It’s worth watching because in a quarter of an hour Musk highlights Tesla’s commitment to an energy transition that will save us as a species, and that is going to happen anyway, simply due to competition, efficiency and the markets. A series of undeniable truths on which the company has promised a detailed white paper, but which is not really necessary except to see the details of the assumptions it has made for its numbers.

Enrique

I should start by saying that I&rsquo;m not a Tesla investor &mdash; or maybe I am, I don&rsquo;t know. My investments have been managed through <a href="https://indexacapital.com/t/Dfh3z8">an index fund</a> for a long time now, not only because it seems to me the best way to get consistent long-term returns (lest we forget, as a Nobel prize demonstrated, <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2014/09/22/a-nobel-prize-laureates-winning-investment-formula/">nobody beats the market</a>), but also because it saves me from having to disclose whether or not I invest in the companies I write about.
In any event, I&rsquo;m not going to write about whether the 2023 Tesla Investor Day was <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/1/23621020/tesla-investor-day-announcement-news-master-plan-elon-musk-updates-highlights">good or bad</a> for the company, whether <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/03/01/tesla-elon-musk-investor-day/">its stock went up or down</a>, or whether there was <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/01/tesla-2023-investor-day-after-the-bell-master-plan-part-3-teased.html">a lack of clarity</a> about its stated targets. Analysts&rsquo; reactions, frankly, bore me, mostly because I don&rsquo;t believe the vast majority of them are smart enough to understand the magnitude of what happened. If you want to see for yourself, I recommend <a href="https://youtu.be/eIQ20RvhUhg">a condensed video of the event</a>, the first third is relevant, from the beginning to minute 14:20. I really recommend watching that quarter of an hour, and not because Elon Musk is a good speaker; in fact, he is terrible.
It&rsquo;s worth watching because in a quarter of an hour Musk highlights Tesla&rsquo;s commitment to an energy transition that will save us as a species, and that is going to happen anyway, simply due to competition, efficiency and the markets. A series of undeniable truths on which the company has promised a detailed white paper, but which is not really necessary except to see the details of the assumptions it has made for its numbers.
But in practice, both the numbers and assumptions are unnecessary, because we are talking about something as simple as the laws of physics. Things that I have been explaining for years in my classes, and that are now available in a presentation (bad, but a presentation nevertheless&hellip; I promise I&rsquo;ll improve it :-) For now, here&rsquo;s a list of points that can be digested easily. But remember: these are not up for discussion.
<ol>
<li>First and fundamental point: we can now generate enough energy on the planet to support not just the current population of eight billion, but a much higher number. We can argue about the pros and cons of growth, but we could, hypothetically, grow much more sustainably on this planet.</li>
<li>Of course, that means moving from our current energy model, which is absurdly dirty and inefficient and in which 80% of energy comes from fossil fuels, to a radically different one.</li>
<li>Why is our current model dirty and inefficient? Very simple: because it is based on burning fossil fuels. And as we now know beyond any doubt, combustion is a disaster energetically speaking. Only one third of the energy ends up being used as a useful source of movement or heat, and the remaining two thirds are wasted.</li>
<li>This is one of the most important truths to understand above all else, and is thermodynamics: in your internal combustion car, only 20% of the energy from the gasoline is converted into motion. The rest is wasted as heat, completely useless. And to that you would have to add the energy needed to extract the oil, refine it, convert it into diesel or gasoline, and send it halfway around the world.</li>
<li>In a thermal power plant or a blast furnace, the equation is different, but even so, a lot of energy is still wasted &mdash; in addition, of course, to generating the emissions that have caused the climate emergency. That&rsquo;s the big difference between a combustion-based economy versus an electricity-based one.</li>
<li>Anyone who assumes that we are going to need the same amount of energy if we change our energy model in order to decarbonize is wrong. We will need much less. It sounds counter-intuitive, I know: people think that if we all drive electric vehicles, we will need much more energy&hellip; well, it&rsquo;s not true. It&rsquo;s a matter of efficiency: electricity is far more efficient than burning fossil fuels. In fact, the total energy needed for a renewable energy-based civilization would be about half as much, and that&rsquo;s a very conservative assumption. Half. Remember that.</li>
