Clean Disruption - Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 - Oslo, March 2016

As solar energy costs drop below those of fossil fuels [1], its seems possible that for a few trillion, some kind of sequestration would be possible. One could imagine entire PV farms devoted solely to restoration of the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels, for example. In my opinion, climate change is a problem with an engineering solution. As a side note, the linked reference is a well argued version of the near future of transportation and energy. Highly recommended [1] Clean Disruption - Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 - ▶ this video

Another way to look at it: how big is the global market for gas peaker plants? If current trends continue, solar PV + batteries will be cheaper at some point than any fossil fuel[1], so at that point Telsa energy will begin to consume large chunks of that market. According to this link[2] gas peaker plans were 50% of energy installs in 2013, the best link I could find from a quick search. [1] Interesting talk on this topic: ▶ this video [2] link

There's an excellent talk by Tony Seba at the Nordic Enegy Summit that goes into more depth about how batteries and solar are quite possibly going to reach the tipping point sooner than anyone has been forecasting: ▶ this video

What does this mean for car ownership/insurance companies/auto dealers/mechanics/public transportation/etc? Has anyone seen a roadmap that includes how other industries are affected(disrupted)? Should we think hard about selling our cars now before they are de-valued or become more costly to drive? Clean Disruption - Why Energy & Transportation will be Obsolete by 2030 - Oslo, March 2016 ▶ this video

The question is what happens to _all_ the central power plants once the cost of transmission is more expensive than the cost of generation of solar power. ▶ this video

> Considering how most of his current businesses exist thanks to gov't incentives/tax advantages in the domains, there are legitimate criticisms to the way in which his businesses are run. Many of his Detroit competitors wouldn't exist/would be a shadow of their current selves if it wasn't for a massive bailout in 2008. Why is this never mentioned? If this is how low the bar is set (bailing out large, badly-managed companies) then why shouldn't the government provide incentives for exciting new industries that promise to provide huge wealth and employment in the future? Furthermore, many of Tesla's non-US competitors are given generous subsidies, e.g. German car makers[1] > Offer tax incentives for electric cars, get electric cars. Everyone always mentions this also, what about fossil fuel subsidies (a gigantic, highly-profitable, self sustainable industry)? To tune of $5.3 trillion per year globally[2] You could argue that the loan provided to Tesla (now paid off in full, with interest, ahead of schedule) was just leveling the playing field. What about the devastating human rights impact of backroom dealings with the likes of Saudi Arabia? What is a few hundred million in subsidies compared to cloak and dagger political dealings with with one of the most repressive, backwards regimes on the planet, simply because they are the main oil producer? [3] The funders/supports of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS, provider of most of the 9/11 hijackers, not to mention the same people who