Elon Musk's epic bacon adventures

Henrik Larsson said:
@Pogue Mahone @MadMike

I don't necessarily disagree with wat you guys are saying here. My concerns are obviously about the bigger picture in terms of environmental impact. Also feck you Pogue for posting that link, reading it has drained my brain for today. Obviously as the guy admits he's a massive Musk fanboy and some of his claims are far stretched or even absurd ("I’m pretty convinced that the Model S is the best expensive car ever made." Well feck me sideways.) but it's interesting none the less.

What do you guys make of something like this?

http://fortune.com/2017/11/15/electric-cars-climate-change-iea/

"Today, around 2 million of a total 1 billion vehicles on the planet run on electric or hybrid engines. The IEA expects that number to rise to 50 million by 2025, and to 280 million by 2040, as countries everywhere encourage their drivers to make the change to e-mobility.

That may sound like a lot, but the problem is that that number of cars on the road will have doubled by then to 2 billion. According to Laura Cozzi, the head of the IEA’s energy demand directorate, EVs will only displace 1% of expected global CO2 emissions in 2040."

http://www.iea.org/weo2017/

This suggests not only that what Tesla is doing is barely a blip in the grand scheme of things, but electric vehicles in general are going to be a very marginal factor. Then there's the fact that it's not just Tesla's hype and success that's been pushing other manufacturers to switch from petrol to electric. Climate regulations are put in place, and massive emission fraud scandals are forcing their hand too.
Click to expand...


I have a few objections to this entire angle that Fortune tends to push. I personally really dislike shallow articles like this that seem to intentionally ignore both the big picture and local effects.
Also let me say I am not just defending Tesla here so much as countering what I perceive to be the overall goal of the Fortune article - to make car emissions and electric cars seem less relevant to individual citizens lives than they really are.

A big flaw is they only look at things globally and not locally. Local is just as important as global. By that I mean just because a project or innovation might not have a large statistical effect globally doesn't mean its useless. To the contrary in fact, some solutions like electric cars can have a massive impact locally. Its not just about 'global climate change' when it comes to the environment. Local pollution can be just as important and for the lives of individuals living in a polluted region, much more instantly relevant.
California has been a leader in the world in pushing emissions standards for cars to reduce pollution. Like many large cities in the 1970s Los Angeles had a level of smog that caused numerous health problems.


All the efforts to reduce car emissions might not be enough to have a massive impact on global climate change, but they can still make a massive difference in health in the local community.

Here is how much pollution was reduced in Los Angeles from reducing car emissions.
k7NdagRtWlrQ4zAiC606hnh50J6UVEgoRPUycTg9PaYja_DC1-VkAam_0kIIzw038m40Rol54uZW1LymblWFCaqKBdXEEHs6WrK2sYa3Sp8dI4nXnXIPXgJTCyxXxUJNrr-1Vrs



Its important to recognize things like this because they show that a clean environment is not just a global climate change. Its not just the global effects that are important. This is from the EPA:
economic_effects_infographic-01.6-01.png

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-...ents-and-success-air-pollution-transportation

California Air Resources Board said:
In the current decade, California solidified its position as a world leader on climate change, entering into climate agreements with several nations and linking cap-and-trade programs with Quebec. Its broad range of programs to reduce greenhouse gases addresses every major sector of the economy including a Zero Emission Vehicle mandate that will clean up the transportation sector and put close to 1.5 million plug-in or hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the roads by 2025. Thanks to the cap-and-trade program, which reduces carbon emissions from electricity generation and large-scale industries, billions of dollars have been invested to reduce greenhouse gases in cities and towns throughout California, with an emphasis on disadvantaged communities.

Aggressive air pollution control programs in California have led to continued improvements in air quality, even as the population and number of cars has increased. But while the situation has been steadily improving, the state still lags behind the rest of the nation. California’s ever-growing population, reliance on car travel, and sunshine continue to exacerbate its smog problem. Much more must be done to see that all of California’s residents breathe clean air, and that we meet our targets to stabilize climate change and prevent the most severe impacts from happening.
Click to expand...
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/about/history


I think its important to recognize that reducing car emissions is just one but an essential part of a comprehensive strategy to attack not just global climate change but all forms of pollution. When you combine many different tactics to reduce pollution and improve health across the board you start to see results like this:

california-per-capita-electricity-consumption.jpg


Anyway again, I am not intending to just defend Tesla but the concept of electric cars. They are important. They do make a difference in the lives of locals that live in car heavy transportation regions.

The Fortune article, that seems unbiased, actually has a very detrimental angle that they are using to push their agenda.