<li>Governments around the world are already building the renewable infrastructure needed to fully supply our planet&rsquo;s energy needs, including the batteries for when the sun doesn&rsquo;t shine or the wind doesn&rsquo;t blow. They are doing it not because Elon says so, but because they know it is the most cost-effective energy. We&rsquo;re seeing 60% year-on-year growth in some countries; in time for you to see it, not your children or grandchildren. Unless you die very quickly, you are going to see a world powered almost entirely by renewable energy. Repeat it slowly, because it is not the message you have usually received. But it is, and it is because the market and costs say so.</li>
<li>The investment in solar farms, wind farms and batteries needed to supply us with all the energy we need, heavily oversized, is equivalent to about $10 trillion. That&rsquo;s approximately 10% of the world&rsquo;s GDP. If you spread that investment over ten years, we are talking about 1% of global GDP per year. But the question is not whether we are going to do it or not: it is that we are already doing it. It may be Putin&rsquo;s fault, or fear, or the price of gas, but it is already happening.</li>
<li>How much surface area is needed for so many solar panels and wind turbines? Only 0.2% of the world&rsquo;s surface. That&rsquo;s not small, but it is perfectly feasible, and above all, much less than what the current generation infrastructures occupy in the combustion economy. Again: efficiency, the key word. No, electricity is not a religion, nor have we been affected by the neo-conversion rage: it is thermodynamics. If you don&rsquo;t understand it, read a book.</li>
<li>And where do we get the minerals, lithium, rare earths and the rest? We will need far fewer mines than we currently exploit. Fewer, not more. And there are enough resources. In fact, there are plenty. The more we look for them, the more they appear and the more we realize how wrong the forecasts of just a few years ago were. You can read what you want about the &ldquo;terrible shortage&rdquo; of many things, but&hellip; they are lies. And dirty, self-serving lies at that.</li>
<li>What is to be done? Well, apply this to the five areas that use the most energy. One, the generation of energy itself: solar panels, wind turbines and batteries. Two, automotive: electric cars, four times more efficient &mdash; with all possible factors included. Three, heating: heat pumps. Four, industrial uses, including the use of green hydrogen. And five, sustainable fuels for large ships and transoceanic aircraft, at least as long as the density of batteries does not yet make their use practical (a substitution that will eventually happen).</li>
<li>It can be done. And in fact, it is being done. The reason why <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/do-the-latest-emissions-figures-suggest-were-finally-taking-climate-change-seriously-6db24067e18f?sk=89a46b7bbf2e891087ae69116f1a74a4">the discussion about the climate emergency is beginning to change</a> is because of the realization that the economy that replaces a fossil-fuel based one is much more efficient, and therefore can be done with far fewer resources. This is something that the countries that have understood this are already doing through all kinds of incentives, but also through investment by those who see this as an economic advantage.</li>
<li>The rest of the presentation up to minute 14:20 are more detailed explanations (very little more detailed, because it is just a presentation, not a doctoral dissertation) on these points. And from there, &ldquo;Tesla stuff&rdquo;, which may or may not interest you, about its economies of scale, its gains in efficiency or how it intends to lower its costs to manufacture cheaper models (of which it does not give any details, so don&rsquo;t waste your time).</li>
</ol>
But the first part is really worth it. Because it&rsquo;s real, because it&rsquo;s based on arguments as solid and as beyond doubt as physics, and because nothing, nothing else you can think of, is going to be more relevant to your future. And everyone else&rsquo;s. Seriously: it&rsquo;s not about selling anything, much less a Tesla. It&rsquo;s about understanding why some of us have been so enthusiastic about this project for a long time, and why, no matter whether you love or loathe Elon Musk&hellip; he&rsquo;s right about the future of energy.
This article is also published on the&nbsp;<a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/heres-what-s-important-about-tesla-investor-day-1e472d8b0abf">author's blog</a>. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h6>Photo by <a href="https://unsplash.com/@paulsteuber?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Paul Steuber</a> on <a href="https://unsplash.com/photos/huV0Jexsi3o?utm_source=unsplash&amp;utm_medium=referral&amp;utm_content=creditCopyText">Unsplash</a>​</h6>

