A proposal with visible assumptions
Tesla’s Master Plan Part 3, published in April 2023, proposed a path toward a sustainable global energy economy through electrification, electricity generation and storage. The company published its assumptions and calculations, together with the US demand profiles used in its model. It is a proposal to examine, rather than proof that the transition has already happened. Read Tesla’s plan and supporting material.
Elon Musk and Tesla are familiar references for the ambition to expand productive capacity. RootKnow is interested in the next question: what has to change so that additional capacity reaches ordinary people and businesses?
A projection makes the conditions visible
A projection describes a possible future and the conditions it depends on. It can show what changes for each participant, which contribution is missing and what would count as evidence. Changing a condition changes the possible future. It does not make that future happen.
Available energy could become usable power.
Generation is available during the day. The bakery needs its ovens before dawn.
Schedule work around unreliable supply.
Extra daytime generation does not, by itself, power the ovens when the bakery needs them.
Run ovens when the business needs them.
Storage could shift supply to the working hours, if capacity, price and installation make the arrangement viable.
Measure power availability, cost and bakery output during the agreed working hours.
Capacity becomes useful through a chain
Consider this hypothetical example. A bakery wants to increase output without losing working hours to unreliable power. A nearby energy provider has generation, a storage operator can shift supply between times, and another organization could finance the required equipment.
Generation, storage and financing are all needed, but having them available does not guarantee reliable power for the bakery. The provider may have output at the wrong hour. Storage may be unavailable. The bakery may be unable to accept the payment terms. Installation or local approval may still be required. A diagram that omits these conditions makes the future look easier than it is.
A useful shared model would show what each participant can actually commit, when it is available, and which condition prevents the arrangement from working. It should also separate a measured capacity from an estimate or an unconfirmed offer.
Keep the useful detail with its owner
In the proposed RealMaker system, the bakery’s Node could help it understand its operating hours, equipment, costs and goals. That private view gives the owner a better account of the business itself.
The energy provider’s Node would have a different view: available supply, obligations, equipment and local operating rules. The shared World would connect only the information each participant chooses and is allowed to share. It could help them compare possible arrangements without publishing every contract or giving one central system control over their equipment.
The outcome must then return to the model. Was power available when agreed? What did it cost? Did the bakery make the intended output? Who gained access, and who still could not participate? Evidence about those questions matters more than a promise of abundance.
The question beyond “more”
RootKnow studies both productive capacity and access. A system can produce more while useful access remains concentrated. Coordination can also be irrelevant when the real obstacle is a physical shortage, an unaffordable investment or a rule that cannot be changed.
The research task is to identify which obstacle is present and whether a particular mechanism helps. RealMaker is being built to show possible arrangements, the commitments participants accept and evidence of what happens afterward. It is not an energy utility, and this example is not an operating energy project.
RealMaker is in development. The bakery scenario is hypothetical. Tesla and Elon Musk are referenced for public context; no affiliation or endorsement is implied.