-for more research on positive health impacts of pollution and environmental controls see: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/research/research-health-effects-air-pollution

Here is a bit from the Children's Health Study

Children's Health Study said:
  • Air Pollution Harms Children's Lungs for Life - Children exposed to higher levels of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, acid vapor and elemental carbon, had significantly lower lung function at age 18, an age when the lungs are nearly mature and lung function deficits are unlikely to be reversed. [USC]

    N Engl J Med 2004; 351:1057 - 1067 (Link to the article - May require registration)

  • Children that were exposed to current levels of air pollution had significantly reduced lung growth and development when exposed to higher levels of acid vapor, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter which is made up of very small particles that can be breathed deeply into the lungs. Summary of the Article.

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:76 - 84 (Link to the article - May require registration)


  • Children living in communities with higher concentrations of nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter and acid vapor had lungs that both developed and grew more slowly and were less able to move air through them. This decreased lung development may have permanent adverse effects in adulthood.

    Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 162:1383 - 1390 (Link to the article - May require registration)
Click to expand...



In the age of global climate change, its important to never forget that local health matters.
 
@oneniltothearsenal Interesting post.

I've been recently following the court rulings in Germany and the Netherlands regarding the implementation of low emission zones in cities to deal with pollution. It's become a really complex debate and there's a lot of disagreement. Courts contradicting each other, unclarity abou the realistic effect of the suggested regulation. For example, recently it's been about the particle pollution in diesel cars. It's clearly not a good thing, but at the same time this is used as a counter argument:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ollution-says-top-uk-adviser-prof-frank-kelly

“Electric vehicles emit no NO2 but do produce small particle pollution from the wear on brake discs and tyres and by throwing up dust from roads. A recent European commission research paper found that about half of all particulate matter comes from these sources. Swapping cars for bikes, not diesel for electric, is the best route to clean air."

publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf

“While governments don’t currently pay much attention to particulate matter, it is in fact highly polluting, with strong links to cardiopulmonary toxicity,” said Kelly in an article in the Guardian."

In the end I guess everyone agrees that we should try to do whatever works. And for what it's worth I definitely think Tesla deserves some credit for pushing the boundaries electric vehicles, more specifically for their focus on batteries and autonomous driving because I can see how they could have a beneficial effect in the future.
 
Henrik Larsson said:
@oneniltothearsenal Interesting post.

I've been recently following the court rulings in Germany and the Netherlands regarding the implementation of low emission zones in cities to deal with pollution. It's become a really complex debate and there's a lot of disagreement. Courts contradicting each other, unclarity abou the realistic effect of the suggested regulation. For example, recently it's been about the particle pollution in diesel cars. It's clearly not a good thing, but at the same time this is used as a counter argument:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ollution-says-top-uk-adviser-prof-frank-kelly

“Electric vehicles emit no NO2 but do produce small particle pollution from the wear on brake discs and tyres and by throwing up dust from roads. A recent European commission research paper found that about half of all particulate matter comes from these sources. Swapping cars for bikes, not diesel for electric, is the best route to clean air."

publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf

“While governments don’t currently pay much attention to particulate matter, it is in fact highly polluting, with strong links to cardiopulmonary toxicity,” said Kelly in an article in the Guardian."

In the end I guess everyone agrees that we should try to do whatever works. And for what it's worth I definitely think Tesla deserves some credit for pushing the boundaries electric vehicles, more specifically for their focus on batteries and autonomous driving because I can see how they could have a beneficial effect in the future.
Click to expand...

That is definitely some good research and I think it should be taken seriously. However, I don't think it means we should not transition to electric cars. "Swapping cars for bikes" is flawed because it does not take into account local variation.

One argument I heard sometimes when I was working for green energy companies was "well that won't solve the whole problem so we shouldn't implement it, we should implement this idea that, in theory, would solve the whole problem". This won't solve the whole problem so we shouldn't do it. Those arguments don't convince me because only through implementing all the solutions can we advance effectively out of this troublesome fossil fuel phase.

I don't see that brake particle research as an argument against electric cars at all. It's good argument only for advancing brake technology.

I don't like the angle that we shouldn't work on electric cars but rather replace cars for bikes. We need to do both where each works. Its not an either/or.

Bikes are never going to sufficiently replace cars. There are some cities and areas of high population density where bicycles are a viable option for daily transportation. But many areas where its not. Its not possible to replace all personal cars for bicycles. If we designed a brand new city from the ground up we could definitely reduce personal vehicles with greater forms of public transportation and bicycles but far too many current cities developed with different transportation models.