Here’s what’s important about Tesla Investor Day

The world is already seeing impacts on the amount of emission as a result of the widespread adoption of renewable energies and the increasing popularization of electric vehicles.

A recent <a href="https://www.iea.org/news/defying-expectations-co2-emissions-from-global-fossil-fuel-combustion-are-set-to-grow-in-2022-by-only-a-fraction-of-last-year-s-big-increase">report</a> from the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Energy_Agency">International Energy Agency</a> says <a href="https://gizmodo.com/renewables-are-holding-back-the-emissions-tide-1849682588">global emissions targets for this year will increase by 1%, compared to 2021’s 6%</a>, and that this is mainly due to the widespread adoption of renewable energies and the increasing popularization of electric vehicles.
The news provides hope with respect to humanity’s decarbonization goals: last year was a disaster, with a post-pandemic recovery from the lockdowns and cutbacks of 2020 leading to much higher energy needs, which in many cases were obtained through coal-fired plants, <a href="https://www.iea.org/news/global-co2-emissions-rebounded-to-their-highest-level-in-history-in-2021">producing more than two billion tons of carbon emissions, the largest annual increase in absolute terms in history</a>. In <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/wind-solar-electricity-global-energy">2021, renewables made up 10% of total power generation</a>, a record, but clearly still insufficient.
This year’s slowdown comes despite being in the midst of a global energy crisis triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and soaring oil and gas prices. The reason is that the increase in energy demand is not being offset by coal, diesel and gas consumption, but by growing renewable energy installations: tensions with Russia have focused minds on achieving higher levels of energy independence, specifically onshore and offshore wind farms, and on the other hand, solar power farms and solar home installations, which result in lower stresses on the generation fabric.
While solar and wind power make up the bulk of the gap in demand, the small increase in coal consumption in some countries is clearly a cyclical issue, especially given the lack of interest generated by such a high-cost energy in the face of <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth">increasingly cheaper renewables</a>. Since 2020, renewables have been <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-a-warming-planet/renewable-energy-is-suddenly-startlingly-cheap">by far</a> the <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/renewables-cheapest-energy-source/">cheapest form of power generation</a>.
This year, the capacity contributed by new renewable energy installations reached a total of 700 TwH, representing savings in emissions of more than 600 million tons of carbon dioxide. Growth in solar and wind accounted for two-thirds of new renewable capacity, while hydropower, having a bad year due to major droughts around the world, offset the remaining third. In the United States alone, <a href="https://electrek.co/2022/08/25/us-renewables-first-half-2022/">renewables contributed 25% of the total in the first half of the year</a>, and accounted for <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2022/09/19/solar-wind-power-71-of-new-us-power-in-2022-january-july/">71% of new power installations between January and July</a>.
It is time for truth, to <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/renewable-energy-net-zero-faster">put an end</a> to <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/03/renewable-energy-myths-debunked">myths</a> that have been <a href="https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked">peddled for too long</a>, and to understand that <a href="https://gizmodo.com/5-graphs-that-show-the-world-is-in-the-midst-of-a-renew-1848150915">the world is in the midst of an unstoppable renewable energy revolution</a>: by 2026, 95% of the increase in installed capacity will come from renewable energies. Theoretically, <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2021/04/10/47-scientists-world-should-go-100-renewable-electricity-by-2030/">the planet could be able to supply itself 100% with renewable electricity by 2030</a>, and to do so with <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewables-grid-is-well-within-reach-and-with-little-storage/">much lower storage requirements than initially anticipated</a>. Germany aims to <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/germany-aims-get-100-energy-renewable-sources-by-2035-2022-02-28/">achieve this by 2035</a>, and many other countries are also aiming for similar targets. But beyond the climate emergency goals, we now also know that moving away from fossil fuels is something that <a href="https://mymodernmet.com/100-renewable-energy">could realistically be done and earn back its investments in as little as six years</a>, generating <a href="https://singularityhub.com/2022/09/19/decarbonizing-the-energy-sector-by-2050-could-save-the-world-12-trillion/">global savings of $12 trillion</a>.
Decarbonization is an urgent need, but we now also know that it is possible and that we are on the right track. We just need to understand the gravity of the situation, to imagine a world without the smoke of fossil fuels in the air… and to take the necessary steps to achieve that faster and faster. We can do it.
This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/renewables-are-reducing-emissions-so-lets-ramp-up-the-pace-of-change-793e03bd6db1">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Renewables are reducing emissions, so let’s ramp up the pace of change

