General Discussion: 2018 Investor Roundtable

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Just admit you made up that claim about uberdirtness of atomic energy and do not have any sources to support your assertions.

Sorry avoigt, I know this is off topic, and mods please move if appropriate, but it didn't seem fair to leave people hanging.

Plus it's tangentially relevant, since Tesla is working towards renewable power generation with battery-based energy storage. The misconception is that nuclear has a carbon intensity of below 10gCO2/KWh of electricity, while solar PV has an intensity of 49gCO2/KWh (and continues to drop as conversion efficiency improves while less silicon is used). There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about solar's carbon intensity, but there's a huge disagreement in nuclear's.

Here's the top google result for the answer to "carbon intensity of nuclear power" (which unsurprisingly comes from an industry source):
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided through use of nuclear generation - World Nuclear Association

But according to a re-analysis of the assumptions used in those studies:
False solution: Nuclear power is not 'low carbon'

"Beerten and his colleagues conclude that the uncertainties in the three problematic contributions - fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal - are mainly responsible for the wide variation of estimates.
...
Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas.
...
According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%." <--- note that this level put nuclear power's CO2 intensity at double that of solar PV's.

So it ain't dire, but it's definitely not a bed of roses.

Wind and solar plus battery FTW!

 

[winfield100]

Sorry avoigt, I know this is off topic, and mods please move if appropriate, but it didn't seem fair to leave people hanging.

Plus it's tangentially relevant, since Tesla is working towards renewable power generation with battery-based energy storage. The misconception is that nuclear has a carbon intensity of below 10gCO2/KWh of electricity, while solar PV has an intensity of 49gCO2/KWh (and continues to drop as conversion efficiency improves while less silicon is used). There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about solar's carbon intensity, but there's a huge disagreement in nuclear's.

Here's the top google result for the answer to "carbon intensity of nuclear power" (which unsurprisingly comes from an industry source):
Greenhouse gas emissions avoided through use of nuclear generation - World Nuclear Association

But according to a re-analysis of the assumptions used in those studies:
False solution: Nuclear power is not 'low carbon'

"Beerten and his colleagues conclude that the uncertainties in the three problematic contributions - fuel production, dismantling and waste disposal - are mainly responsible for the wide variation of estimates.
...
Table 12 in the Berteen paper confirms the van Leeuwen result that for ore with uranium concentration around 0.01% the carbon footprint of nuclear electricity could be as high as that of electricity generation from natural gas.
...
According to figures van Leeuwen has compiled from the WISE Uranium Project around 37% of the identified uranium reserves have an ore grade below 0.05%." <--- note that this level put nuclear power's CO2 intensity at double that of solar PV's.

So it ain't dire, but it's definitely not a bed of roses.

Wind and solar plus battery FTW!

wind and solar are 1/2 to 1/3 cost of nukes, and those pesky nuclear plant "meltdowns"
(Chernobyl > 100 gigawatts in 13 days melting into ground)

‘There is no alternative to a world of 100% renewables’

 

[AWDtsla]

wind and solar are 1/2 to 1/3 cost of nukes, and those pesky nuclear plant "meltdowns"
(Chernobyl > 100 gigawatts in 13 days melting into ground)

‘There is no alternative to a world of 100% renewables’

Solar power is still nuclear.

Still, it's a sad story. Humans gifted manna from heaven - the power inside an atom - and totally f***** it up leading to our current carbon crisis. Nothing to celebrate.

Can't wait for SpaceX reactors on mars. Second chance.

 

[BioSehnsucht]

This certainly does seem to fit. Thank you for this. My only hesitation in saying that Samsung Austin is the manufacturing location is that it does not manufacture on the latest 7nm process that is being introduced in Korea.

Anandtech's foundry roadmap for Samsung seems to indicate that Samsung will be introducing 7nm for foundry in the first half of next year. My uneducated guess was that Musk's "about 6 months" language was gated by the ramp-up of the 7nm process in Korea. But Tesla's AI chip may be based on the 14nm process that is in Austin. Who knows.

Samsung Foundry Roadmap: EUV-Based 7LPP for 2018, 3 nm Incoming

There's not really a need to be on the bleeding edge for these NN chips. Producing on an older node will be cheaper for now, until the pricing of the new node comes down. Plus, depending on the IO requirements (i.e., if there's lots of memory channels, a wide PCIe interface, etc), you may be constrained in minimum physical size for the die to have enough edge area for pads, so it's possible that going to a smaller node might not actually make the chip smaller (thus not only not cheaper but more expensive).

Looks like the Austin location is their "S2-line", operating at 14nm. That should be totally fine for NN processor.

The wafer capacity of 92,000 a month isn't particularly huge in the foundry biz, but with likely something like a minimum of 100-200 good dies per wafer (no idea how big the NN chip is, so taking a stab in the dark), they'd only need to buy 400-200 wafers per month of production capacity to do half a million cars' worth. So I don't think it will be a problem from a capacity standpoint either. I could be off in either direction depending on yields and die size but this should be pretty good ballpark.

 

[Curt Renz]

ARK Invest - today: Tesla Through the Lens of Apple - ARK Investment Management

 

[Bobfitz1]

Solar power is still nuclear.
Still, it's a sad story. Humans gifted manna from heaven - the power inside an atom - and totally f***** it up leading to our current carbon crisis. Nothing to celebrate.
Can't wait for SpaceX reactors on mars. Second chance.

