Elon Musk Is In Bed With Crooks

[MSimon]

Until he was suspended without pay after yesterday’s revelations, Kaloyeros oversaw $43 billion in tech investments, including private money leveraged by state funds. He also did quite well for himself, collecting more than $10.4 million in pay over the past seven years, supplementing his $549,947 salary in 2015 with $877,078 from the SUNY Research Foundation.

Meanwhile, regardless of what happens in the corruption cases, New York taxpayers are locked into what amounts to a business partnership with SpaceX and Tesla tycoon Elon Musk, who’s proposing a takeover of heavily indebted SolarCity.

If it doesn’t work out, Musk can always fall back on SpaceX, which has announced a partnership with NASA to launch an unmanned mission to Mars — where Musk has suggested he’d like to retire. And if not the Red Planet, there’s always Buffalo.

http://nypost.com/2016/09/22/cuomos-solarcity-disaster-could-become-a-monument-to-corruption/

Just another example of Corporatism

And don't think it is just the left. Here is a right wing favorite:

Pharmaceutical Company Supports Cannabis Prohibition To Protect Its Profits

The left loves its environmentalists and the right loves its prohibitionists. Corporations/Government take advantage of both.

[williatw]

MSimon....a certain amount of corruption is practically unavoidable as I am sure you know. Musk has to function in the real world and know how to work the levers of power to get what he wants. Look at all the corruption/bribes/etc. that was going on during the construction of the Trans Continental Railroad in the US for instance. But the railroads got built, that's what most important. Even my hypothetical "Bank of Mars" would likely particularly in the early years have elements of a Ponzi scheme; as large amounts of new cash flows in from earth for instance it would doubtlessly effect the share prices of people with existing accounts. The difference is that the mars colonists would have a very strong incentive to make sure there were actually legitimate returns being generated by investments back on earth (& other places) in order to show profitabilty. Otherwise people would eventually get wise and stop investing; no money for our mars colony is more than just bankruptcy (or even prison) it could be literal death for the colonists.

Addendum: Haven't said much at all about some of the potential sources of the mars bank's "donations"; I.e. perhaps unsavory sources interested in a way to launder ill gotten gains. They would love and off-planet bank where funds could be deposited to get around their governments back home. A bank still connected with the earth's economy via electronic transfer but not subject to any countries laws A "bank" owned by sovereign people who can't be extradited or forced to open their records. Like the old numbered accounts in Swiss banks supposedly were only more so. I seemed to recall reading that back in the day the bank of New York (& other American banks) was used that way by people wanting to hide their money/gold from the tax man back at home in Europe; sure lots of things in America got funded that way. That's another reason why I don't think a global embargo of the mars colony would happen; just too many folks would like a way to hide money from their respective governments. The US wants it say (the embargo) but China & Russia don't; could see them under the table fronting their own "private" mars colony and starting the Bank of China on mars or something. Helping themselves to American money indirectly while claiming to be "respecting" their mars colonies sovereignty

[MSimon]

Well. I'd be all right by Musk if he wasn't rolling out a lot of technology that can't possibly work at this time.

OK. Fine. It was once thought that we were running out of petrochemicals. That is no longer true. So why is he still playing?

If he wants Mars why not some effort into Polywell Rockets?

He is a crook. Like all the other crooks.

MSimon....a certain amount of corruption is practically unavoidable as I am sure you know. Musk has to function in the real world and know how to work the levers of power to get what he wants. Look at all the corruption/bribes/etc. that was going on during the construction of the Trans Continental Railroad in the US for instance. But the railroads got built, that's what most important. Even my hypothetical "Bank of Mars" would likely particularly in the early years have elements of a Ponzi scheme; as large amounts of new cash flows in from earth for instance it would doubtlessly effect the share prices of people with existing accounts. The difference is that the mars colonists would have a very strong incentive to make sure there were actually legitimate returns being generated by investments back on earth (& other places) in order to show profitabilty. Otherwise people would eventually get wise and stop investing; no money for our mars colony is more than just bankruptcy (or even prison) it could be literal death for the colonists.

Addendum: Haven't said much at all about some of the potential sources of the mars bank's "donations"; I.e. perhaps unsavory sources interested in a way to launder ill gotten gains. They would love and off-planet bank where funds could be deposited to get around their governments back home. A bank still connected with the earth's economy via electronic transfer but not subject to any countries laws A "bank" owned by sovereign people who can't be extradited or forced to open their records. Like the old numbered accounts in Swiss banks supposedly were only more so. I seemed to recall reading that back in the day the bank of New York (& other American banks) was used that way by people wanting to hide their money/gold from the tax man back at home in Europe; sure lots of things in America got funded that way. That's another reason why I don't think a global embargo of the mars colony would happen; just too many folks would like a way to hide money from their respective governments. The US wants it say (the embargo) but China & Russia don't; could see them under the table fronting their own "private" mars colony and starting the Bank of China on mars or something. Helping themselves to American money indirectly while claiming to be "respecting" their mars colonies sovereignty

[williatw]

It was once thought that we were running out of petrochemicals. That is no longer true. So why is he still playing?