Its just not practical as a solution to just moralize about bicycles to dismiss electric car advancement. For instance, the way Los Angeles evolved as a metro-region, cars will always be necessary. So the "everyone should just bicycle" is really just impractical and not very helpful IMO. If you live in Manhattan, a personal car is pure luxury. But in many suburban/exurban/rural areas personal vehicles are necessity for life and livelihood not luxury.

People used to tell me solar won't produce enough energy to completely replace coal and oil. And my response would be so what? No one ever said we are only using solar as a society. Dozens of different solutions need to be implemented all at the same time to truly advance away from detrimental fossil fuels. This is where local variation comes in. Every geographic location has its unique resource/passive energy setting. The best strategy really is for every different green solution to be implemented in local regions where it is appropriate. In some areas, solar is appropriate so use it there. In others, solar is not appropriate but geo-thermal might work, so use geo-thermal there. In some cities like Tokyo, bicycles might be a great infrastructure but in other places like Los Angeles, they are minimally useful (for most people its simply impossible to bicycle to their jobs). Local variation is a good thing. This is one problem with corporate homogenization. It kills many opportunities for more efficient local variation solutions.

Research on electric cars is extremely worthwhile and necessary. Bicycles are not a viable replacement strategy for hundreds of millions of people that don't live in areas with the right local conditions.
Its interesting when you look at the history of automobiles. Electric cars are older than gasoline burners. They were effective competition up until about the Roaring 20s when price of gas was very low and people wanted more "horsepower". Imagine how advanced electric cars would be today and how much pollution we could have saved if we had avoided the whole gasoline burner phase in the first place?
Sure it won't be perfect as your tire research shows but to paraphrase seeking perfection can inhibit pursuit of greatness.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the brake residue particles, electric cars use electromagnetic braking, until very low speeds where the normal brakes are engaged, which is actually causing almost no brake pad wearing.

"Arguments" like this one against electric cars have more common with fake news than real science or engineering.
 
Last edited:
Elon Musk sounds like a budding Donald Trump based on recent tweets
 
The Firestarter said:
Regarding the brake residue particles, electric cars use electromagnetic braking, until very low speeds where the normal brakes are engaged, which is actually causing almost no brake pad wearing.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. Though obviously there still is some wearing, it’s pretty awesome and it’s one of the technological developments that gives a little hope.

The Firestarter said:
"Arguments" like this one against electric cars have more common with fake news than real science or engineering.
Click to expand...

This however shows that you aren’t interested in anything but taking cheap shots while glorifying Tesla. Good luck with that.

The whole particle pollution is an incredibly complex debate from so many different angles. For example, in my small western European country 70% of those particles - which are divided in various sub groups - comes from different countries (f.e via wind)

Yet at the same time we produce/create more pollution than we ‘receive’. Think about that for a second and you’ll see the potential problems with the ‘even if EV’s use dirty energy their lack of emission can have beneficial effects locally angle’

@oneniltothearsenal

Another nice post, not much I can disagree with.

@PedroMendez German no problem, I will read it tonight or tomorrow and maybe take it to the other Tesla thread.

Because this thread should go back to bashing Musk.
 
Henrik Larsson said:
Yes, I know. Though obviously there still is some wearing, it’s pretty awesome and it’s one of the technological developments that gives a little hope.



This however shows that you aren’t interested in anything but taking cheap shots while glorifying Tesla. Good luck with that.

The whole particle pollution is an incredibly complex debate from so many different angles. For example, in my small western European country 70% of those particles - which are divided in various sub groups - comes from different countries (f.e via wind)

Yet at the same time we produce/create more pollution than we ‘receive’. Think about that for a second and you’ll see the potential problems with the ‘even if EV’s use dirty energy their lack of emission can have beneficial effects locally angle’

@oneniltothearsenal

Another nice post, not much I can disagree with.

@PedroMendez German no problem, I will read it tonight or tomorrow and maybe take it to the other Tesla thread.

Because this thread should go back to bashing Musk.
Click to expand...
By 'arguments' I meant specifically the one about brake residue particles. The dust being brought by vehicles is indeed inevitable , even more so that the biggest offenders here are large trucks which simply cannot be replaced by bicycles.
 
The Firestarter said:
By 'arguments' I meant specifically the one about brake residue particles. The dust being brought by vehicles is indeed inevitable , even more so that the biggest offenders here are large trucks which simply cannot be replaced by bicycles.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Tesla still has tyres that wear down! And yes, other than transport for personal purposes even in a big city centre there's the problem of trucks, sometimes ships, or even airplanes.
 
I think that's as close to an unequivocal apology as was ever likely to appear.

