Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-24 10:00:30

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKCuDxpccYM&t=8s

louis · 2018-04-24 11:29:02

Musk has a vested financial interest in this from a number of angles. So, I wouldn't expect him to be an impartial authority on the matter.

Climate processes are very complex and it is at least clear that the Earth has been warmer in the pre-industrial period of the prior millennium than it is now.

Also, there appears to be a lot of AGW propaganda put about e.g. the idea that islands have already disappeared or gone under owing to rising sea levels. When you look into such claims they seem to evaporate under the light of inquiry.

That said, I have always adhered to the precautionary principle, that we should try and keep environmental factors close to those obtaining in the pre-industrial period if possible. In any case clean air is good, so green energy is better than carbon based energy from that point of view.

Ultimately, if it is shown that carbon is really a problem we may have to find ways to sequester it from the atmosphere.

Terraformer · 2018-04-24 12:58:53

What, you're not taking Musk at his word? I am shocked, louis. Just shocked.

louis · 2018-04-24 13:23:06

He's a businessman as well as a dreamer! And he's definitely not a climate scientist!!

Terraformer wrote:

What, you're not taking Musk at his word? I am shocked, louis. Just shocked.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-24 18:18:45

I admire Elon, but this pushes my buttons. In Canada right now we have a problem that the federal government is forcing provinces to create a carbon tax. We had a federal election on this in 2008. The Liberal Party got spanked by voters...hard! Now they're doing it? Voters will punish them. And should. Incentives must be positive. That means everything you do for the environment must save people money. But they want a new tax? How many expletives must I spout?

Look at this from a businessman's point of view. First refrigerator used ammonia. Then a leak killed one woman. So they changed to freon. Didn't work as well but safe. But that's CFC, it destroys ozone. So they changed to PFC. Worse yet, requires more electricity and more expensive to make, but non-toxic and CFC safe. But that's a supergreenhouse gas, 50,000 times as powerful as CO2. So aerosol propellant is now propane; flammable. Now they claim CO2 is a polutant! Humans exhale that.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2018-04-24 20:06:27)

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-24 19:51:54

louis wrote:

He's a businessman as well as a dreamer! And he's definitely not a climate scientist!!

Terraformer wrote:
What, you're not taking Musk at his word? I am shocked, louis. Just shocked.

Humbug! Elon Musk and those pinhead nerdy scientists are just trying to sell lectric cars, wind machines, sun roofs and batteries to make trillions of bucks. Dam those capitalist comease and comease capitalists!

We should depend on honest Trump's poof that climate change is a cleaver Chinese hoaks to put West Virginia coal minors out of work. Trump nose lots of stuff. And he has very manly big hands!

6a00d83451d3b569e201b7c8ccc311970b-pi

All of the following commynistic and terrierists outfits and the pinkish Elon Musk are wrong on climate change.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)

American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012,

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)

U.S. Global Change Research Program
"The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”

“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”

The following lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences

SpaceNut · 2018-04-24 21:30:16

Yes, EdwardHeisler we have seen the impressive list before and aside from the many jobs what are they doing to stop, slow or correct the out come of global warming?

Crickets?

This is the real challenge to those that are studing the cause and effect now lets get to correcting the outcome....

louis · 2018-04-25 03:27:29

The real battle is to find energy solutions that are cheaper than the carbon based fuels. Musk is playing his part in that in a big way.

Wind and solar are both becoming very competitive. We just need to square the circle with battery storage, the price of which is also tumbling, thanks largely to Musk.

SpaceNut wrote:

Yes, EdwardHeisler we have seen the impressive list before and aside from the many jobs what are they doing to stop, slow or correct the out come of global warming?
Crickets?
This is the real challenge to those that are studing the cause and effect now lets get to correcting the outcome....

RobertDyck · 2018-04-25 06:23:35

One argument Elon made in his presentation was to reduce other taxes to offset the new carbon tax. In Canada, this has been promised before. In 1989 the government replaced the Federal Sales Tax (FST) with Goods and Services Tax (GST). FST was applied only to manufactured goods, and hidden, included in the sticker price. GST is not hidden, it's applied at the till. The government ordered everyone who paid FST to reduce their retail price by the FST removed. No one complied. Provincial governments stated their intention to charge Provincial Sales Tax (PST) on top of GST, because they had previously charged it on FST. The federal government counter threatened to charge GST on top of PST; result was neither is charged on the other. The federal government ordered corporate executives of car manufacturers to come to Ottawa to discuss the Auto Pact, the Canada-US treaty that allows them to sell cars in Canada. And other Canadian laws that allow them to sell cars. The result was they backed down, they dropped their sticker price by FST removed. But no one else did. This tax change resulted in a massive round of inflation. Utilities, including provincial government owned utilities, increased their rates to cover additional cost of GST. The federal government tried to tell them not to do so, but the federal government can't push around a provincial government as easily as they can commercial business, and they just had a stand-off over PST. So no, it's never revenue neutral, any new tax always means taxpayers pay more.

He ended his talk by calling on everyone to lobby their politician to enact a carbon tax. No! NO!!!!!!!!!!!

