He'll continue pressuring the Saudis to drop their production, oil prices will rise, and it will benefit both the US oil industry, and Elon Musk.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/06/germany-extend...
The design of the EV tax credit is really bad.
The demise of Appalachian coal was mostly due to the rise of both natural gas and Wyoming coal, as well as exhaustion of readily available resources. Though Appalachian coal is higher grade, it requires expensive and dangerous mining practices such as room and pillar mining, mountaintop removal, or more traditional practices in increasingly small and geometrically complicated seams. The coal from Wyoming is basically at the surface and can be strip mined at scale very cheaply, with lots of automation.
Unconventional oil and gas production is also at odds with coal production. As you've said, oil can't get that much cheaper, and gas is pretty similar, and has more substitution with coal. Many of the restrictions on unconventional production (i.e. fracking regulations) are done at the state level, and given the concern over recent seismicity in associated with injection of post-fracking wastewater, the states probably won't budge that much. If as pro-oil a state agency as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the main regulatory agency in OK) is tamping down on production processes, there is very little a Trump administration can do to shift the needle.
Similarly, we (he) won't be able to simply deregulate and re-invigorate mining. Too much of the demand is based in China, and a trade war there will simply depress prices further. Additionally, many of the resources are in states that are not overly favorable to Trump, and the state EPAs have a lot of sway, especially in a more 'states rights' environment. Rare Earths, for example, are mostly found in the US near Las Vegas but across the state line in Mountain Pass, California. And NV isn't as red as it used to be either.
Lithium production could increase, but I think the problems there are there just aren't a lot of good sources, not environmental regulations. Lithium is tied up with salts or brine (salty water) from hypersaline lakes that dried up and concentrated metals that were already especially abundant due to particular geology. Lithium mining is often just pumping salty water out of aquifers or dredging it from lakeshores. It's not like copper or gold mining/processing that involves nasties like mercury and arsenic.
Trump's policies will probably mostly involve somewhat symbolic, macroeconomically insignificant, and locally damaging exploitation of currently off-limits areas like ANWR, offshore CA and the east coast, and possibly many of the new national monuments in the West that may have uranium or other metals.
Eliminating the tax incentives for renewables is also likely, but may not yield as much permanent damage as environmental degradation; some companies may lose market share or capitalization, some may bust, but this won't turn the tide.
This is completely illogical. Increased usage of coal or gas will result in higher prices of those resources, not lower.
In addition, switching back to coal and gas as electrical power sources means lower energy costs. Lower energy costs mean lower manufacturing costs, what will finally result in lower electric car/batteries and solar panels production costs.
Lower electricity costs will also result in lower operational costs of electric cars.
All they need to do is keep being focused on their primary business, instead buying SolarCity.
Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant), they create cars that are better and more performant then competing gasoline cars, they do it at much higher margins.
Tesla is hopping to produce about 500k cars within 2 years while the average automobile manufacture produces about 10MM cars per year. And they plan to do it at a 20-30% margin.
Even if gas prices go down by 75% they would then only match the price of fueling a Tesla, which in itself would be an incredible feat given how subsidized oil already is.
Except that they use a ton of automation. I'm very curious how this will play out under Trump. Because even if he does all the things he's been talking about (pulling out of trade deals and raising tariffs) and even if it has the intended short-term effect of bringing more manufacturing back to America, there will be a lot of automation and it probably won't look very much like it did in the pre-globalization good-old days that his base wants to revert to.
What then? They'll need somewhere other than trade deals to point the blame.
It'll be interesting when people start trying to deal with the job loss from automation. I'm not sure how you can practically restrict the use of software and robots.
Not only is demand for Tesla's cars _partially_ sustained through consumer tax rebates, but Tesla's _profitability_ has historically relied on selling ZEV credits. Both of these factors may be cut short by the changing political tides now that the [federal] executive, legislative, and (soon) judicial branches will be majority led by a party that has a rough consensus on switching priorities from the past decade or so.
I'm not trying to antagonize against Tesla specifically, nor prop up the virtues of a truly ecologically-damaging industry that plays by a similar rulebook, but anytime a company's business model relies on a certain political climate rather than _solely_ on efficiency gains through technological innovation, the door swings both ways given a long enough time scale.
Cue discussion about how innovative R&D is not possible without initial government investment, especially against already subsidized industries that don't have to factor in tremendous externalities... but that's a more politically subjective debate compared to just stating how I don't agree with the claim of Tesla being 'unsubsidized.'
Also the ZEV credits are being sold for less then $0.50 on the dollar if they can find a buyer at all since they don't produce polluting cars themselves (per Teslas latest earnings call) and contribute negligibly to their bottom line.
Not to say that Subsidies haven't helped to get Tesla to where they are, only to say they won't be necessary moving forward.
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.
There are prices below 20 per Megawatt-hour here right now http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/learning-center/price-ticker.as...
That's less than $0.02 per kw-h. As the amount of solar installed increases, that will be $0 on cooler sunny days that don't create a lot of demand for cooling.
Because they haven't bribed the governor.
Does it mean no more subsidizing fossil fuel companies?
At this point, shouldn't he be trying to get the 'other' half of the country on his side instead of pissing them off further?
This is also from the Washington Post. The mainstream media has zero credibility at this point.
How is constantly seeking government hand-outs capitalism? How is taking those hand-outs not allowing the government to pick winners and losers?
Not many private investors invest on the >50 year timescales that energy transitions require.
Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.
Because R&D isn't all that's needed. It takes time to grow an industry. It's one thing to project future economies of scale, quite another to demonstrate that those economies are already being realized.
IIRC, battery prices are on track to fall by another 50% by 2023 or so. That will be a game-changer, and there's no way it could have happened through R&D alone.
Renewable power plants/companies receive both tax incentives and R&D subsidies from state and federal government, and there is research being done directly by the DOE at national labs, as well as at universities etc. from DOE grants. There are also private companies that get DOE research grants for a range of pure through applied research.
It's unlikely that grid-scale renewables could be developed in a wholly R&D environment then deployed at once. And then what would the government do? License or auction technology that hasn't been field tested at scale? Utilities, local governments and private companies would still probably need intermediaries to set things up. So it makes sense to provide some direct funding and some tax incentives to allow companies to do their own R&D, collaborate with government researchers, and work with utilities to bring systems online. Market disruption due to sudden, untested new entrants is less appealing with utility power than with phones--it makes sense to work for a gradual transition.
As far as consumer-scale power generation (rooftop solar or whatever), I think what you've suggested is pretty much what's happening, but I don't follow it. (I'm not a homeowner but have done DOE funded geothermal research with a private R&D company, Altarock LLC.)
edit: Electric cars are also abstracted from the type of power plant that produces the energy, unlike internal combusion cars, so having more of them is more amenable to a somewhat rapidly evolving power generation landscape.
ALL aspects of the pollution can be controlled in big power generation plants.
For example coal power plants have advanced filter systems, which can reduce pollutants by more than 99% in some cases.
http://i.imgur.com/dsNgDvn.png
http://web.archive.org/web/20150611212052/http://www.babcock...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40789-014-0001-x
Moreover, in power plants, coal burns in a much more optimal conditions, what results in less pollutants being generated.
> According to Environment Canada, coal-fired power plants in Alberta in 2011 emitted only 0.4% of PM2.5 of human-made emissions (excluding wildfires).
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS_BurningQue...
The only thing which can't be controlled is CO2. But this is not a pollutant.