It's the timing that's crap. Said a few hours after the tweet or even the next day, it sounds like an apology. Said days later, it sounds like someone who had hoped (and failed) to dig something up to get himself out of a hole he'd just randomly dug. But still, a lawyer assisted apology is better than no apology.
 
jojojo said:
I think that's as close to an unequivocal apology as was ever likely to appear.

It's the timing that's crap. Said a few hours after the tweet or even the next day, it sounds like an apology. Said days later, it sounds like someone who had hoped (and failed) to dig something up to get himself out of a hole he'd just randomly dug. But still, a lawyer assisted apology is better than no apology.
Click to expand...
I just don't get how his lawyer's haven't told him to get the hell off twitter. He is literally causing his companies to lose stock with his behaviour.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think that’s a first though? Up until this fiasco his tweets have generally created positive PR.
Click to expand...
I think he's come across as dickish and patronising at times. Nowhere near as bad as his most recent outburst but possibly enough to suggest to his PR team that he might have been an accident waiting to happen.

Silva said:
https://i.imgur.com/USjli88.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BzTnCw6.png

https://i.imgur.com/bILmli7.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/cY6mI2d.png

https://i.imgur.com/TM8gJZs.png

https://i.imgur.com/mMkFYrd.png

https://i.imgur.com/ZPYbXfM.png

https://i.imgur.com/Hl9DPOM.png

https://i.imgur.com/BQYmAbv.png

https://i.imgur.com/xtMp858.png

https://i.imgur.com/yj3iDhi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/DrN03ZN.png

https://i.imgur.com/KvPBuLR.png

https://i.imgur.com/xYaNVpO.png

https://i.imgur.com/RrVpV7u.png

https://i.imgur.com/5hz4nf6.png
Click to expand...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I think that’s a first though? Up until this fiasco his tweets have generally created positive PR.
Click to expand...
Yeah but look at all the tweets that have been posted in the thread of him insulting people and the press and whatnot in the past. I think the difference is those largely went under the radar whereas due to the mass coverage of this story and the people involved, it was noticed straight away. What it means is that in future now when he does make tweets like that, they'll get jumped on a lot quicker.
 
GBBQ said:
I think he's come across as dickish and patronising at times. Nowhere near as bad as his most recent outburst but possibly enough to suggest to his PR team that he might have been an accident waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Eesh. That’s not good. Twitter is toxic as feck though. I don’t know how any public figure can handle all the trolls without several humiliating melt-downs. I know I’d come across as a complete prick if I was in his situation.

I guess the only sensible option is handing the account over to a PR team which I’m sure is what the vast majority of “celebrities” do these days. It’s a bit of a shame that it’s come to this but hey, that’s why we don’t deserve nice things.
 
Jesus wept I didn't think I would see a more pathetic statement than Trump's today. I'm sorry that his bad actions made me call him a paedophile. Oh and watch this fan suck me off.

A cnut.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Eesh. That’s not good. Twitter is toxic as feck though. I don’t know how any public figure can handle all the trolls without several humiliating melt-downs. I know I’d come across as a complete prick if I was in his situation.

I guess the only sensible option is handing the account over to a PR team which I’m sure is what the vast majority of “celebrities” do these days. It’s a bit of a shame that it’s come to this but hey, that’s why we don’t deserve nice things.
Click to expand...

You don’t have to be one of his weird fanboys and stick up for him. He called a hero a pedophile, and he’s not taking you to Mars mate.

Also that’s a fecking teenagers apology.
 
Mockney said:
You don’t have to be one of his weird fanboys and stick up for him. He called a hero a pedophile, and he’s not taking you to Mars mate.

That’s a fecking teenagers apology.
Click to expand...

Eh? I'm a long way from being one of his "weird fanboys". I just know for a fact that if someone could be arsed trawling through my redcafe posts they'd find shitloads of examples of me being arrogant, patronising or generally coming across as a prick. And that's on a well moderated message board, populated mainly by people who support the same football team as me!

Dread to think what would happen if I spent as much time on the absolute shit-show that is Twitter, with as many followers/trolls as Elon Musk has accumulated. And I think I'm actually quite a nice person, in real life. Just easily wound up and a little intolerant of what I perceive as people doing/saying stupid things. That would be the beginning and end of any kind of kinship I feel for Elon fecking Musk.
 
Oh no, after 2 days and pressure from his investors. Musk's finally apologized and he used more words to justify his action than actually saying sorry.

Such a kind heart, truly the Willy Wonka of our time. Only the matter of time until he starts sending golden tickets to Mars to lucky children. Hope he doesn't charge their parents millions dollars.
 