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-25 11:05:22

SpaceNut wrote:

Yes, EdwardHeisler we have seen the impressive list before and aside from the many jobs what are they doing to stop, slow or correct the out come of global warming?
Crickets?
This is the real challenge to those that are studing the cause and effect now lets get to correcting the outcome....

Why is the list as impressive to you as it is for me?

For starters, I may be wrong but I believe I have seen proposals to greatly expand solar and wind power to replace the burning of fossil fuels.

Have you noticed any developments along those lines or am I just whistling dixie?

I also heard rumors that Elon Musk is considering building electric driven cars to replace gas guzzlers!!!! Well, I can hardly wait to see them or is that just science nutcases day dreaming.

And if you viewed the Musk video what do you think of his very specific proposal? Another nutty idea I assume. Thank the gods for some common anti-science sense from President Trumpy. Hip Hip Hooey!

kbd512 · 2018-04-25 13:36:27

EdwardHeisler,

Tesla's goal is to make 6,000 Model 3's per week. Let's say they hit that goal. That's 312,000 new electric vehicles per year. In 2017, 6,332,925 new vehicles were sold in the US alone. So they're going to replace 5% of that gas guzzling fleet per year with electric cars that upper middle class Americans can actually afford to purchase after tax payers subsidize 25% of the cost of the vehicle. That means Tesla or whomever only needs to manufacture 20 times as many electric vehicles per year to replace manufacture of new gas guzzlers. Then there's world vehicle sales, which was just over 96 million in 2017 if memory serves. If you learn how to count, we might be able to have a reality-based conversation about what any specific proposal will or won't do to reduce CO2 emissions. Until you learn how to count, we'll just ignore the natural gas and coal guzzlers that produce the electrical power for the new electric vehicles since that requires more math.

MAKE AMERICA MATH AGAIN

SpaceNut · 2018-04-25 17:20:50

Well Musk has the battery pack and panels, why not roll them into a purchase price of a Telsa and get off the fuels even sooner for home setup for recharge. The make a version that is installed with a credit card to access the charging function of a simular battery fillup station along the highway rest stops, large parking lots ect...

Or we could right size the vehicle for how it is used reduce the materials needed to make it and the power level would also drop to make it move such that you could get away with a pedal power regenergator, solar combo hybrid for daily use.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-25 17:30:43

EdwardHeisler wrote:

Have you noticed any developments along those lines or am I just whistling dixie?

Elon founded a company called "Solar City", intended to sell solar panels for houses. He then integrated it with Tesla. That's integrated with his battery: solar panels charge a large house battery, then the battery charges your electric car. Notice this image has solar roof, and a large battery bolted to the wall on the right. (click image for website)

louis · 2018-04-25 17:59:38

I believe the real game changer will be the introduction of electric roads - so that you can charge your vehicle inductively on main roads. That in turn will mean batteries within the vehicle can be much smaller, also meaning that electric vehicles are much cheaper and less polluting (currently heavy EVs cause a lot of tyre wear and thus pollution). At that point EV motoring becomes much more convenient than gas/petrol motoring and price competitive as well. Remember EV engines are also much simpler (and so cheaper) to maintain.

EDITED TO ADD:

Already being introduced in Sweden:

https://www.dezeen.com/2018/04/23/elect … lm-sweden/

At £1.4 million per mile, that's a pretty low cost solution - a lot cheaper than on board big batteries. If the UK were to convert all its motorways (2200 miles) that would cost only just over £3 billion. You could maybe spend another £7 billion on creating electric road sections at critical points on other main roads. Phase it in over 10 years, it would only cost £1 billion per annum and would probably last 50 years or more. I can definitely see this happening as it makes so much sense.

kbd512 wrote:

EdwardHeisler,
Tesla's goal is to make 6,000 Model 3's per week. Let's say they hit that goal. That's 312,000 new electric vehicles per year. In 2017, 6,332,925 new vehicles were sold in the US alone. So they're going to replace 5% of that gas guzzling fleet per year with electric cars that upper middle class Americans can actually afford to purchase after tax payers subsidize 25% of the cost of the vehicle. That means Tesla or whomever only needs to manufacture 20 times as many electric vehicles per year to replace manufacture of new gas guzzlers. Then there's world vehicle sales, which was just over 96 million in 2017 if memory serves. If you learn how to count, we might be able to have a reality-based conversation about what any specific proposal will or won't do to reduce CO2 emissions. Until you learn how to count, we'll just ignore the natural gas and coal guzzlers that produce the electrical power for the new electric vehicles since that requires more math.
MAKE AMERICA MATH AGAIN

Last edited by louis (2018-04-25 18:33:55)

EdwardHeisler · 2018-04-25 21:38:55

kbd512 wrote:

