You've hit on a major flow in the way the capitalist system has been set up. The other is that without cheap foreign labour it would collapse
You've hit on a major flow in the way the capitalist system has been set up. The other is that without cheap foreign labour it would collapse
Son of a mining engineer wrote:
Production of lithium is not quite as scalable as silicon wafers. Just sayin'.
One Tesla has ten thousand cell phone batteries. And cell phone batteries stressed the supply chain of rare earth elements. Anyone who thinks the path from 25,000 electric vehicles to 1,000,000 electric vehicles is easy does not understand mineral extraction.
What if they can mine rare earth metals in space using SpaceX and the Boring Companu?
zack348938 wrote:
Bad Wigins wrote:It would have to come from largely from coal and fossil fuels, and be wasted every step of the way, from initial conversion in a generator, to transport over power lines (two thirds is lost!) and finally battery storage. No way does that have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car.
It does actually have a lower carbon footprint than just putting the original stuff in a car, though. This math has been done countless times.
cgoon wrote:
It's a hot topic that gets funding. that anderegg study might be one of the dumbest papers I have ever read. and that is coming from somebody who reads a lot psychology papers. no shit scientists who actively publish in "climate science" journals are supporting global warming. it's their job
1. What do scientists in the academy who are salaried and tenured have to gain from that funding? Surely you don't think those folks are getting to pocket grant money, do you?
2. You are poisoning the well of all the real experts here. You are saying that all of the people who study this the most don't count because it's their job to study this thing. Who are the experts, then?
3. Your original claim was that only people who have taken a single college-level science course believe in climate change. Obviously that's false, as 95-97% of scientists in relevant fields believe it.
Sadly, Baddie Wiggins has you here.
1) all humans want to earn more, why do Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity publish so many books? Why do pro athletes like Federer or Lebron always seem keen to take on more endorsements? University Professors are no different.
2) Really the biggest insight to come out of 1950s & 1960s economics was the idea of regulatory capture. The regulators and academics of sector become symbiotic related with the big money players in that sector. In this case Climate Professors realize there is money to be made advising the clean energy sector, government agencies, UN-type organisations and greenie NGOs. The experts are the calm heads, who from a distance, can cut through the B.S.
3) Most academics believe that the climate change brigade overplayed their hand.
ukathleticscoach wrote:
You've hit on a major flow in the way the capitalist system has been set up. The other is that without cheap foreign labour it would collapse
Yep. Remember those slaves and indentured servants. Remember plundering weaker nations' wealth and resources.
This still remains the only true systemic way to profit. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. A dog and pony show.
Going to clear up a few points:
With existing tech, life cycle analysis has an EV with lower carbon cost than ICE by about 60,000 miles.
But let's be clear, it's not so much about carbon emissions, it's more about reducing pollution. Nobody can argue that ICE are dirty and pollution is bad. The major manufacturers have been pushing filthy diesels on us for years, cheating emissions tests etc. Diesel pollution (NOx and PM) is demonstrably attributable to early death. In the future we will look back at these vehicles and compare the affect to that of smoking! It's a massive public health emergency and in the near future ICE will be banned from all congested areas. The important point with EVs is that the pollution from the fossil fuels used to generate the electricity is not accumulating in built up, congested urban areas.
There are only two feasible options on the table at the moment, electric or hydrogen. Hydrogen is limited by manufacturing, while EVs are limited by infrastructure and range. Industry experts expect hydrogen to eventually overcome EVs, but if battery tech continues to develop at pace then who really knows. One can foresee a future with lithium air batteries taking the market by storm and rendering hydrogen obsolete.
Also, there is no need to invest in nuclear, we already generate plenty of power but it's about demand cycling. When everyone gets home from work, energy demand goes up, overnight it drops down and the grid has a huge excess. What we need is stationary storage to balance out demand. Who does stationary storage on a mega scale? Tesla. Others are following but Tesla is leading the way. Quite a few people worry about the affect of loads of people rapid charging their vehicles simultaneously but think of how you charge up your phone, you plug it in overnight. Rapid charging and long range vehicles is really only necessary for commercial drivers or those going on long road trips. In 5-years time you'll be able to rapid charge your Tesla 80% in 15 minutes but most of your charging will be done at home or work.