I am just surprised that he has time for all of this. Isn't he the "hands on guy" who sleeps on the floor of his factories? How does he have time to get involved in building this mini-rescue pot during crucial weeks for Tesla?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Eh? I'm a long way from being one of his "weird fanboys". I just know for a fact that if someone could be arsed trawling through my redcafe posts they'd find shitloads of examples of me being arrogant, patronising or generally coming across as a prick. And that's on a well moderated message board, populated mainly by people who support the same football team as me!

Dread to think what would happen if I spent as much time on the absolute shit-show that is Twitter, with as many followers/trolls as Elon Musk has accumulated. And I think I'm actually quite a nice person, in real life. Just easily wound up and a little intolerant of what I perceive as people doing/saying stupid things. That would be the beginning and end of any kind of kinship I feel for Elon fecking Musk.
Click to expand...

Mate, he’s recieved nothing but praise and positive affirmation calling him a modern day superhero for years. All of a sudden he starts getting flack for union busting and failing to meet targets and he starts crying fake news and saying he wants to replace the free press with a Yelp style system of his own. And I know you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about social media being evil and bad for the world and all, but as he also snapped in an conference call when asked perfectly reasonably questions by his own investors, and you know CALLED SOMEONE A PEDOPHILE!! maybe, just maybe, it’s not social media quite as much as it’s him being a spoiled prick who can’t take criticism?

Maybe.

I mean for a start, that apology is absolutely embarrassingly pathetic. It piggybacks onto a post from one of his ‘Stans’ making a case for his defence - instantly forcing everyone to acknowledge that before they even reach the apology - and then procedes to continue blaming the diver for another whole tweet before kind of half admitting he was wrong. And this is after a couple days off Twitter. So maybe it’s not such an instinctual online reflex, as much as a genuine insight into his myopic blameless psyche?

Maybe.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
I wouldn't attribute this to Musk. The idea has been around for some time - I believe it was originally popularized by Nick Bostrom.
Click to expand...

I came up with this idea several years before the matrix. I remember having the thought that oh this is not entirely dissimilar to my trail of thought.

The reality is if you have played enough computer games than anyone could have for a moment considered the idea. Or if you look at region and want to challenge it.

I'm not going to pledge I'm a genius for a random view on the world. Conversation like this doesn't show Musk is a genius it shows he is an out of the box theorist, much like myself.
 
Mockney said:
Mate, he’s recieved nothing but praise and positive affirmation calling him a modern day superhero for years. All of a sudden he starts getting flack for union busting and failing to meet targets and he starts crying fake news and saying he wants to replace the free press with a Yelp style system of his own. And I know you’ve got a bee in your bonnet about social media being evil and bad for the world and all, but as he also snapped in an conference call when asked perfectly reasonably questions by his own investors, and you know CALLED SOMEONE A PEDOPHILE!! maybe, just maybe, it’s not social media quite as much as it’s him being a spoiled prick who can’t take criticism?

Maybe.

I mean for a start, that apology is absolutely embarrassingly pathetic. It piggybacks onto a post from one of his ‘Stans’ making a case for his defence - instantly forcing everyone to acknowledge that before they even reach the apology - and then procedes to continue blaming the diver for another whole tweet before kind of half admitting he was wrong. And this is after a couple days off Twitter. So maybe it’s not such an instinctual online reflex, as much as a genuine insight into his myopic blameless psyche?

Maybe.
Click to expand...

Meh. Not sure I can be arsed trying to push back against this pile-on. I mean, he's obviously not in a great place right now, with Tesla in the weeds and people shitting on him for a well-intentioned effort to try and help these kids but yes, it was a crappy apology after a crappy tweet. That's absolutely true. So knock yourself out, lads. Sharpen those pitchforks and make the rich man feel the power of your wrath!
 
Last edited:
Yeah I call bollox on that. He did it as a publicity stunt, that's all. Providing that sub whilst those divers were already in the middle of the rescue is nothing short of silly.
 
unchanged_lineup said:
That's where I'd see differently.
Click to expand...

Me too. Not sure why I put "clearly" and "fairly" together!

But it was definitely well-intentioned. More than likely an element of God complex in there too. He probably quite fancied being the knight in shining armour coming in to save the day with his team of actual rocket scientists. All the more so with him getting a lot of stick over his businesses recently.

Whatever, he evidently committed a fair bit of time/resources to try and help the rescue effort and I'm willing to accept he was mainly motivated by a desire to help the kids. That's because I believe people are more nuanced and generally well meaning than the one-dimensional monsters they tend to be portrayed as by assorted Twitter folk intent on taking them down. Yes, even very rich people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.