EdwardHeisler,
Tesla's goal is to make 6,000 Model 3's per week. Let's say they hit that goal. That's 312,000 new electric vehicles per year. In 2017, 6,332,925 new vehicles were sold in the US alone. So they're going to replace 5% of that gas guzzling fleet per year with electric cars that upper middle class Americans can actually afford to purchase after tax payers subsidize 25% of the cost of the vehicle. That means Tesla or whomever only needs to manufacture 20 times as many electric vehicles per year to replace manufacture of new gas guzzlers. Then there's world vehicle sales, which was just over 96 million in 2017 if memory serves. If you learn how to count, we might be able to have a reality-based conversation about what any specific proposal will or won't do to reduce CO2 emissions. Until you learn how to count, we'll just ignore the natural gas and coal guzzlers that produce the electrical power for the new electric vehicles since that requires more math.
MAKE AMERICA MATH AGAIN

Can you count how many car companies are producing electric cars and what their total worldwide productions has been over the past decade? Count! You seem think that Tesla is the only game in town and that electric car making is and can only happen in the United States. You seem to be totally unaware that other U.S. auto makers are producing electric cars! I can provide you with hard facts on that if you'd like. And you can count them. Even Trump is aware of that! You surely must be smarter and better informed than Trumpy.

In less than a decade gas driven cars will not be manufactured in China for its billion plus people and this will probably be the case in most car producing nations. China will make tens of millions of electric cars and many will be exported to nations all over the world .... except for the United States if Trump plunges ahead with his isolationist trade war which could cause an economic depression at home.

You seem to be living in the past and not looking ahead to what the future will bring. Why are you so terrified of scientific progress?

clark · 2018-04-25 22:37:29

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepu … ok2017.pdf

Science aside, since that seems to distract these days, let's just play questions.

Is reducing reliance on oil an agreeable objective?
Is reducing CO2 emissions objectionable?
Is providing market incentives to developing technology that can be leveraged for future martian colonies objectionable?
Is providing market incentives for technology that other nations are heavily investing in so the US can stay competitive objectionable?

Full disclosure, I am driving my second electric vehicle and plan for my third next year. I choose electric not because I love trees, but because I want a stupid sticker that opens up another lane to me on the freeway. It was either that or pick up a hitchhiking meat-bag and make inane chatter in some poor attempt at approximating civility.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-26 04:37:55

louis wrote:

I believe the real game changer will be the introduction of electric roads - so that you can charge your vehicle inductively on main roads.

No, it's not. That was a dumb idea from the 1930s, promoted in the 1950s. Do you realize how much infrastructure would be required to build that? How much copper, and other materials it would take to build electric roads? If you want electric roads, build a rail road. You can electrify the rails.

If you want to get away from the oil economy, realize cars of any sort are not the answer. Cars have rubber tires, made of polybutadiene rubber. And roads are paved with asphalt, also a petroleum product. Rail uses steel wheels on steel rails.

I get upset when people in my city talk of electric buses. At a city career event held at the convention centre, the city tried to recruit employees. They had a couple buses on display. I was interested in the electric bus. One mechanic showed me under the hood. When I told him I used to work at the factory where the buses were made, he wanted me to be a bus mechanic. I told him I worked in IT, but he ignored that. Anyway, the bus had large batteries with a liquid cooling system, hoses run directly into each battery. In winter the bus is heated with diesel furnace. And the cooling system is used to keep the batteries warm, to prevent them from freezing; source of heat is the same furnace. They may have painted large words "Zero Emission" on the side of the bus, as large as the bus, but it isn't true. Those buses still use rubber tires, drive on asphalt roads, and in winter they still burn the same diesel fuel as any other bus. Yes, it's less diesel fuel and less emissions, but not zero. When I was a pre-schooler, my city has trolley buses. Those are electric buses powered by overhead wires. They had a pair of poles at the back of the bus that connected to the overhead wires. Those who don't care about the environment complained; they claimed the overhead wires meant trucks with a tall load could not drive down any street with them. Then one mayor decided to scrap the trolley buses, because that meant the city could sell the largest hydro dam owned by the city-owned electric utility. That would pay off the city's debt. But then the city just went back into debt, now the city debt is larger than ever, and we don't have electric buses. They city is trying to cover their ass by getting electric buses that run on batteries, but as I said, in winter they still burn diesel fuel.

