Connect with us

News

Why Musk is supporting former Exxon Mobil CEO for Secretary of State

Published

on

President Donald Trump greets Wendell P. Weeks, right, Chief Executive Officer of Corning, as he host breakfast with business leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington, Monday, Jan. 23, 2017. On the left of is Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX and Tesla Motors. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Elon Musk shocked social media when he tweeted an endorsement of Rex Tillerson as the next US Secretary of State on Tuesday. Musk has a few good things to say about Donald Trump leading up to his Presidency and Trump’s choice of the former CEO of Exxon Mobil seems to be a slap in the face to anybody who is concerned about global warming and the role fossil fuels have played in it.

Exxon Mobil is currently being investigated by the attorneys general of the New York and Massachusetts. Both contend the company knew of the harm that burning fossil fuels could do to the environment 40 years ago but elected to spend billions funding special interest groups to oppose the climate change message being put forth by James Hansen, The Union of Concerned Scientists, and others.

Weaning the world off fossil fuels is one of the central themes of Elon Musk’s plan to build compelling electric cars and promote solar power. What could he possibly find appealing about the CEO of the largest oil company in the world?

Yesterday, The Economist endorsed Tillerson and Musk tweeted shortly afterwards that he agreed with The Economist.

Advertisement
-

Musk added, “Rex is an exceptionally competent executive, understands geopolitics and knows how to win for his team. His team is now the USA. I share The Economist’s opinion that he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless his actions prove otherwise.

Has Elon deserted his loyal fans who tend to be rather more ecologically aware than the norm? Apparently not. Later in the day, he revealed the reason why he supports Tillerson for Secretary of State.

Musk is betting that Tillerson will be able to influence Donald Trump to accept a carbon tax, something Musk has been advocating for since he first joined Tesla Motors. It is a way to eliminate what economists refer to as an “untaxed externality,” something that is a cost of doing business that is not incorporated into the price of finished goods.

Musk delicately refers to the fact that fossil fuel companies largely avoid paying the environmental and societal costs of their activities  as “the turd in the punchbowl.” During the COP21 Paris climate summit, he made a compelling case for a carbon tax to a distinguished audience at the Sorbonne. In Tillerson, he seems to believe he has an important ally.

Advertisement
-

Musk has also been present at a number of meetings with Donald Trump, leading some to question whether his apparent support for the new President could alienate some of Musk’s traditional supporters. Until now, Musk and Tesla have been careful not to become embroiled in the divisive political storm that is roiling America.

Treading carefully between the needs of his businesses, the needs of his customers, and the policies of the new government may be one of the toughest challenges Musk has ever faced. Uber, for instance, has suffered a backlash from people incensed that CEO Travis Kalanik has accepted an appointment to one of Trump’s policy forums for business leaders. Musk is also a member of the same forum, but so far there has been no political backlash against Musk and Tesla.

Tesla is doing what Trump wants other car companies to do — build more American factories that employ American workers. But SpaceX is dependent on NASA for a significant portion of its future income. Of all Musk’s business ventures, it can least afford to alienate the current occupant of the Oval Office.

Musk may have made a carefully calibrated political calculation with regard to his working arrangements with the administration, but his support for and trust in Rex Tillerson seems to be grounded in the belief that a carbon tax is vital step to the fight to limit the damage from the consumption of fossil fuels. Unless and until he does something to break that trust, Tillerson and Musk will remain what Washington watchers for decades have called “strange bedfellows.”

"I write about technology and the coming zero emissions revolution."

Advertisement
Comments

News

Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile are trying to shut Starlink out before FCC vote

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile want 290 MHz cut from an FCC satellite plan before Thursday.

Published

on

By

Starlink D2D direct to device vs Verizon, AT&T (Concept render by Grok)

AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are asking the Federal Communications Commission to pull nearly 300 MHz of spectrum out of a proposal that would let satellite companies like SpaceX offer cell service directly to ordinary phones. The request lands one day before the agency votes on it.

The FCC will vote Thursday, October 29, on a notice of proposed rulemaking that would make an additional 482 MHz available for direct to device service, expanding the number of eligible bands from five to 13, according to the FCC fact sheet. It would also scrap the rule requiring a satellite operator to lease spectrum from carriers, replacing it with a certification that the operator has coexistence agreements in place or holds the terrestrial license itself.

That second path matters for SpaceX. As Teslarati reported earlier this month, SpaceX agreed to buy Grain Management’s nationwide 800 MHz portfolio to turn Starlink Mobile into a full US carrier, adding to the spectrum it already bought from EchoStar.

