General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[bhtooefr]

With my annual gasoline consumption (I don't have an EV yet), $10/gal would put me at $2107/yr in fuel, looking at my Fuelly stats.

I say bring the $10 gas on - it'll accelerate the transition to clean transportation far faster than CAFE and ZEV credits.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Zoinks! Even with my tank a month commute, that would be $3k yearly in fuel....

They definitely have some leverage...
In January, US was #3 in global oil production with 10 million barrels a day, Saudi Arabia had 10.6, and Russia 11. We consumed ~19.9 million barrels a day in 2017.
So Saudi Arabia could unilaterally impose a carbon tax and electrify using the profits from oil consuming countries. Given their climate, that may be in their best interests in an even shorter time scale than the Earth in general.

It isn't just about the level of production, but also the quality: US produces light oil, which US refineries cannot use, so we still depend on Saudi oil.

Key to independence: two million annual Tesla's PLUS full self-driving to boost per-vehicle use by 10x to 20x PLUS volume Semi production.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

Price of poisoning millions = one day of revenue.

Don't let these monkey-gassing murderers get away with a slap on the wrist. Shame!

Audi slapped with a $930 million fine by German prosecutor for its diesel cheating scandal

 

[SlicedBr3ad]

ValueAnalyst on Twitter

Saudi Arabia is preparing to push oil prices up to $400 per barrel, and make no mistake: they can.

$400 oil = $10 gas = Greater Recession

Don't wait until then:

• Carpool with an EV owner
• Buy a new or used EV

Perspective | What Jamal Khashoggi and Edward Snowden have in common

Used Leaf's in low $10,000's: It's a Great Time to Buy a Used Electric Vehicle

Used Tesla's in low $30,000's: EV-CPO.com - Tesla New, Used, and CPO Inventory Listings

Please share these links with your friends, family, and network. This is urgent.

Sorry but even though possible, this is far fetched and One could call FUD.

 

[avoigt]

VW CEO Dies gave an interview and speech in Wolfsburg that gives deep insights .....

Just some quotes:

"From todays point of view the chances are 50:50 that the German Auto-industry in 10 years will be still on top"

"The war against the individual mobility and with that against the car develops into existential threatening levels"

"the almost hysterical discussions around nitrogen oxide around a few problem zones in our cities who will in a few years dilute in nothing"

He does view a high degree of EVs in Germany critical because the for them required energy balance will be rather made worse than better. "With about 600 Gramm CO2 per produced KWH energy we are ranked in the lower mid field in Europe"..."and I do not see right now how we until 2030 want to get our primary energy CO2 free.

If thats not accomplished "we will drive instead of Gas or Diesel with in principle Cole even if we drive electric, In the worst case with brown Cole" ... "This drives the idea of electro-mobility ad absurdum"

VW-Chef beklagt "Feldzug" gegen das Auto

We can see that he is fully committed to denial and reiterates often names wrong information that I am tempted to call even lies because he should know better. Also he does not car about health and people at all but just about jobs disregarding true TCO CO2 but just looks at the possible emissions in a worst case scenario per mile instead of live span. This is more than short sighted.

1. If you look at the full energy consumption of generating Gas and Diesel and the transportation to Gas stations you get a really negative picture for those forms of energy usage. Just looking at the on the road emissions is plainly wrong.

2. Batteries cost CO2 while produced but can easily and with low energy consumption recycled and the live span of an EV is way higher than an ICE. Comparing apples to apples an EVs is while produces and used in terms of carbon footprint way better

3. Although Germany does still use too much cool the efforts to get out of that energy production and move even more in green energy is very high. In fact throughout many days in a year Germany could run 100% on green energy if the energy transmission would work. That project is ongoing but is happening. So even if its not perfect today it will be much better than most other countries once the storage and transmission is better organized.

4. He completely overlooks that you obviously can offer and sell green energy to EV owners and use their batteries as a decentralized storage. Such a storage is highly needed in Germany and would solve many issues around energy transmission and consumption.