In the 1980s I came up with a plan for large cities such as Toronto or Vancouver. Cities with a population in the millions. Build a residential neighbourhood with no road. Based on a Winnipeg community called "Wildwood Park", which has bays. There is land about the same size as a residential street or bay together with sidewalks and boulevard, which is the strip of grass between the curb and sidewalk. But there is no road there. Instead that land is a park, with a single walkway the size of a single sidewalk running down the centre where the street would go. There's a back lane, homes have 6-foot fence around their back yard, built right up to the back lane, and most homes have a single-car garage. My idea is a neighbourhood like that, but build a subway beneath the back lane. Subway rail cars the same size as a car would run on those tracks, underground in the subway tunnel. Computer driven, so no driver. Each home would have an underground subway station about the size of a single car garage, with a door to the basement so you could walk directly from your home without going outside. In the 1980s I said a rail taxi could be called using a home computer or a telephone, but today you would use a smartphone app. In a city like Toronto, this could be integrated with the existing subway. Allow rail taxis to cluster into a convoy or "train", enter the tracks for large subway trains to let passengers off at a station. This means it could operate directly downtown, without having to build anything downtown. An app for a modern smartphone would greatly help; you could call a rail taxi at a subway station, but the app would require GPS turned on, and it would have to confirm you're actually standing at the subway platform before the rail taxi enters the same track as full-size trains. Don't want someone using a rail taxi to block the subway system. This means the neighbourhood would have no cars what so ever. Residents could own a car, park it at a parkade at the edge of this new neighbourhood. "Parkade" is the Canadian word for a multi-level parking structure. A rail taxi station on each level of the parkade could carry you home. But this means commute to work would be via rail taxi. No rush hour traffic, no extreme parking rates for downtown parking. Rail taxis could carry groceries. A special computer-driven rail truck could deliver large items such as furniture. A community grocery store could have a large rail station for a vehicle the size of a 3-ton truck. Large grocery stores could have a station for a rail vehicle to carry a 40-foot shipping container, effectively the size of an 18-wheel tractor-trailer truck commonly called a "semi". The only vehicles allowed on the surface in the community would be utility maintenance vehicles, construction vehicles, or perhaps a moving van. In fact power, telephone, cable TV, and internet cables could be run in a conduit in the subway tunnel. So practically no vehicles on the surface in this neighbourhood. That makes it safe for children. It also means you're literally living in a park.

Decades ago, oil companies got together with car manufacturers to dismantle public transit. They would buy city streetcar systems, and immediately dismantle them. This is still happening, although to a lesser extent. They want individuals to use private cars because that means they can sell more cars and more gas/diesel/oil. They can also sell more car parts for repair and maintenance. And that requires larger roads, so more asphalt. This is still ongoing. A large grocery store in my city owned a large warehouse. Trains would deliver groceries and household items they sell to one side of the warehouse. They would be repackaged into trucks for delivery to individual stores. That chain of stores was bought by another chain of grocery stores. I expected they would use the rail terminal/warehouse, but no. The new owner continued to use their warehouse, closed the rail warehouse. Right now rail costs 1/3 the price per tonne of cargo per kilometre vs highway trucks. Or per ton per mile. Why would you abandon rail? That's stupid! In fact they had to build a new small warehouse just for dairy, built just a couple blocks from the previous warehouse but only accessible by truck. Again, that's backwards! Freight train locomotives are all hybrid diesel/electric. The rail industry invented hybrid technology. They started working on it in 1890, completed development in the 19-teens, started mass production of diesel/electric locomotives in 1920. Many railroads converted from steam to diesel by the end of the 1920s. The CN Railroad continued to use steam through the 1960s, but they converted by the end of the '60s. Due to economies of scale (trains are much bigger than highway trucks), and much lower friction of steel wheels on steel rails, and lower gradients, and the fact they're all diesel/electric hybrids, trains consume a fraction as much diesel fuel as trucks. Yes, gradients are lower because steel wheels on steel rails can't climb a steep hill, but that also means much less fuel required. That means much lower carbon emission per tonne of cargo per kilometre. So trains good, trucks bad.

You want a real game changer? Intermodal terminals where a freight train arrives with a line of trucks waiting. Handling equipment transfers containers directly from train to truck as soon as the train arrives. Containers never touch the ground. That means truck drivers will deliver containers from intermodal terminal to destination within a city, or from supplier to intermodal terminal. So instead of a long-haul truck taking several days for one load, instead a driver will deliver multiple loads per day. And each driver will eat dinner with his/her spouse, and sleep in his/her own bed every night. It's already more economical. I have proposed adding a GPS tracking device to every large truck. As long as they service a local intermodal terminal, they will not be charged anything. But if they deliver a long-haul load, they will be charged a toll. Government Wifi nodes along the highway could automatically download data from these GPS trackers.

Rail taxis described above are another game changer.

louis · 2018-04-26 05:26:41

There's nothing wrong with public transport. It's definitely to be encouraged. But it can't deliver door-to-door connections, even in your designed scenario (if you had to stop at every house, it would be nightmarishly slow).

Electric roads are not expensive - I've already given one quote of £1.4 million per mile. Roads have to be dug up and resurfaced periodically in any case. When you do the resurfacing you can install the electric infrastructure. Electric roads bring electric vehicles a lot closer to zero emission because they can use much smaller batteries which also in turn mean lower tyre emissions because of reduced weight. The cost of electric roads needs to be set against the hugely reduced cost of electric vehicles as battery size is reduced (probably by something like 70-80%).