The current energy scenario is the closest thing to a war we have experienced for a very long time. And what’s worse: the consequences of what happens in that war are far more important to everyone than those of any other kind of conflict we are currently experiencing — assuming nuclear weapons don’t come into play.

The current energy scenario is the closest thing to a war we have experienced for a very long time. And what’s worse: the consequences of what happens in that war are far more important to everyone than those of any other kind of conflict we are currently experiencing — assuming nuclear weapons don’t come into play.
What is going on, and why can we label it as anything less than “war”? What we are experiencing is a balance of power between energy generating and distributing companies that want to make as much money as possible, countries that are willing to sacrifice the planet’s environmental objectives in exchange for brief temporary relief, and others who want to modify the entire system so as to address our real problems.
Let’s start at the beginning: <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/07/22/global-energy-crisis-natural-gas-fuel-shortage-power-cut/">Europe’s energy problem is a global one</a>. In Europe we tend to blame the unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine by Russia and the blackmail that an autocrat like Putin intends to exercise with gas prices, but the reality is that we are living through the forced transition of the entire energy system from one based on fossil fuels, and that we now know for sure (except for a noisy minority of stupid deniers) was unsustainable, to <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9837910">one based entirely on renewable energies, something scientifically demonstrated to be completely feasible</a>.
Nobody should doubt that this transition must take place as soon as possible. The evidence is increasingly clear: we are heading towards climate instability that is already threatening the survival of millions of people, and will soon make life impossible on this planet. The problem is, obviously, how to carry out this transition, and above all, on what timescale. During the last few years, the strategy was clear: an auction system that sets energy prices at the highest production cost. <a href="https://eand.co/this-is-why-your-energy-bills-are-going-through-the-roof-cc99e2a59d12">The reason</a>? Because companies, faced with such a system, would choose to produce as much energy as possible at the cheapest rate, with the incentive of being able to charge it at the most expensive prices. Essentially a carrot approach: “behave yourself, invest in renewables, and I will pay you what you produce at a much more expensive price”.
Problems? A pretty obvious one: greed. Energy is a very special industry: there are few players, they’ve sold everything they produce, and consumers do not have the option of not consuming. With few exceptions, electricity companies have made efforts to lower their costs by investing in renewables, but without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, the gas and coal-fired plants that really set the price. These generation costs make no sense to anyone… except for the electricity companies, which use them to set the price of the total energy produced and make a lot of money.
<a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/why-europes-energy-market-needs-reform-now-f1e838366add?sk=a5862743ec97268618bfd16f785bf831">The system is a failure, and needs replacing, urgently</a>. But then, of course, a war broke out. The price of gas went through the roof, and the speculators in the energy market made a fortune. <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/uk-predicts-up-to-170-billion-excess-profits-for-energy-firms">For the shareholders of the electricity companies, the best of all possible scenarios</a>. But for the rest of us, a nightmare. And for the planet, if we try to fix the problem with short-term solutions, another nail in the coffin.
