Just this one except from this article is so bad. Can't imagine what the whole thing must be like.

No, it's a genius marketing move to get citizens, but mainly corporations to do the dirty work of building our energy storage infrastructures to the point to where renewable energy at a national scale begins to make sense. At that point, fossil fuel will change its game in a hurry.

Agree. Hopefully though, the future of energy storage isn't nearly as taxing on the earth.

Until the fossil fuel subsidies start rolling the other way. Which will happen when a better storage grid is in place, and we have a more serious talk about climate change.

The serious talk on climate change will never happen because one side is more akin to a Doomsday cult rather then a serious rational discussion.

Also, the "subsidies" for fossil fuels pale in comparison to the actual subsidies for solar and wind.

Maybe not in Omaha, but out here in the Pacific it certainly is. I know people that generate more solar than they use, year round, day in day out. If they could store it easily to use at night they wouldn't need to be on the grid at all. Which would be good because the electric company charges them $50 a month even if they don't use any from the grid (freakin crooks).

Couple that with the fact that we have the most expensive electricity in the country (by a lot - more than double the next most expensive state) and you can save a substantial amount of money with solar. A friend went from $800 a month to the $50 monthly fee using solar. It also helps to get us off of foreign oil, since 90% of our electricity comes from oil burning generators.

It can also be cost effective in SoCal, the southwest and the south, a pretty good chunk of the country.

I hope that people like you who aren't currently benefiting from solar don't kill it for the people that are.

All the rich people like me already have them. What are you waiting on? :D

That is Hawaii which gets screwed by the Jones Act making everything much more expensive. Again, the government making things much more expensive then they need to be.

another of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's many big ideas could be reaching an important stage
 

California Test Track For Elon Musk's Hyperloop To Be Built
By Stephen Edelstein
27,603 viewsMay 18, 2015

http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00436610_m.jpg
Concept drawings for Elon Musk’s 800-mph HyperloopConcept drawings for Elon Musk’s 800-mph Hyperloop

Tesla's Powerwall home batteries have grabbed headlines recently, but another of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's many big ideas could be reaching an important stage in its development.

That would be the "Hyperloop," a system of tubes and windowless pods that's unlike any current form of mass transportation.

Elon Musk first proposed the Hyperloop in the summer of 2013, and since then a private company has been working to develop his concept into a functioning transportation system.

Hyperloop Transportation Technologies--the company that has taken charge of Hyperloop development, independent of Musk--has made a deal with landowners in central California on a site for its first test track.

The track will span 5 miles near the busy Interstate 5 highway somewhere between San Francisco and Los Angeles, according to a recent Navigant Research blog post.

In his initial 57-page white paper describing the concept, Musk boasted that a Hyperloop would allow travel between those two cities in just 30 minutes, in pods propelled through tubes using a combination of magnets and fans.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00436613_m.jpg
Concept drawings for Elon Musk’s 800-mph HyperloopConcept drawings for Elon Musk’s 800-mph Hyperloop

Musk originally called for a top speed of 800 mph, but tests will be conducted at a more modest 200 mph.

One reason for that is that engineers won't have the 100 miles of track Musk estimated would be needed for a pod to accelerate to 800 mph.

The test track--which is expected to break ground in 2016--will cost about $100 million. Most of that funding is expected to come from an initial public offering by Hyperloop Transportation Technologies later this year.

Construction of a full-scale system covering the 400 miles between San Francisco and Los Angeles would cost around $8 billion, Navigant estimates--assuming the cost of track and pods don't increase.

That's substantially less than the $67.6 billion price tag estimated for California's planned high-speed rail system by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

However, the $8 billion figure doesn't factor in development costs--which could be quite high.

http://images.thecarconnection.com/m...00347941_m.jpg
'Revenge of the Electric Car' premiere: Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk on red carpet'Revenge of the Electric Car' premiere: Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk on red carpet

As a completely new form of transportation, the Hyperloop can't lean on existing infrastructure or industries to speed development. It all must be made from scratch.

That's what has largely blocked widespread development of maglev ("magnetic levitation") trains--which are propelled by magnetic forces.

Like the Hyperloop, maglev was intended to move large numbers of people quickly. Both also seem to be pitched as replacements for conventional wheeled trains.

There are also more than a few questions remaining on the issue of whether shooting people through a tube at 800 mph will actually be practical.

Hyperloop concept - Image via Hyperloop Transportation TechnologiesHyperloop concept - Image via Hyperloop Transportation Technologies
Some measures may need to be taken to counteract the effects of acceleration. Either that, or a vomit-proof material must be devised for the interiors of the pods.

It's also unclear whether the Hyperloop's planned solar-generated electic power system will be able to provide enough energy consistently to run the system.

But if the development company's plans pan out, we should get some answers sooner rather than later.

:clap:

In case anyone's interested, the biography of Elon came out today:
http://www.amazon.com/Elon-Musk-Spac...dp/0062301233/

Read the article; funny...vote went 83-5 with no debate. The Oklahoma legislature has 83 republicans in office...and none of the 5 democrats wanted to debate the bill? Also, from what I read, it has all the dressing of what liberals want; sharing of wealth...taking from those who could afford solar panels and sharing with those who could not.

What?