I do not get that someone who makes this quotes is the CEO of VW....

 

[replicant]

VW CEO Dies gave an interview and speech in Wolfsburg that gives deep insights .....

Just some quotes:

"From todays point of view the chances are 50:50 that the German Auto-industry in 10 years will be still on top"

"The war against the individual mobility and with that against the car develops into existential threatening levels"

"the almost hysterical discussions around nitrogen oxide around a few problem zones in our cities who will in a few years dilute in nothing"

He does view a high degree of EVs in Germany critical because the for them required energy balance will be rather made worse than better. "With about 600 Gramm CO2 per produced KWH energy we are ranked in the lower mid field in Europe"..."and I do not see right now how we until 2030 want to get our primary energy CO2 free.

If thats not accomplished "we will drive instead of Gas or Diesel with in principle Cole even if we drive electric, In the worst case with brown Cole" ... "This drives the idea of electro-mobility ad absurdum"

VW-Chef beklagt "Feldzug" gegen das Auto

We can see that he is fully committed to denial and reiterates often names wrong information that I am tempted to call even lies because he should know better. Also he does not car about health and people at all but just about jobs disregarding true TCO CO2 but just looks at the possible emissions in a worst case scenario per mile instead of live span. This is more than short sighted.

1. If you look at the full energy consumption of generating Gas and Diesel and the transportation to Gas stations you get a really negative picture for those forms of energy usage. Just looking at the on the road emissions is plainly wrong.

2. Batteries cost CO2 while produced but can easily and with low energy consumption recycled and the live span of an EV is way higher than an ICE. Comparing apples to apples an EVs is while produces and used in terms of carbon footprint way better

3. Although Germany does still use too much cool the efforts to get out of that energy production and move even more in green energy is very high. In fact throughout many days in a year Germany could run 100% on green energy if the energy transmission would work. That project is ongoing but is happening. So even if its not perfect today it will be much better than most other countries once the storage and transmission is better organized.

4. He completely overlooks that you obviously can offer and sell green energy to EV owners and use their batteries as a decentralized storage. Such a storage is highly needed in Germany and would solve many issues around energy transmission and consumption.

I do not get that someone who makes this quotes is the CEO of VW....

I've had a hard time arguing with nuclear energy supporter here in France about EV because they keep saying that in most countries, an EV would emit more CO2. Although I'm not certain that it is the case even for one single new EV, my problem is that I can't get them to think about a systemic transition where each additional EV added to the fleet would require *new* electricity generation capacity* and that one should not believe that this *new* capacity would be of the *current* energy mix.

(* unless we'd be ready to reduce electricity consumption in other sectors, which isn't credible)

I'm not sure I'm phrasing this correctly but how would you convince someone that, unless we're speaking about a tiny number of EVs, any electrification of transport would necessarily be mostly powered by renewable given that new capacity are pretty low emissions?

 

[avoigt]

I've had a hard time arguing with nuclear energy supporter here in France about EV because they keep saying that in most countries, an EV would emit more CO2. Although I'm not certain that it is the case even for one single new EV, my problem is that I can't get them to think about a systemic transition where each additional EV added to the fleet would require *new* electricity generation capacity* and that one should not believe that this *new* capacity would be of the *current* energy mix.

(* unless we'd be ready to reduce electricity consumption in other sectors, which isn't credible)

I'm not sure I'm phrasing this correctly but how would you convince someone that, unless we're speaking about a tiny number of EVs, any electrification of transport would necessarily be mostly powered by renewable given that new capacity are pretty low emissions?

First of all its plain false to claim that an EV does emit more CO2 than a Gas car and thats even true if the energy is produced with a high rate of Cole. Many studies out there do prove that and the scientists who did do the Swedish study that often is reiterated did say many times that its misinterpreted and confirm that EVs are more clean.

Secondly throughout a year in Germany a lot of Energy is sold for low money, given for free abroad or just literally thrown away in situations where we have a lot of sun and wind. Given climate change this days increasing. At those days energy could be stored in EVs and used later instead of thrown in the bin, thats a 100% win for the carbon footprint.