The response has been to return to coal, subsidizing prices, easing gas taxes, or even lowering the price of carbon dioxide emissions, as Poland is demanding. These short-term solutions may lower our electricity bills… but they go in exactly the opposite direction of what we need: they lead us, precisely, to consume more of what is destroying our planet, at an increasingly evident speed. But as we know, human beings, and especially politicians, are bad at seeing cause and effect and tend to worry only about what happens during their term of office.
Is there another way to prevent millions of households from falling into energy poverty this winter? Yes. Implementing a strategic vision: if the energy market is broken, and condemns us to energy poverty while boosting the profits of electricity companies that are in no hurry to decarbonize, <a href="https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/france-leads-the-way-in-reforming-absurd-energy-market/">the evidence is that we are doing everything backwards, and that we have to change it as quickly as possible</a>, even retroactively if possible.
How? Very simple: if the carrot has not worked, let’s move on to the stick. From now on, the price of energy will be determined by the average price of the most efficient production systems, i.e.: hydroelectric, solar and wind. Suppliers who provide gas, coal or nuclear power will be paid at the price of renewable energy. And if these companies continue to run expensive power plants, they will eventually go out of business. All this, moreover, taking into account that it will not be enough to invest in renewables: suppliers will also have to invest in storage systems — batteries, reversible power plants, green hydrogen, etc..
The immediate result will be cheaper electricity prices. Much cheaper. Electricity companies will see their profits reduced, but that’s the way it is: they had time to prepare, and decided not to: a strategic mistake they will have to pay the price for. And in the medium and long term, there will be a huge increase in investment in renewables and storage, which governments will be able to encourage, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/16/business/biden-climate-tax-inflation-reduction.html">as the United States and some other countries are doing</a>.
Will the electricity companies protest? Of course they will. They will file complaints, threaten to stop investing or cut off supply, and who knows what else. All of them will do so. However, some, particularly those that have invested most heavily in renewables, will become leaders, and will have a strategic opportunity: in sectors in which there are rapid regulatory changes of this type, opportunities arise in very interesting ways. For those that don’t, governments will have to decide whether to force those who produce such a basic necessity as energy to work for the good of all and of the planet, or to decide that, since they are not up to the task, they should opt for nationalization, a last resort. Let’s remember: we are not facing “global warming”, we’re facing a CLIMATE EMERGENCY. And emergencies require emergency solutions, not hot air and short-termism.
This is war: one of the most important and powerful lobbies in the world, the electricity industry, against the world. Against the whole world, even against themselves, but they don’t care about that: all they want is to close the quarter with profits and take their bonus. If we choose to lower carbon dioxide prices, subsidize gas or other short-term solutions, we will be destroying any chance of saving the planet in time. If, on the other hand, we change from carrot to stick, we still have a chance.
The option is there, what are we going to do with it?
This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/the-real-war-is-being-waged-by-the-energy-companies-against-the-world-6fa512590b12">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

The real war is being waged by the energy companies against the world

The phrase that headlines this column was how UN Secretary General António Guterres defined the dilemma facing humanity in the current situation, during the Petersberg Climate Dialog.
Guterres is not exaggerating, and to understand this, one only has to look around. 

