zlacker

Elon Musk is one of the most interesting inventors of our time, and comes across as a completely stand-up guy. Watching companies like Tesla and SpaceX take on and solve these incredibly difficult problems is inspiring. I'd guess that this patent move is motivated by goodwill, and any benefit to Tesla probably goes together with the larger goal of bringing good to the world.

But when I see "this man will save humanity by selling chemical battery powered automobiles" it comes across as more than a bit hyperbolic. There is plenty of opportunity to criticize cynical attitudes without making such a ridiculous claim.

>>guscos+(OP)
Fair enough. I'm emotional. I don't usually cuss when making logical points. What I meant to say is, electric battery technology will move humanity in the right step which I strongly believe will have a big impact on curbing climate change, which I feel is one of the biggest challenges humans collectively face.

>>natura+o
OK, that makes more sense. For the record I'm not at all concerned about the climate changing (although I'm very interested in conservation and efficiency in general). Additionally it seems that an electric car is not actually going to emit less whatever than one of these wonderful new four-cylinders unless/until we make like France and build out more nuclear infrastructure.

Still, Tesla is doing a lot of good by leading the way towards technologies that could bring much improved living conditions, especially in places like Beijing and Los Angeles.

>>natura+o
Not just battery technology, but also successfully pushing the electrification of transport against the entire car industry. Even if batteries would suddenly stop improving and remain forever on today's level, switching all cars to Model S equivalents would still have, in my opinion, tremendous impact on both climate change and upcoming fuel crisis.

>>guscos+H1
You're wrong on the emissions point - even a contemporary, luxury electric car like the Model S causes less CO2 emissions from a well-to-wheels perspective than an effiient gasoline car, even if run exclusively on coal-generated electricity. The crucial part of the calculation is to also take into consideration the energy required to produce the fuel, which is often skipped when analyzing the CO2 emissions of fossil-powered cars. The drivetrain (batteries) is somewhat more energy-intensive to produce, but the difference is made up after 20,000 miles or so. There's a lot of FUD from the established automobile and energy industries on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf15nMnayXk

On the climate change front, you're probably in disagreement with scientific consensus, but this is not my field of expertise.

>>marvin+Ll
> On the climate change front, you're probably in disagreement with scientific consensus, but this is not my field of expertise.

Not just probably in disagreement, definitely in disagreement: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...

A lot of us like to believe we're rational actors in the world, but denying scientific consensus on this is very irrational, if not just badly misinformed.

>>guscos+H1
> I'm not at all concerned about the climate changing

You really really should be. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

>>lilsun+oE
the idea of climate change goes against everything conservatives and libertarians believe in. first, it disproves the randian notion that everyone working in their own self interest is positive. Second, it's a problem that can only be solved by government. When something goes against people's core values so deeply, no amount of proof in the world will change their mind. not believing in global warming is a big part of their identity. not to mention, if they accepted climate change, it'd be pretty hard to continue listening to talk radio or Fox News and watching their favorite commentators blatantly lie about climate change. Because hey, maybe if Sean hannity is wrong about climate change, maybe he's wrong about other stuff too.

>>TeMPOr+V1
Big science corporations have a lot of money to make off global warming. scientists are behind almost all the studies in global warming. so of course they are biased. not to mention even if it does exist it's only like 1 degree. I doubt my grandchildren will notice a 1 degree difference. i live in the Midwest. there was snow storms all winter. I wouldn't mind it being a little warmer. I don't think god would let that stuff happen anyway. Not to mention, C02 is good for plants, they breathe that stuff!

>>thesim+SM
Please use emoticons / sarcasm tags per Poe's law [0]. For a moment I thought you're being serious here ;).

[0] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law