The carriers want two bands removed, 2.5 GHz and 3.45 GHz, which make up 290 MHz of the 482 MHz on the table. Through industry group CTIA, they argued that about 300 million users depend on those bands and that satellite operations in them are not technically feasible. T-Mobile, which calls 2.5 GHz the foundation of its Ultra Capacity 5G network, said in its own filing that satellite interference could wipe out up to 96% of a cell site’s uplink coverage area and cut uplink speeds by 88% to 99%.

Executives from all three carriers met with FCC staff on October 20, and T-Mobile CEO Srini Gopalan met separately with FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. T-Mobile’s role stands out because it is still SpaceX’s US launch partner for Starlink Mobile. The three carriers have also teamed up on their own satellite joint venture to pool spectrum, a move widely seen as a response to Starlink.

Advertisement
-

SpaceX is asking for the opposite. In an October 23 filing after meetings with FCC staff and commissioners’ offices, the company asked regulators to add the 902 to 928 MHz band to the proposal. “Doing so now saves time later,” SpaceX wrote. The company also asked the FCC to modernize interference rules and align satellite deployment requirements with those for terrestrial cell networks, saying the goal is to let satellite and ground networks work together so Americans stay connected wherever they are.

The carriers have not been shy about how they view SpaceX as a competitor. On Verizon’s third quarter earnings call Monday, its chief executive said Starlink Mobile “just can’t compete with a terrestrial network” and estimated SpaceX would need four to six years and $300 billion to $500 billion to build a full US carrier network.

Thursday’s vote will not settle which bands survive. Adopting the notice opens a public comment period, with final rules to come later in the proceeding. The FCC already considered and rejected 2.5 GHz for satellite coverage once, in 2024. SpaceX also is not the only satellite player watching: the FCC approved Amazon’s $11.6 billion acquisition of Globalstar on October 27, giving its planned direct to device fleet its own mobile satellite spectrum.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla Semi catches fire in California: what we know

Published

on

Credit: KTVU

A Tesla Semi caught fire in Hayward, California, which caused both directions of traffic to shut down for hours before being completely reopened early on Wednesday, the California Highway Patrol said.

The fire occurred just after 5:30 local time in Hayward on Tuesday, as the Semi caught fire in the southbound lanes of I-880 before CHP officials made the decision to shut down both lanes of traffic due to potential risks from hazardous chemical smoke.

There were no injuries reported.

The cause of the fire is currently unknown, as neither Tesla nor the CHP have not determined a cause.

However, some images taken before the Semi was completely destroyed by the fire seem to indicate this might have been an older unit, as it appears to be one of the designs that Tesla shipped as part of its pilot program, before revising it and starting mass production just a month ago.

At the time of publication, CHP had not returned our request for a comment for additional details, including the Semi involved and any potential collaboration on an investigation between the CHP and Tesla. We will update this story when we hear back from them.

The southbound lanes were reopened at 3:30 a.m. on Wednesday, with the northbound lanes opening last night a few hours after the fire began. The CHP did state that the lithium batteries were “incredibly difficult to extinguish,” according to NBC Bay Area.

The truck’s driver said that the Semi caught fire, but he did not have an explanation.

An estimated 5,000 to 7,000 semi-truck and large commercial vehicle fires occur on U.S. roadways every year.

Continue Reading

News

Tesla’s ‘Emergency Drive Away’ function gets its first use in the real world

Published

on

Credit: Tesla

Tesla’s launch of the “Emergency Drive Away” function a few months back offered owners a safe option to evacuate an area if they were in reasonable danger. The function finally got its first use in the real world, but it appears it was by mistake.

A video shared by u/Joshalander in the r/TeslaLounge subreddit recorded the instance from his vehicle and said the incident took place in Austin this past weekend during the city’s F1 Race.

“Was charging around 6 AM this past Sunday in Austin before heading to the F1 race and heard a pop. Looked over and saw the new emergency drive-away feature in action. Genuinely felt bad for the dude when he got out and realized what happened, since he looked exhausted and only seemed to half-read the prompts.”

Emergency Drive Away unlatches the Supercharger connector from the vehicle, but still causes damage to both the car and the Supercharger. Tesla has said that it will cost up to $25,000 in repairs to have everything fixed back to normal.

Additionally, the company said that if it were not used in an emergency situation, the driver of the vehicle who activated the Emergency Drive Away feature would be responsible for all repair costs.

Tesla constitutes the following situations as reasonable justifications for activating the feature:

  • You face an immediate threat to your life or personal safety.
  • You must leave the area immediately.
  • Exiting the vehicle is unsafe.
  • Unplugging the charge connector would unreasonably delay your departure or expose you to a risk to your personal safety.

After using the feature, Tesla requires the driver to schedule Service so the car can be inspected.

Continue Reading