The phrase that headlines this column was how UN Secretary General <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_Guterres">António Guterres</a> defined the dilemma facing humanity in the current situation, during the <a href="https://unric.org/en/petersberg-climate-dialogue-starting-signal-for-un-climate-negotiations/">Petersberg Climate Dialog</a>.
<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/18/guterres-warns-against-climate-suicide-as-heat-wave-grips-europe.html">Guterres is not exaggerating</a>, and to understand this, one only has to look around. <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90770137/heatwave-europe-maps-show-historic-hot-weather-in-uk-france-and-across-the-continent">Heat waves are multiplying</a> in <a href="https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/18/23268332/uk-heatwave-europe-extreme-weather-forecast">frequency and intensity</a>: in just a few years, we have gone from news of heat waves being greeted with <a href="https://twitter.com/aidanweather/status/1548603406541111297">sarcastic comments</a> such as “yes, it’s called summer”, to <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/08/hurricanes-wildfires-heat-waves-names-categories">them being given names, like hurricanes</a>, with equally destructive effects. And these heat waves are the product of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement">the agreements we signed</a> to try to maintain the global temperature below 1.5ºC… <a href="https://twitter.com/JamesGDyke/status/1548638641408610304">we are now on course to at least double that</a>.
Heat waves are not only a risk for the poor and the vulnerable, they also generate forest fires, which make things worse by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While some people think that a heat wave can be avoided by turning on the air conditioning, the reality is that in northern Spain, for example, or in the United Kingdom, currently suffering record high temperatures, only 5% of homes are equipped with air conditioning, because they simply have never needed it.
In India, Pakistan or Bangladesh, the problem isn’t just that people are too poor to buy air conditioning units, in many areas they don’t even have mains electricity. At some point in the not too distant future, we will be made all-too aware of the calamity facing us when some heat wave results in thousands of deaths in some particularly vulnerable place.
To quote Guterres again, half of humanity lives in areas at risk of flooding, extreme drought, extreme weather events or forest fires. Yet <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/fossil-fuels-dirty-to-use-dirty-to-transport-352ad18f440c?sk=d43e51fad0914e64ea668107803950b2">we continue to feed our addiction to fossil fuels</a>, which is what has created the mess we’re in. The scientific community agrees: the climate emergency exists, it is taking place much faster than expected, and it is exclusively due to human action derived from the constant burning of fossil fuels, not to any kind of geological drift or sun spots.
Guterres, who recently appeared on the cover of Time on the shores of Tuvalu, impeccably dressed in a suit but with the water above his knees, could not be more right. <a href="https://time.com/5602482/antonio-guterres-climate-change-united-nations-summit/">The only way out of the vicious circle we are in is through collective action</a>, possibly by giving far more powers to supranational organizations such as the one he presides over. Managing the planet with 195 nations each claiming to defend its own interests is like trying to herd cats: each country justifies its actions, whether continuing to build coal-fired power plants, extracting more oil, or reclassifying gas or nuclear energy as sustainable sources.
The reality is that we’ve been lying to ourselves for more than a generation. If nations refuse to make commitments for the common good of the planet, as individuals we’re even worse, and oppose anything that might diminish what we perceive as “quality of life”, refusing to look beyond today at <a href="https://eand.co/this-isnt-climate-change-anymore-it-s-climate-suicide-813f854dc3a6">the apocalypse we’re collectively creating</a>.
Even as forest fires rage around the world, forcing thousands of people to flee their homes we’re still lying to ourselves: no matter how many arsonists there are, which there are, and no matter how much we clear the forests of undergrowth, which is not a bad idea, the real reason huge areas of the planet will soon be uninhabitable is because we drive cars, consume non-renewable energy, and refuse to abandon our unsustainable lifestyle.
We are paying for it with death, destruction, desolation and homelessness. If we continue in the same old way, without making any drastic or radical changes to our way of life, we will be heading for collective suicide, and not, as we used to say only a few years ago, “for our grandchildren or great-grandchildren”, but for ourselves, in the course of our remaining lifetime. Disasters of such frequency and intensity as we have never known before.
Either we take <a href="https://www.axios.com/2022/06/08/hurricanes-wildfires-heat-waves-names-categories">drastic and collective action</a> as soon as possible, with truly drastic commitments that many are unwilling to make, or we commit collective suicide. Those are the options.
This article is also published on the <a href="https://medium.com/enrique-dans/collective-action-or-collective-suicide-which-is-it-to-be-40ca7d2dd32">author&#x27;s blog</a>. Illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Enrique Dans

Enrique Dans

Here’s what’s important about Tesla Investor Day

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?