RobertDyck wrote:

louis wrote:
I believe the real game changer will be the introduction of electric roads - so that you can charge your vehicle inductively on main roads.
No, it's not. That was a dumb idea from the 1930s, promoted in the 1950s. Do you realize how much infrastructure would be required to build that? How much copper, and other materials it would take to build electric roads? If you want electric roads, build a rail road. You can electrify the rails.
If you want to get away from the oil economy, realize cars of any sort are not the answer. Cars have rubber tires, made of polybutadiene rubber. And roads are paved with asphalt, also a petroleum product. Rail uses steel wheels on steel rails.
I get upset when people in my city talk of electric buses. At a city career event held at the convention centre, the city tried to recruit employees. They had a couple buses on display. I was interested in the electric bus. One mechanic showed me under the hood. When I told him I used to work at the factory where the buses were made, he wanted me to be a bus mechanic. I told him I worked in IT, but he ignored that. Anyway, the bus had large batteries with a liquid cooling system, hoses run directly into each battery. In winter the bus is heated with diesel furnace. And the cooling system is used to keep the batteries warm, to prevent them from freezing; source of heat is the same furnace. They may have painted large words "Zero Emission" on the side of the bus, as large as the bus, but it isn't true. Those buses still use rubber tires, drive on asphalt roads, and in winter they still burn the same diesel fuel as any other bus. Yes, it's less diesel fuel and less emissions, but not zero. When I was a pre-schooler, my city has trolley buses. Those are electric buses powered by overhead wires. They had a pair of poles at the back of the bus that connected to the overhead wires. Those who don't care about the environment complained; they claimed the overhead wires meant trucks with a tall load could not drive down any street with them. Then one mayor decided to scrap the trolley buses, because that meant the city could sell the largest hydro dam owned by the city-owned electric utility. That would pay off the city's debt. But then the city just went back into debt, now the city debt is larger than ever, and we don't have electric buses. They city is trying to cover their ass by getting electric buses that run on batteries, but as I said, in winter they still burn diesel fuel.
In the 1980s I came up with a plan for large cities such as Toronto or Vancouver. Cities with a population in the millions. Build a residential neighbourhood with no road. Based on a Winnipeg community called "Wildwood Park", which has bays. There is land about the same size as a residential street or bay together with sidewalks and boulevard, which is the strip of grass between the curb and sidewalk. But there is no road there. Instead that land is a park, with a single walkway the size of a single sidewalk running down the centre where the street would go. There's a back lane, homes have 6-foot fence around their back yard, built right up to the back lane, and most homes have a single-car garage. My idea is a neighbourhood like that, but build a subway beneath the back lane. Subway rail cars the same size as a car would run on those tracks, underground in the subway tunnel. Computer driven, so no driver. Each home would have an underground subway station about the size of a single car garage, with a door to the basement so you could walk directly from your home without going outside. In the 1980s I said a rail taxi could be called using a home computer or a telephone, but today you would use a smartphone app. In a city like Toronto, this could be integrated with the existing subway. Allow rail taxis to cluster into a convoy or "train", enter the tracks for large subway trains to let passengers off at a station. This means it could operate directly downtown, without having to build anything downtown. An app for a modern smartphone would greatly help; you could call a rail taxi at a subway station, but the app would require GPS turned on, and it would have to confirm you're actually standing at the subway platform before the rail taxi enters the same track as full-size trains. Don't want someone using a rail taxi to block the subway system. This means the neighbourhood would have no cars what so ever. Residents could own a car, park it at a parkade at the edge of this new neighbourhood. "Parkade" is the Canadian word for a multi-level parking structure. A rail taxi station on each level of the parkade could carry you home. But this means commute to work would be via rail taxi. No rush hour traffic, no extreme parking rates for downtown parking. Rail taxis could carry groceries. A special computer-driven rail truck could deliver large items such as furniture. A community grocery store could have a large rail station for a vehicle the size of a 3-ton truck. Large grocery stores could have a station for a rail vehicle to carry a 40-foot shipping container, effectively the size of an 18-wheel tractor-trailer truck commonly called a "semi". The only vehicles allowed on the surface in the community would be utility maintenance vehicles, construction vehicles, or perhaps a moving van. In fact power, telephone, cable TV, and internet cables could be run in a conduit in the subway tunnel. So practically no vehicles on the surface in this neighbourhood. That makes it safe for children. It also means you're literally living in a park.
Decades ago, oil companies got together with car manufacturers to dismantle public transit. They would buy city streetcar systems, and immediately dismantle them. This is still happening, although to a lesser extent. They want individuals to use private cars because that means they can sell more cars and more gas/diesel/oil. They can also sell more car parts for repair and maintenance. And that requires larger roads, so more asphalt. This is still ongoing. A large grocery store in my city owned a large warehouse. Trains would deliver groceries and household items they sell to one side of the warehouse. They would be repackaged into trucks for delivery to individual stores. That chain of stores was bought by another chain of grocery stores. I expected they would use the rail terminal/warehouse, but no. The new owner continued to use their warehouse, closed the rail warehouse. Right now rail costs 1/3 the price per tonne of cargo per kilometre vs highway trucks. Or per ton per mile. Why would you abandon rail? That's stupid! In fact they had to build a new small warehouse just for dairy, built just a couple blocks from the previous warehouse but only accessible by truck. Again, that's backwards! Freight train locomotives are all hybrid diesel/electric. The rail industry invented hybrid technology. They started working on it in 1890, completed development in the 19-teens, started mass production of diesel/electric locomotives in 1920. Many railroads converted from steam to diesel by the end of the 1920s. The CN Railroad continued to use steam through the 1960s, but they converted by the end of the '60s. Due to economies of scale (trains are much bigger than highway trucks), and much lower friction of steel wheels on steel rails, and lower gradients, and the fact they're all diesel/electric hybrids, trains consume a fraction as much diesel fuel as trucks. Yes, gradients are lower because steel wheels on steel rails can't climb a steep hill, but that also means much less fuel required. That means much lower carbon emission per tonne of cargo per kilometre. So trains good, trucks bad.
You want a real game changer? Intermodal terminals where a freight train arrives with a line of trucks waiting. Handling equipment transfers containers directly from train to truck as soon as the train arrives. Containers never touch the ground. That means truck drivers will deliver containers from intermodal terminal to destination within a city, or from supplier to intermodal terminal. So instead of a long-haul truck taking several days for one load, instead a driver will deliver multiple loads per day. And each driver will eat dinner with his/her spouse, and sleep in his/her own bed every night. It's already more economical. I have proposed adding a GPS tracking device to every large truck. As long as they service a local intermodal terminal, they will not be charged anything. But if they deliver a long-haul load, they will be charged a toll. Government Wifi nodes along the highway could automatically download data from these GPS trackers.
Rail taxis described above are another game changer.