He is playing the long game...even with fracking eventually we will run out of petrochemicals; especially with the inevitable rising consumption of oil the boom will likely cause; better if the next technology (renewables or for that matter polywell) are developed before we really must have them. Makes the transition easier for us.

If he wants Mars why not some effort into Polywell Rockets?

Seriously MSimon? he should be working on nuclear rockets before he succeeds in making chemical rockets (which have been around for decades) reusable? Even if we had polywell rockets (or any type of nuke rocket) we would still need a launch system to get them to orbit. No way the public in the foreseeable future would let you light up a nuclear rocket on the launch pad on earth whether it could reach orbit on its own or not.

He is a crook. Like all the other crooks.

Yes like Robert Heinlein's fictional D.D. Harriman was a showman (crook) when he needed to be to get what he wanted done, and for the same reason. Sometime you have to be a bit of P.T. Barnum to get the public on board; in the good and bad sense of the word.

So what are you liking California's chances of finally fully legalizing recreational marijuana? All those libs in California eager to turn up to vote against Trump must help the odds of passage of the ballot initiative.

[MSimon]

It was once thought that we were running out of petrochemicals. That is no longer true. So why is he still playing?

He is playing the long game...even with fracking eventually we will run out of petrochemicals; especially with the inevitable rising consumption of oil the boom will likely cause; better if the next technology (renewables or for that matter polywell) are developed before we really must have them. Makes the transition easier for us.

The long game? There is no point in deploying technology we don't need. For a problem 50 years in the future. Twenty five years of tech advances ought to be a big help.

But there is all that money on the table isn't there?

The Chemical Rockets needed to lift a Polywell into orbit will probably need a unique design.

Space travel is possible already. Making long distance travel affordable seems like a good long term goal. And it solves a few problems on earth as well.

[williatw]

The long game? There is no point in deploying technology we don't need. For a problem 50 years in the future. Twenty five years of tech advances ought to be a big help.

I believe that Musk is a big believer in Global Warming; probably plays a part in his fixation on solar and electric cars.

The Chemical Rockets needed to lift a Polywell into orbit will probably need a unique design.

If he (Musk) can build a mars colonial transporter rocket (especially if it is reusable) sure he can handle launching a polywell rocket into earth orbit; worse case scenario you could always launch it in sections and assemble in orbit.

Space travel is possible already. Making long distance travel affordable seems like a good long term goal. And it solves a few problems on earth as well.

And reusable chemical rockets are a very good start to achieving said goal; eventually perhaps supplanted by polywell and/or maybe an EM drive ship if we are lucky. And if we are very lucky maybe a warp drive at some point.

[choff]

Tesla battery production creates as much CO2 as 8 years gasoline powered driving.

http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-uts ... er-6851761

[paperburn1]

Tesla battery production creates as much CO2 as 8 years gasoline powered driving.

http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-uts ... er-6851761

They are running on a faulty assumption
1 The calculation is made on the assumption that electricity used in battery factory consists of just over half of fossil energy.
The plan is The 70-megawatt solar array installation planned for the roof is the biggest news, and Tesla claims it will be seven times larger than the world’s next biggest rooftop solar installation. The plan is for the Gigafactory to not directly consume any fossil fuels, and for the solar installation to provide most of the power needed by the facility. Any excess power generated during the day will be stored by Tesla Powerpack power storage batteries for use at other times. It’s likely that the solar panels will be produced by SolarCity

This would bring the fossil energy down to a point where it would create payback in 4 years maybe less. This is dependent on them following though with the plan.

Notice: I am a fan boy of musk.

[mvanwink5]

I am a Musk fan also, but solar is a scam, pure and simple. Even without Polywell, TriAlpha is nearly there. Solar is a niche power solution. Electric cars is a solution looking for a problem. Batteries is also a niche solution.

Musk is counting on the government to fund his Mars project. He acts like he will self fund, but watch for the switch. And we will have commercial fusion by the time Mars is real.

[NotAPhysicist]

I am a Musk fan also, but solar is a scam, pure and simple. Even without Polywell, TriAlpha is nearly there. Solar is a niche power solution. Electric cars is a solution looking for a problem. Batteries is also a niche solution.

