Hacker News Reader

Comment by zahlman | Hacker News Reader

Musk is pro- nuclear energy (https://www.teslarati.com/elon-musk-explains-why-pro-nuclear... ; https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/22/elon-musk-its-possible-to-ma... ; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-22/tech-bill...), and one of the projects he's best known for is Tesla (i.e. the first name in electric vehicles). And as you say, he agrees that climate change is a real phenomenon and a serious threat. His statements on the record agree with some policy proposals to fight climate change and disagree with others. This is consistent with him having actually attempted to reason about the expected effects of those policies, rather than judging them based on the supposed intent.

I can't understand the basis for your views. While he has also spoken about increasing oil production, that's about energy security - not about increasing energy consumption or GHG.

View on HN

Of course he's for nuclear energy; he's not very smart, as witnessed in the emails to other top tech CEOs, disclosed in some recent court cases.

Like most SV types, he doesn't understand that just because there's no CO2 coming out the stack doesn't mean there's no CO2 footprint. The plant construction, operations, and fuel supply all have enormous CO2 footprints.

Nuclear is also the most expensive per kw/hr of any method of generation. As it matured as a generation method, it has only become more expensive.

...which is why nuclear and coal plants have been shutting down across the US and elsewhere; they just don't make good fiscal sense for power companies. Wind and solar have plunged in cost and are almost an order of magnitude cheaper, and energy storage tech is rapidly maturing. And no, this isn't hurting us; we're building out solar and wind at a rate 7 times faster than the nuclear capacity being shut down.

They also don't have any of the security or safety concerns. They can also be distributed far more easily; nuclear power plants are very difficult to site because you have to find an intersection between "the grid can take tens of gigawatts of power being injected here", "there is a plant nearby that can supply the plant with power during standby or for cold start" and "it is geologically stable enough". Contrary to popular rants, the biggest problem isn't NIMBYism.

Further, nuclear can't change load any faster than on a timescale of "many hours" so it's only usable for base load.

> While he has also spoken about increasing oil production, that's about energy security -

You know how you get "energy security"? Diversifying energy sources. IE: Wind, solar, energy storage, and more HVDC transmission lines.

>Like most SV types, he doesn't understand that just because there's no CO2 coming out the stack doesn't mean there's no CO2 footprint.

First off, this is an extremely uncharitable take. Where did he say that there is no CO2 footprint? Second, the CO2 footprint is still much less than for fossil fuels.

>Nuclear is also the most expensive per kw/hr of any method of generation.

This is not even close to true. Not in other countries, anyway. I gave some citations elsewhere in the thread.

>You know how you get "energy security"? Diversifying energy sources.

The idea behind these statements was that Europe should be less reliant on Russian oil and gas. Local production is the most straightforward route. Nothing about that is incompatible with diversification. But you cannot snap your fingers and replace a machine that burns oil with one that runs on electricity.

> I can't understand the basis for your views.

Maybe it has something to do with being the co-head of the announced Department of Government Efficiency with Vivek Ramaswamy, who he definitely supports, and who yelled at the Republican primary:

“The climate change agenda is a hoax”.

Musk sure criticizes Dems for every single little thing but I haven’t heard any criticism about that…

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ye9lg8hWfQg&pp=ygUjVml2ZWsgcmFtY...

This doesn’t seem like it outweighs the arguments made above.

Of course it does, because that means he will put populism above his own beliefs.

You have no evidence of this other than (I assume) an irrational hate of him.

He endorsed a candidate who will eviscerate climate incentives, funded his campaign on a massive scale, and will serve in his administration. Those actions weigh a heavier than his lip service.

Actions speak louder than words.

Actions speak louder than words is totally true, which is why I trust the guy who made us all drive electric cars over some random internet commentator.

You mean the California regulator who created the market for Tesla and other electric cars?

This comment aged poorly. We just learned the Trump Administration is killing EV tax credits.

>who will

ITT I see many people who seem to believe they can predict the future with perfect confidence, and that supporting evidence is not required for these predictions.

We are not living in a world that was created yesterday. Trump has been president before, we can look to that record when making predictions.

Last time he pulled out of the Paris accords and incentivized increased oil production, while making none of the massive investments in renewables and EVs that the Biden Administration would later make.

He has already stated he will be pulling out of the Paris accords again, so the above comment is disingenuous about current day events as well.

Very well, then. I have bookmarked your comment so that I can refer to it 4 years hence.

"The climate change agenda" clearly means something different to him than "climate change". Again: his statements on the record are very consistent, and completely congruent with a belief that other people are wrong about how to solve the problem, while also agreeing that the problem exists.

You know damn well that “the climate change agenda” means an electrical grid like CA, with solar, wind, and batteries, that produces 6x less pollution than coal based grids in the Midwest. EVs and public transit using clean energy as opposed to 20mpg SUVs and trucks.

They’re simply using a wink and a nod with the word “agenda” to fool rubes into protecting Oil and Gas interests, which include dictatorial petroleum-states like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia.

>You know damn well

No, I don't. Because I don't think it has a clear referent at all.

Aside from which, what I do or don't know is completely irrelevant to what Elon Musk means when he uses the term.

That said, I'm pretty sure that the guy who owns Tesla is in favour of EVs taking over.

>They’re simply using a wink and a nod with the word “agenda”

This is exactly why political "discussion" doesn't work well on HN.

Yeah, back in 2017 Musk stepped back from his advisory role for the first Trump administration after Trump decided to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. "Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world." (https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/1/15726292/elon-musk-trump-a...). But still, he decided to throw his weight behind getting Trump reelected. Not sure if his convictions have changed, if he sees Trump as the "lesser evil" or if he hopes to be able to influence him, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see...

Political positions - in general, and for each individual person - are nowhere near as straightforward as your argument requires them to be.

You didn't list the possibility that there may be money and power on the table, convictions secondary.

And RFK jr. is opposed to nuclear energy.

And the new defense secretary doesn't believe in germs!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com