kbd512 · 2018-04-26 21:04:23

EdwardHeisler wrote:

Can you count how many car companies are producing electric cars and what their total worldwide productions has been over the past decade? Count! You seem think that Tesla is the only game in town and that electric car making is and can only happen in the United States. You seem to be totally unaware that other U.S. auto makers are producing electric cars! I can provide you with hard facts on that if you'd like. And you can count them. Even Trump is aware of that! You surely must be smarter and better informed than Trumpy.

Global sales of electric vehicles was a little over 1 million units in 2017, so only another 95 million units to replace gas powered cars if demand remains relatively flat. There's quite a ways to go before electric vehicles make a dent in the world market, thus a dent in the CO2 emissions of motor vehicles. That presumes we don't start burning natural gas and coal at record rates just to say we're driving electric cars. Playing the "hide the fossil fuel burner" game and wishful thinking won't change conversion or emission rates.

You mentioned Tesla in the post I responded to, so I indicated how many vehicles Tesla could conceptually deliver for sale if they achieve their production rate goal. I would rather Tesla just made as many as they possibly can without injuring any more of their employees or turning out bad products that hurt their reputation. If that happens to be above or below their production goal, so be it.

EdwardHeisler wrote:

In less than a decade gas driven cars will not be manufactured in China for its billion plus people and this will probably be the case in most car producing nations. China will make tens of millions of electric cars and many will be exported to nations all over the world .... except for the United States if Trump plunges ahead with his isolationist trade war which could cause an economic depression at home.

It took a century to reach the current production rate of 96 million vehicles per year. You seem to believe that those other 95 million gas powered vehicles manufactured today are going to be replaced with electric vehicles in less than a decade. If money was of no consequence to either the manufacturer or consumer, then maybe. In another 30 years or so, this may be a more realistic proposition. In another 20 years or so, sales of electric vehicles may start to have a meaningful impact on CO2 emissions if the rest of the world doesn't "pull a Germany" and start burning coal or natural gas at record rates to contend with using the most diffuse sources of energy available.

Incidentally, we've been in a trade war with China and other countries for some time now. More than half a trillion dollars went out the door to foreign countries last year, with China accounting for about $375B of that. If China loses its biggest customer, we won't be the only ones in an economic depression.

EdwardHeisler wrote:

You seem to be living in the past and not looking ahead to what the future will bring. Why are you so terrified of scientific progress?

I'm living with reality. There's nothing wrong with scientific progress, but cheerleading and virtue signaling has nothing to do with science. You and Louis seem to be terrified by the basic math of what humanity is actually achieving. Any actual problem is hand-waived because "the science of wishful thinking" will cause a solution to materialize out of thin air.

I've noticed that any evidence contrary to your viewpoints is ignored or attacked with religious fervor, so think of simple counting as the counter-point. Since you gleefully ignore simple math and use your religious talking points as arguments, I take no issue with delivering that point in a crass way.

I think many of the nonsensical things being done in the name of "stopping climate change", as if that was ever possible, are closer to a cult or religion for pseudo-intellectuals to virtue signal over than any evidence-based science. Apart from the faithful, it's signaling to everyone else that the people who are artificially restricting the availability and increasing the cost of available energy resources have no virtue. Germany wanted to reduce it's dependence on fossil fuels, so it shuttered its nuclear facilities and started burning coal at record rates. I'm sure that decision makes perfect sense in the minds of climate changers, but the rest of us are scratching our heads over what it is that they really want to accomplish. Anyway, if it gets a little warmer or a little cooler, the climate is still fine and so is Earth. There's no need to frighten adult children / millennials or political regressives with apocalyptic tales that have no bearing on reality.

The bottom line is that right now the batteries alone cost as much as a new car does. A home solar solution that could merely power the house and recharge the car puts the price tag of the solution a little north of $100K. As long as everyone has about $100K to spend, it's not a problem. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who don't make $100K over several years. I'm sure that point will be hand-waived as irrelevant, but cost figures heavily into purchasing decisions for practical purposes.