Thirdly, for the fans of atomic energy, make a TCO CO2 calculation for the full lifetime of atomic energy production, consumption and transmission including building the reactors, dismantling them 30 years later and storing the atomic waste a few thousand years safely. Please calculate all CO2 generated together through that time and compare those to coal, oil & gas and renewable energy. Atomic energy has the worst carbon footprint of all.

Hope that helps for your next discussion.

 

[mongo]

I've had a hard time arguing with nuclear energy supporter here in France about EV because they keep saying that in most countries, an EV would emit more CO2. Although I'm not certain that it is the case even for one single new EV, my problem is that I can't get them to think about a systemic transition where each additional EV added to the fleet would require *new* electricity generation capacity* and that one should not believe that this *new* capacity would be of the *current* energy mix.

(* unless we'd be ready to reduce electricity consumption in other sectors, which isn't credible)

I'm not sure I'm phrasing this correctly but how would you convince someone that, unless we're speaking about a tiny number of EVs, any electrification of transport would necessarily be mostly powered by renewable given that new capacity are pretty low emissions?

EVs at home charge at night when there is excess capacity, so more EVs does not directly imply additional generation capacity is needed.
I do agree that new power infrastructure will tend toward cleaner solutions.

 

[Reciprocity]

EVs at home charge at night when there is excess capacity, so more EVs does not directly imply additional generation capacity is needed.
I do agree that new power infrastructure will tend toward cleaner solutions.

People who charge a lot a home also find solar comes very economical with much quicker payoffs for the upfront cost. Now that might change a a bit as incentives go away. Can costs come down 30% in the next 10 years? Will gas prices go back up 30%? A lot of factors but most of them point towards home solar and powerwalls where there is no net metering, which will be everywhere if there is to much home solar generated. Good thing you will be able to buy a powerwall much more easily then.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

I've had a hard time arguing with nuclear energy supporter here in France about EV because they keep saying that in most countries, an EV would emit more CO2. Although I'm not certain that it is the case even for one single new EV, my problem is that I can't get them to think about a systemic transition where each additional EV added to the fleet would require *new* electricity generation capacity* and that one should not believe that this *new* capacity would be of the *current* energy mix.

(* unless we'd be ready to reduce electricity consumption in other sectors, which isn't credible)

I'm not sure I'm phrasing this correctly but how would you convince someone that, unless we're speaking about a tiny number of EVs, any electrification of transport would necessarily be mostly powered by renewable given that new capacity are pretty low emissions?

For now, it should be relatively low carbon, even if not renewable.

But non-dispatchable renewables rapidly becoming the cheapest source of generation by levelized cost, and battery costs falling, there are pretty clear synergies.

The flexibility in charging PEVs (idle for much longer than they need to charge) is very large. So, PEV charging could be control to follow production or demand. Purely for economic reasons you'll want to do that anyway (to avoid charging at peak), and it would require _zero_ additional hardware, since modern cars have the necessary telecoms and processing anyway.

Plus, in order to sell a lot of PEVs there _has_ to be cheap batteries.

If there are cheap batteries for vehicles and other current use, it means massive scale manufacturing of batteries which can be used to provide economies of scale that make it easier to make batteries for other use. (There's also secondary use, but I think that falling price of new batteries will quickly kill 2nd use, until the point the technology becomes stale).

So sales help dedicated grid battery deployment.

Battery systems are devices that can turn non-dispatchable and slow-ramp dispatchable power into rapid-response, precisely-controlled dispatchable power.
That will increase the emphasis on levelized cost, because less-flexible, but cheap forms of generation will be to use any cost advantage to deploy batteries, and the cheaper the power, the lower the cost of the round trip charge-discharge loss.

(I live my life with a great sense of nervous excitement because of the way improvements in particular technologies can cause such rapid, positive change but lobbying and other forms of corruption can hold advances back.)