Musk is counting on the government to fund his Mars project. He acts like he will self fund, but watch for the switch. And we will have commercial fusion by the time Mars is real.

Why do you think solar is a scam?
It is an ever increasing percentage of our power generation and its cost continues to fall..
I mean yes, I think there is a good chance we'll have break-even on fusion by 2020 but thats not the same as a ready to go commerical reactor and even if it was that doesn't mean solar can't be a useful part of the mix. So what's the problem there?
Meanwhile I think electric is totally the way to go on cars, it is taking some ongoing development effort of course, there is a long way to catch up, but if you are dropping fossil fuels it makes sense. I'd have said hyrdogen in the past but I've been convinced by the counter-arguements at this point. Batteries (and related tech) are getting better and cheaper too... So, again, what's the problem?

I'd have said he has never said he can pay for all the Mars thing by himself, he has been pretty explicit in saying it will need a joint effort. So, you know, perhaps not misrepresent that. He certainly has said that they'll do what they can by themselves but that is hardly the same thing (and in fact the opposite of saying) they'll do it all by themselves.

[mvanwink5]

Why do you think solar is a scam?

Why is it subsidized? Why is base load power required? Why is CO2 always added as the major factor in selling it?

There are niche power applications for it, but it is not a base load power source.

If fusion power was cheap would we even be talking about solar?????? Of course not. Scam.

[krenshala]

At least initially, solar was subsidized to encourage development and adoption of solar electricity generation. It has definitely become much more widely used that it was 10 or 20 years ago, not to mention the improvements in efficiency and price.

I've never heard of base load power being required for solar to function. If it was, you'd have to plug your solar powered calculator into the wall outlet to use it. With enough panels and proper storage it could be used for base load, but I agree that other solutions (hydro, fission, fusion, hydrocarbon) are much better in that role.

CO2 is included as a 'major factor' because "everyone" "knows" its the amount of CO2 created that matters. /s Solar panel providers/manufacturers tout CO2 output in manufacturing/usage because that is the going thing to do when discussion power generation today. If the makers didn't talk about it, the detractors would.

And even with fully functional, in production pB11 plants solar electric generation would still be a thing. I doubt it would be a growing percentage of power generation like it is now, but it would most definitely still be useful : satellites, small (or not so small) remote locations, homes, covered parking lots (i wish this would catch on here in Texas, where it would be useful), and probably a number of other things.

[NotAPhysicist]

Why do you think solar is a scam?

Why is it subsidized? Why is base load power required? Why is CO2 always added as the major factor in selling it?

There are niche power applications for it, but it is not a base load power source.

If fusion power was cheap would we even be talking about solar?????? Of course not. Scam.

We can get in to an interesting argument about subsidies and where they are appropriate or not. Personally I'm happy for govenrment money to be spent on tech research and to see subsidies used as a way to help develop a market for potentially useful emerging technologies. This happens for all sorts of industries and it isn't like more established forms of power generation aren't also receiving large or larger subsidies of their own. But that is a whole different debate.

I'm not sure why you ask 'Why is baseload power required?' in response to my question. I'm not questioning that baseload power is required and I'm not saying solar is the best fit to provide it (though I think with improved storage solutions it can be an effective part of the mix), all I was asking why do you consider it a 'scam?'. Scam suggests a deliberate attempt to extract money from someone while not providing what you promised in return. Do you believe people and organisations buying solar are being conned? And if so how? A legitimate claim could be made about ROI or something or systems that don't work at all but that doesn't sound like what you are getting at..

As for fusion, sure, that would be great. But even with optimistic projections we can't reasonable expect much if any commerical fusion until the mid-2020s. Most would call that wildly optimistic. In the meantime solar seems a pretty good solution of producing low emision power.

Of course if you don't believe reducing emission, carbon or otherwise, is a problem then the whole solar thing becomes moot. Or at least less important. Coal would still be on the delcine but hey, burn as much natural gas is you want and can find. Build more fission plants (I'm not against this anyway frankly, done sensibly). And maybe use some solar anyway since it is getting pretty impressively cheap.

If, on the other hand, you feel emssions are important you could perhaps argue the life cycle emissions are worse for solar but I think that is pretty unreasonable compared to many other techs.

So, again, why a scam? Govenment support does not a scam make.

[NotAPhysicist]

Tesla battery production creates as much CO2 as 8 years gasoline powered driving.

http://www.nyteknik.se/fordon/stora-uts ... er-6851761

Except that is basically wrong: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/

[hanelyp]

Popular Mechanics comes from a publisher known for pushing FAKE science.