Oldfart1939 · 2018-04-26 22:24:07

Getting to the crux of the matter; the Earth is not in a steady-state equilibrium. The major source of energy is the Sun, but the Sun is a long term variable star. That means that it's energy output varies with time, which in effect causes "climate change." Solar output can be followed by sunspot numbers, and in times of large numbers of sunspots, the energy output increases. Most here are probably aware of the 11 year cycle of sunspot maxima and minima, but there are also underlying longer term cycles. The long term cycle is something around 850 to 900 years which can be demonstrated by recourse to dendrochronology, or the study of tree ring growth patterns. The National Park at Mesa Verde has a complete pattern developed through collection of overlapping data as far back as 800 AD. In approximately 1100 AD, there was a period of extreme temperature maxima, but we also have data from our own written record by Sir Edmund Halley and Sir Isaac Newton for the "Maunder Minimum," in the period centered on 1670, which has been called the "Little Ice Age." The 800-900 year cycle puts the solar maxima at around 1990 to 2000. We are now seeing very low sunspot numbers, and many days without any detected. This indicates that we are on the declining "tail" from a solar maxima.

Everyone has heard about the "Petition of Scientists," and many Global Warming supporters scoff at it. I personally am acquainted with Dr. Arthur Robinson, the creator of the petition. He was the founder of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, and one of the other supporters was Dr. R.B. Merrifield, 1984 Nobel laureate in Chemistry, along with Dr. Edward Teller of Hydrogen Bomb fame. Dr. Robinson was formerly the director of the Linus Pauling Institute. There were initially 30,000 scientists who were unconvinced at the so-called "data" being presented by the GW promoters, but the number finally rose to 55,0000.

Terraformer · 2018-04-27 05:07:52

I find it funny when it's reported that climate change could result in weather patterns "not seen for a thousand years". If it really was as serious as claimed, I would expect it to be hundreds of thousands of years, i.e. before written memory.

kbd512 · 2018-04-27 09:41:54

Here's a thought. We could far more easily spend an extra $10K to $15K to upgrade vehicles to electric propulsion by installing an electric motor and removing the existing engine and transmission, which could be sold on the used parts market to offset conversion costs. If batteries were treated as a communal resources available for rent at gas stations, then we could pay a monthly service fee for using the batteries and pay some kid in high school to swap and test batteries. It's a lot faster to manufacture new electric motors and batteries than entirely new vehicles. I'm not concerned about the range of the vehicle or even the charge time if I can go to any service station and pick up fresh batteries. Those issues are solvable with swappable battery modules that live under the hood instead of integrated into the vehicle's chassis. 50 to 100 miles of driving range is more than enough for most people on the planet in most circumstances and anyone who travels for work will simply use the service more often. I'm more concerned about consumers having to purchase entirely new vehicles when it's so obvious that upgrade kits and batteries-as-a-service could much more rapidly enable electrification of land vehicles at lower cost and greater profit to more people than just the vehicle manufacturers. Super capacitor modules in the same form factor as the battery modules could provide increased acceleration, if required.

The computer makers make vehicle computers; perhaps vehicles of the future have no onboard computer, instead delivering sensor input to the consumer's iPhone or iPad to provide information about vehicle and environment operating condition- new aircraft from Zenith are being manufactured without instrument panels because giant iPads on movable and lockable multi-axis arms provide a massive display for sensor input on sophisticated and feature rich mobile devices with far more functionality than purpose-built avionics (mostly just software these days), Google glass provides a heads-up display for those who want it (my Cadillac has a color HUD that tells me the speed limit on a street, directions, radio station, whatever), and the result is a much lower profile instrument panel that provides greater visibility that reduces accidents related to visibility issues

The car makers make the chassis and power trains for new and existing vehicles

The battery makers make the batteries, incorporating new tech as it becomes available

The shipping industry distributes the batteries and consumer activity determines where to concentrate battery resources

The recycling industry recycles damaged or destroyed batteries

The power companies make electricity to recharge the batteries and only need to equip service stations with high voltage equipment

The oil and gas industry services and maintains the batteries and fuel services infrastructure, fossil fuels being limited to bio jet fuel in the future

The consumers won't have to play with high voltage equipment in their homes since professionals will handle this at service stations, so fewer fires, injuries, and deaths from electrical accidents

All of that plays to the strength and competencies of the various industries, limits the need for specialized production at facilities that were intended to produce specific products, and provides a sustainable infrastructure as manufacturing volumes increase. Using modern automotive technology, the chassis and motor of an electric vehicle would easily last several decades or more. There's no need to manufacture hundreds of millions or new vehicles specifically for use with batteries when existing vehicles can be converted to electric vehicles at massively reduced cost.

Rechargeable Zinc-Air batteries have already surpassed 700Wh/kg using comparatively dirt cheap source materials and super capacitors that withstand millions of charge/discharge cycles are already achieving energy densities on par with current Lithium-Ion batteries. I expect that expensive Lithium-Ion cells will rapidly become a legacy technology in the next two decades as a result. We've spent decades refining Lithium-Ion battery technology with no dramatic increase in storage capacity. Like piston driven combustion engine technology, it's tapped out. There won't be any substantial efficiency improvements because there aren't any to be had. It's just too costly for the performance provided and even mass manufacturing won't drastically lower the cost from where it is today. We need something better to pursue and the technologies I wrote about look like the most promising from a manufacturing cost and engineering standpoint because they're already in consumer electronics and use existing manufacturing processes and equipment.

