The idea of 'free' energy for purchasing a car which will last significantly longer than your current car could have major long-term economic ramifications which could need to be considered in the long-term.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing these things, it's great, it's innovative and disruptive. But cars that last longer and don't need as much repairs (theoretically) means less being built, less being repaired, less jobs all the way down the line from the manufacture of spare parts to the installation and general maintenance.
There are similar implications for moving from the massively complex oil industry to a much simpler and flexible electric one. Particularly if solar is the chosen source, vs. hydro or nuclear where, I think, more people would be needed in the process.
Lastly, a reduction of spending and resulting taxes (which for fuel are currently huge) would also have mass implications for government.
Maybe we don't label any of these things good/bad. They just are, and will need to be dealt with.
I hope people are looking at these opportunities and the implications for the economy.
Lastly, how do people feel about calling Elon Musk the 'heir to Steve Jobs and the second coming of da Vinci'? To me, he is as different from those two as they are to each other. Prolific and brilliant, absolutely, but Steve Jobs isn't the second coming of Rockafeller, so why the comparisons, and do they fit?
You could say the same things about the internet or about software... that ingraining these technologies into every part of our society could have major long-term economic ramifications that deserve consideration. Even today, the number of low to middle-wage jobs that could still be replaced with software-driven solutions will amount to a huge number of jobs that will no longer be necessary. Agree with you that we shouldn't label these things good or bad - they represent progress. But we shouldn't ignore the likely ramifications of massive shifts like this until society feels the pain.
We can redeploy those resources to other ventures, even if there is some short-to-medium term pain.
That said, yes, the OP was overoptimistic in the short term, but I don't see how he's wrong in the long term as the price comes down for the Model S and renewable energy is deployed more extensively.
The idea of 'free' energy for purchasing a car which will last significantly longer than your current car could have major long-term economic ramifications which could need to be considered in the long-term.
I'm not saying we shouldn't be doing these things, it's great, it's innovative and disruptive. But cars that last longer and don't need as much repairs (theoretically) means less being built, less being repaired, less jobs all the way down the line from the manufacture of spare parts to the installation and general maintenance. There are similar implications for moving from the massively complex oil industry to a much simpler and flexible electric one. Particularly if solar is the chosen source, vs. hydro or nuclear where, I think, more people would be needed in the process.
Lastly, a reduction of spending and resulting taxes (which for fuel are currently huge) would also have mass implications for government.
Maybe we don't label any of these things good/bad. They just are, and will need to be dealt with.
I hope people are looking at these opportunities and the implications for the economy.
Lastly, how do people feel about calling Elon Musk the 'heir to Steve Jobs and the second coming of da Vinci'? To me, he is as different from those two as they are to each other. Prolific and brilliant, absolutely, but Steve Jobs isn't the second coming of Rockafeller, so why the comparisons, and do they fit?