A large part of Tesla's business model is reducing costs by massively scaling up and automating manufacture. They will reach a limit with this and at some point will need to look to innovate. So far we haven't seen much true innovation from Tesla but we know the potential is there.
Is Tesla worth more than Ford? It's the whole proposition that's important, connected autonomous transport, energy and space. High risk, high reward stuff.
Actual Expert wrote:
In 5-years time you'll be able to rapid charge your Tesla 80% in 15 minutes but most of your charging will be done at home or work.
That's already possible.
DiscoGary wrote:
We just have to get past the anti-nuclear greenies to get there.
Nuclear is great in theory, but there always seems to be a disaster eventually.
Fukushima is still terrifying:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/03/fukushima-daiichi-radiation-levels-highest-since-2011-meltdownPrecious Roy wrote:
Tesla is also a solar panel and power storage company. So, just looking at cars sold does not tell the entire story.
Tesla is currently overvalued because it has real potential for explosive growth. Ford may end up the Sears to Tesla's Amazon in a decade or so.
Tesla makes the best car on the road right now. They are not worth $125k. But $35k is a price that could build a new major auto manufacturer. Tesla has broken the 300 mile barrier on a single charge with its new S series (still a $95k vehicle, but how much did CD players cost when they were first on the market?). It is positioning its solar company to integrate with the cars so that you can generate all the power you need for your car from your roof. Tesla is also revolutionizing power storage to make commercial solar power able to be a stand alone power source instead of having to rely on a fossil fuel generator to kick in at night.
Ford makes great money selling trucks and SUVs. Ford makes ok money selling muscle cars. Ford does not make a lot of money selling sedans. Ford does not have any EVs ready to compete with Tesla and its HEVs are not ready to compete with Toyota. Ford's future depends too much on having politicians like Trump role back regulations on fuel efficiency. Ford is like Sears hoping that no one ever gets tired of going to the mall to shop. and no one coming into the market with a new way to shop.
See PR gets it! ROJO is indicative of the short-sighted right-wing trolls that inhabit this MB.
Telsa is attempting revolutionize power generation and delivery and people are gambling that he will hit a home run on that - its not so much about the cars.
Spot on
PC, politically correct is a Lie and living in lies
Go Green, Sustainable, and Carbon are all tricks from Communists to get more taxes from people.
Money that you don't or won't have the freedom to spend or Gift to whom ever you'd prefer.
TESLA gets a trophy.
TESLA gets everyones $$$$, money, subsidized money, stolen tax payer money
For doing not much.
Not a reason to hate the stock market, Rojo.
Stocks go up based on many things, but one of those things is perceived future value. Matters not what Ford and Tesla did yesterday.
Also, when looking at individual stocks, you can always find things like this. That's why it is best to invest in diversified mutual funds, and only look at individual stocks once you are completely debt free and own a house outright.
Amazon is barely making money but is twice the value of Tesla.
rojo wrote:
Tesla's market cap is 47 billion. Ford's is 45 billion.
Yet Ford made $4.8 billion last year and Tesla lost $773 million.
Everyone seems excited because Tesla delivered more than 25,000 vehicles this quarter. So what? Ford sold more than 17 million vehicles in the US alone last year. Ford sold more than 237,000 vehicles last month - month not quarter- so they sell even right now are still selling about 28 times as many vehicles as Tesla and in a profitable manner.
The people that suck up to the tech sector blow me away. Look how this article is written.
https://www.recode.net/2017/4/3/15160462/tesla-ford-deliveries-record-sales
Emotions create swings in the stock markets, which means that the price you see ticking doesn't represent the actual value of a company. It often doesn't event approximate it. People invest in Tesla because either they've assigned an intrinsic value that is higher than the price they bought it for, or they are trying to ride the price trend. No one is forcing you to buy it.
Coal Power Trumps Solar Power wrote:
Trump knows something. I'm lookingto invest in coal powered cars. What company is leading that sector?
Tesla's are coal powered cars.
4 years ago I was doing quite a lot of day trading while in between jobs. It took me a while to figure this out, but it really comes down to this simple fact - the stock market is valued most on the POTENTIAL GROWTH of a company!