 

[RobStark]

It isn't just about the level of production, but also the quality: US produces light oil, which US refineries cannot use, so we still depend on Saudi oil.

Key to independence: two million annual Tesla's PLUS full self-driving to boost per-vehicle use by 10x to 20x PLUS volume Semi production.

US refineries can retool.

The US imports less than 1M barrels per day from KSA.

 

[mrdoubleb]

VW CEO Dies gave an interview and speech in Wolfsburg that gives deep insights .....

Just some quotes:

"From todays point of view the chances are 50:50 that the German Auto-industry in 10 years will be still on top"

"The war against the individual mobility and with that against the car develops into existential threatening levels"

"the almost hysterical discussions around nitrogen oxide around a few problem zones in our cities who will in a few years dilute in nothing"

He does view a high degree of EVs in Germany critical because the for them required energy balance will be rather made worse than better. "With about 600 Gramm CO2 per produced KWH energy we are ranked in the lower mid field in Europe"..."and I do not see right now how we until 2030 want to get our primary energy CO2 free.

If thats not accomplished "we will drive instead of Gas or Diesel with in principle Cole even if we drive electric, In the worst case with brown Cole" ... "This drives the idea of electro-mobility ad absurdum"

VW-Chef beklagt "Feldzug" gegen das Auto

We can see that he is fully committed to denial and reiterates often names wrong information that I am tempted to call even lies because he should know better. Also he does not car about health and people at all but just about jobs disregarding true TCO CO2 but just looks at the possible emissions in a worst case scenario per mile instead of live span. This is more than short sighted.

1. If you look at the full energy consumption of generating Gas and Diesel and the transportation to Gas stations you get a really negative picture for those forms of energy usage. Just looking at the on the road emissions is plainly wrong.

2. Batteries cost CO2 while produced but can easily and with low energy consumption recycled and the live span of an EV is way higher than an ICE. Comparing apples to apples an EVs is while produces and used in terms of carbon footprint way better

3. Although Germany does still use too much cool the efforts to get out of that energy production and move even more in green energy is very high. In fact throughout many days in a year Germany could run 100% on green energy if the energy transmission would work. That project is ongoing but is happening. So even if its not perfect today it will be much better than most other countries once the storage and transmission is better organized.

4. He completely overlooks that you obviously can offer and sell green energy to EV owners and use their batteries as a decentralized storage. Such a storage is highly needed in Germany and would solve many issues around energy transmission and consumption.

I do not get that someone who makes this quotes is the CEO of VW....

https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2017_10_EV_LCA_briefing_final.pdf

 

[ValueAnalyst]

US refineries can retool.

The US imports less than 1M barrels per day from KSA.

If US refineries can retool, why haven't they in the last decade shale production has been growing?

The fact is that this is easier said than done; it would take tens of billions and many years to retool.

 

[RobStark]

If US refineries can retool, why haven't they in the last decade shale production has been growing?

The fact is that this is easier said than done; it would take many billions and years to retool.

Because up to now it is cheaper to import heavy oil.


If imported oil is $400/b,gas $10/gallon, and domestic oil is >$350/b then it behooves domestic refiners to retool ASP.

Washington banning oil exports would keep domestic oil below $150/b

It would not take years. It would be expensive. As well as very profitable.

 

[electracity]

The Saudis are in no position to become unreliable suppliers of oil. They are not in the position of OPEC in 1973.

 

[eisa01]

First of all its plain false to claim that an EV does emit more CO2 than a Gas car and thats even true if the energy is produced with a high rate of Cole. Many studies out there do prove that and the scientists who did do the Swedish study that often is reiterated did say many times that its misinterpreted and confirm that EVs are more clean.

Secondly throughout a year in Germany a lot of Energy is sold for low money, given for free abroad or just literally thrown away in situations where we have a lot of sun and wind. Given climate change this days increasing. At those days energy could be stored in EVs and used later instead of thrown in the bin, thats a 100% win for the carbon footprint.