RobertDyck · 2018-04-27 12:52:05

Interesting idea. I did look at manufacturing a kit for existing cars to convert them to electric. I thought of the SmartCar For 2 because it's small, Pontiac Fiero because a lot of body kits are designed for it, and Honda Civic because I had access to a company with technicians certified for that model. My idea was in-wheel electric motors using rare earth magnets to keep them light. One motor rotation = one wheel rotation, so no transmission. One motor per wheel, so no differential. That would require an electronic transmission and differential. That would also give you full time 4 wheel drive. I found a supplier of in-wheel motors, but lost the contact. Then Elon founded Tesla, making my idea moot. Then SmartCar came out with an electric version of their car, making the kit irrelevant.

I found suppliers of car-size lithium ion batteries when I research batteries for the EMU spacesuit. NASA didn't give me the contract, Lockmart got it. A representative from Lockmart was at my presentation to NASA. And Lockmart bought the US subsidiary of the German battery manufacturer that I identified. How does a single guy working out of his garage compete with a multi-billion dollar company that can buy my supplier? Anyway, I checked. Battery technology has improved since 2005. The latest just came out 2017, not likely in any car yet. It's Lithium-Cobalt-Oxide, able to provide power to -50°C. Winnipeg gets cold in winter, down to -45°C one day in 1966, but other than that one day the low is -40°C, and the last time it got that cold was one day in January 2005. It does get into the -30s. Cold batteries have reduced capacity, but previous lithium ion batteries wouldn't operate at all below -20°C. This new one has the same weight and capacity as other lithium ion batteries, but it can withstand the cold of winter in my city. An intermediate battery was Lithium-Nickel-Cobalt, which could operate to -30°C, and storage to -40°C. Since the new one uses just cobalt instead of less expensive materials such as iron or phosphate, I expect it'll be more expensive.

Lithium ion batteries made in the lab provided 150 watts per kg, back when lithium ion was new. Production batteries only provide 99 W/kg.

kbd512 · 2018-04-28 15:36:09

Rob,

There's a difference between what's achievable in a laboratory with "perfect" examples of the technology in question and functional facsimiles intended for mass manufacturing. There are no shortage of battery technologies that achieve amazing results in a lab, but there's always a catch. The source materials or fabrication processes are absurdly expensive, if the process control isn't incredibly tight and therefore expensive then the technology doesn't perform as intended, or there are simply no available means for mass manufacturing what was created.

The way you described using hub motors is exactly what I had in mind. It's a lot easier and cheaper to mass manufacture hub motors than other types of motors as a function of the quantity of materials involved and the fabrication and machining processes involved. The engine compartment would become the battery compartment to keep the vehicle's mass distribution the same. It wouldn't have the same range as a purpose-built vehicle, but that's not required if swappable batteries are kept at service stations and consumers can subscribe to a service that leases packs on a business model that revolves around time-period limited usage.

For example, you can consume X number of discharge cycles in Y amount of time, after which you either purchase the packs or return them and lease new packs. My hope is that in the future, better battery resource usage models will produce cost-effective conversion kits and services that turn existing conventional vehicles into electric vehicles to drastically speed up the conversion rate.

I firmly believe that scientists and engineers are trying to advance the state-of-the-art in electric power and propulsion at best possible speed, but we have too many gung-ho climate soldiers jumping the gun on what's technically and economically feasible at the present time. Real progress could be much, much faster by implementing the types of concepts that you and I have both been thinking about because it makes the proposition substantially more affordable and more widely applicable.

SpaceNut · 2018-04-28 16:07:35

I have been posting information directed at these last few posts in the Mars Cart topic as I too wanted to build and repair what we would be able to use in terms of a light weight vehicle on mars.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-04-24 10:00:30

Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#2 2018-04-24 11:29:02

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#3 2018-04-24 12:58:53

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#4 2018-04-24 13:23:06

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#5 2018-04-24 18:18:45

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#6 2018-04-24 19:51:54

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#7 2018-04-24 21:30:16

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#8 2018-04-25 03:27:29

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#9 2018-04-25 06:23:35

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#10 2018-04-25 11:05:22

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#11 2018-04-25 13:36:27

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#12 2018-04-25 17:20:50

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#13 2018-04-25 17:30:43

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#14 2018-04-25 17:59:38

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#15 2018-04-25 21:38:55

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#16 2018-04-25 22:37:29

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#17 2018-04-26 04:37:55

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#18 2018-04-26 05:26:41

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#19 2018-04-26 21:04:23

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#20 2018-04-26 22:24:07

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#21 2018-04-27 05:07:52

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#22 2018-04-27 09:41:54

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#23 2018-04-27 12:52:05

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#24 2018-04-28 15:36:09

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

#25 2018-04-28 16:07:35

Re: Elon Musk's Simple 12-minute Killer Break Down on Climate Change

Board footer