Not current value, or even forecasted growth. I don't why this is so hard for the mom and pop traders to understand. But hey, your lack of understanding keeps the few who get it winners, so kudos. That's why Apple has said to be "undervalued" for years, despite being a tech company. The perception on Apple is they're at the top of their game.
Anyone judging the stock market on logic and facts is on a losing game. It's more of a subjective art.
DiscoGary wrote:
Tesla's are coal powered cars.
Ain't that the truth.
But most of the idiots buying these subsidized luxury vehicles probably think they are powered by unicorn farts and the breath of Al Gore.
Howard Dean wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Tesla's are coal powered cars.
Ain't that the truth.
But most of the idiots buying these subsidized luxury vehicles probably think they are powered by unicorn farts and the breath of Al Gore.
So go short
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
Sadly, Baddie Wiggins has you here.
1) all humans want to earn more, why do Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity publish so many books? Why do pro athletes like Federer or Lebron always seem keen to take on more endorsements? University Professors are no different.
2) Really the biggest insight to come out of 1950s & 1960s economics was the idea of regulatory capture. The regulators and academics of sector become symbiotic related with the big money players in that sector. In this case Climate Professors realize there is money to be made advising the clean energy sector, government agencies, UN-type organisations and greenie NGOs. The experts are the calm heads, who from a distance, can cut through the B.S.
3) Most academics believe that the climate change brigade overplayed their hand.
1. No, he doesn't. You just both happen to be ignorant on this topic and agree with each other. What percentage of University professors in the climate sciences do you think are earning significant money on the side, away from their university salaries? And what's your source for that? It is utterly absurd to think that literally thousands of scientists in countless countries across the world are agreeing on this issue, but it all boils down to them getting money on the side from industry.
2. Ah, so we should just ignore all of the work that actual scientists are doing and publishing in peer reviewed journals? That's a stupid idea.
3. No, they don't. Most academics are IN the climate change brigade.
Trump_better_listen wrote:
Spot on
PC, politically correct is a Lie and living in lies
Go Green, Sustainable, and Carbon are all tricks from Communists to get more taxes from people.
Money that you don't or won't have the freedom to spend or Gift to whom ever you'd prefer.
TESLA gets a trophy.
TESLA gets everyones $$$$, money, subsidized money, stolen tax payer money
For doing not much.
Nice job of squeezing as many right-wing buzzwords into one post as possible.
Howard Dean wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Tesla's are coal powered cars.
Ain't that the truth.
But most of the idiots buying these subsidized luxury vehicles probably think they are powered by unicorn farts and the breath of Al Gore.
Of course they're (partially, depending on state) coal powered cars. Everyone knows that. But the total carbon footprint of driving a Tesla is still lower, by at least half, than the carbon footprint of driving a gas-powered car.
DiscoGary wrote:
No wrote:Oh yeah that should happen any day now. Super easy to get 10x efficiency from a 200 year old technology. I'm sure they are just about to pop that technology out from some magic hat.
They already have it. It's just a reliability and production cost issue. No one has a 10x improvement on the combustion motor in any stage of development. If you can get another 2% in efficiency out of a combustion engine, that would be a huge deal. Battery technology is still open ended as to how far it will go and you can see that orders of magnitude improvement are still possible. Keep in mind that for most of the last 200 years mankind hasn't been pouring a huge amount of effort into perfecting the flashlight battery. They've been working on the combustion engine. That has changed. The energy density they can create in batteries is actually a little scary. Imagine a car sized battery blowing up like some of those cell-phone or laptop batteries do. That's part of the engineering problem they have to work through. It'll happen, and when it does, electric cars will kill off the combustion engine as quickly as digital music killed off analog. Invest in nuclear power plants.
Vinyl is totally making a comeback!!!
Howard Dean wrote:
DiscoGary wrote:Tesla's are coal powered cars.
Ain't that the truth.
But most of the idiots buying these subsidized luxury vehicles probably think they are powered by unicorn farts and the breath of Al Gore.
I am willing to be that most tesla owners live in areas that are not highly coal powered. CA for example is under 5% these days. New York is like 1%. There are only a couple of places left where coal dominates. Natural gas is just cheaper these days.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?