Thirdly, for the fans of atomic energy, make a TCO CO2 calculation for the full lifetime of atomic energy production, consumption and transmission including building the reactors, dismantling them 30 years later and storing the atomic waste a few thousand years safely. Please calculate all CO2 generated together through that time and compare those to coal, oil & gas and renewable energy. Atomic energy has the worst carbon footprint of all.

Hope that helps for your next discussion.

I agree with you that EVs are clean, especially in Europe where the power sector is part of the EU ETS. In addition we need to think more about energy efficiency!

But, nuclear is one of the cleanest energy forms that exists. Where have you heard otherwise? It's a common misconception, a Norwegian tv show asked people to rank energy sources in terms of CO2, and a lot of people scored nuclear with high emissions because they’ve heard its bad and dirty

 

[avoigt]

I agree with you that EVs are clean, especially in Europe where the power sector is part of the EU ETS. In addition we need to think more about energy efficiency!

But, nuclear is one of the cleanest energy forms that exists. Where have you heard otherwise? It's a common misconception, a Norwegian tv show asked people to rank energy sources in terms of CO2, and a lot of people scored nuclear with high emissions because they’ve heard its bad and dirty

That is simple, add the carbon emission together from mining uranium , to processing it, building a nuclear power plant, running that until end of life, reassembling it , storing the radioactive waste as well as the dissembled power plant that is radioactive for a few thousand years. Take all the carbon emission in that time frame together and divide it by the KWH produced in the lifespan of the power plant and you will very quickly realize there is no form of energy humankind ever produced that pollutes the environment more than atomic power.

 

[Brando]

Including benefits ( and profit share) the average UAW member at the Detroit 3 makes $70/hr or $145k per year. But no options.

" Temps" hired after the bailout in 2008 top out at $19/hr. There have been "temps" at GM/Ford, and FCA for 10 years now.

Mexico auto plant labor is paid as little as $1.10 per hour - pay rate vary widely, but internet search show:
"Companies leaving the US routinely report lower Mexico labor costs as the deciding factor primarily driving their decision. The wage gap is the real wall between the two countries. While Mexican workers in the US average $1,870 per month, the average wage in Mexico is $291 per month." try internet search: mexico auto plant labor cost

In the West Coast of Washington State you'd be hard pressed to pay rent, transportation/car, insurance payroll taxes on US rate $1870/month which is about near $12/hour. Amazon is promising to raise pay in warehouses to $15/hour. we shall see.
Seattle we have micro- apartments for $750/month to about $995.
For $750, Seattle’s newest apartment is the size of a parking space

 

[Brando]

I agree with you that EVs are clean, especially in Europe where the power sector is part of the EU ETS. In addition we need to think more about energy efficiency!

But, nuclear is one of the cleanest energy forms that exists. Where have you heard otherwise? It's a common misconception, a Norwegian tv show asked people to rank energy sources in terms of CO2, and a lot of people scored nuclear with high emissions because they’ve heard its bad and dirty

You forget to factor in construction - cement alone, and they use more than you can guess and years of diesel construction equipment.
Sadly, you fall for nuke power plant BS. Hanford, just one clean up site hopes to finish 2065 current budget I think put cost $165 billion.
What a bargain. Perhaps you can find one Atomic Reactor shut down and tell us the cost?

Too cheap to meter is actually to expensive to matter.

 

[eisa01]

That is simple, add the carbon emission together from mining uranium , to processing it, building a nuclear power plant, running that until end of life, reassembling it , storing the radioactive waste as well as the dissembled power plant that is radioactive for a few thousand years. Take all the carbon emission in that time frame together and divide it by the KWH produced in the lifespan of the power plant and you will very quickly realize there is no form of energy humankind ever produced that pollutes the environment more than atomic power.

Even the max lifecycle emissions in the 2014 IPCC report is a quarter of a CCGT

Life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of energy sources - Wikipedia

Do you have any other study? Otherwise I would revisit the assumption you make on nuclear, as its fortunately not true