Thanks to Admiral Rickover and competent engineers and leaders he hand picked, even pressurized water reactors can be small, safe and efficient. The nuclear sub fleet never experienced a reactor accident. The procedures, record keeping and accountability were beyond very tight. There are many new reactor technologies today and some will work well for Mars criteria.
Just not well enough for Earth criteria, when solar and wind keep getting cheaper each year.

 

[neroden]

It helps to run scenarios through spreadsheet models.

Yeah, it does. It's become blatantly clear that most Wall Street analysts don't really do that, or else they have GIGO going on in their spreadsheet data or formulas (the FT one was hilarious).

But this makes sense. Wall Street "sell side" analysts have $0 on the line. They get paid whether right or wrong.

 

[neroden]

Deepak and Elon are very good at this kind of a decision. I don't know what the penalty for the rating of the bonds is and, of course, we are in a higher interest environment in general now. May not make sense to rollover the debt. Just my 0.02.

IIRC, Musk outright stated that they would be paying off (not refinancing) the bonds as they came due.

Supplier credit will, of course, be rolled over (bills for last quarter's cars paid, bills for this quarter's cars incurred).

 

[neroden]

The Model 3 is the #13 vehicle in the United States.

=> a mockery is being made of those states' laws that create & protect dealership monopolies.

I don't think there is a big need to change the law. Lawmakers will change the law when they realise how much employment tax revenue they are losing.

NOTE - no sales tax revenue is lost... you still have to pay sales tax when you register a new car.

Sales tax revenue *is* lost.

First, you pay sales tax to California when you buy the car from California (or to NY when you buy it from NY).
Then, you pay sales tax to Texas or Connecticut when you register the car there, *but you get a deduction for the sales tax you paid to California or NY*.

In nearly all states, this is how it works. So Connecticut is losing revenue to NY and Texas is losing revenue to California.

 

[neroden]

Conversion is wrong, or they are lumping in something else

860k m^2 is about 210 acres.
1,200 acres is about 2 square miles
Fremont is 370 acres.
GF1 is 2,864 after purchase of the optional adjacent land, almost 4.5 square miles...

Conversion is wrong. The accurate number is in the Chinese traditional land unit of "Mou" or "Mu", just to add to the confusion. It turns out to be a bit smaller than Fremont.

 

[mongo]

Conversion is wrong. The accurate number is in the Chinese traditional land unit of "Mou" or "Mu", just to add to the confusion. It turns out to be a bit smaller than Fremont.

Yah, the translation is wrong. The converted number is in Mu.

 

[Droulas]

I assume that the mid range battery pack indicates that the new equipment for (3x) faster battery pack production has already been installed at gf1.

 

[mongo]

Is this correct:
When shorts short TSLA, they get cash in their account.
They can then then buy other stocks with that money (per terms of margin account)
So if TSLA shoots up and they have to cover, they may need to sell off their other stocks.
Depending on the distribution, could that have material impact on other company's stock prices?
Say for instance short on TSLA, but long on GM?

 

[Intl Professor]

Thanks to Admiral Rickover and competent engineers and leaders he hand picked, even pressurized water reactors can be small, safe and efficient. The nuclear sub fleet never experienced a reactor accident. The procedures, record keeping and accountability were beyond very tight. There are many new reactor technologies today and some will work well for Mars criteria.
Just not well enough for Earth criteria, when solar and wind keep getting cheaper each year.

Technically you are correct, but the very first sub we lost, The Thresher, I believe, was lost because they could not override a safety feature when the reactor went into "scram" mode, if I recall correctly. That can now be done.

 

[Brando]

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

Well, I must admit CO2 from Atomic Reactor construction seems a minor point compared to clean up problems in my personal opinion.

Cement Emissions
The production of cement releases greenhouse gas emissions both directly and indirectly: the heating of limestone releases CO2 directly, while the burning of fossil fuels to heat the kiln indirectly results in CO2 emissions.

The direct emissions of cement occur through a chemical process called calcination. Calcination occurs when limestone, which is made of calcium carbonate, is heated, breaking down into calcium oxide and CO2. This process accounts for ~50 percent of all emissions from cement production.

Indirect emissions are produced by burning fossil fuels to heat the kiln. Kilns are usually heated by coal, natural gas, or oil, and the combustion of these fuels produces additional CO2 emissions, just as they would in producing electricity. This represents around 40 percent of cement emissions. Finally, the electricity used to power additional plant machinery, and the final transportation of cement, represents another source of indirect emissions and account for 5-10 percent of the industry’s emissions.

Cement manufacturing is highly energy- and emissions-intensive because of the extreme heat required to produce it. Producing a ton of cement requires 4.7 million BTU of energy, equivalent to about 400 pounds of coal, and generates nearly a ton of CO2. Given its high emissions and critical importance to society, cement is an obvious place to look to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

source (along with some ideas how to decrease CO2)
Emissions from the Cement Industry

Now add in steel and actual site construction equipment - of course all human construction has the exact same problems - dams, tall building, bridges etc.

The clean up and storage of Atomic Reactor Waste we can't yet imagine.
Clean up of Fukushima alone, is ESTIMATED at 40 years US$180 billion (- and this alone nearly doubles costs of ALL ~50 Atomic Reactors built in Japan. )

Hanford, WA, USA similar est. 2065 $165 billion on going problems since 1988 start of clean up - in my home state of WA. Oak Ridge Tenn. currently spending $0.5 billion/year no end insight. The ~112 Atomic Reactors should cost less but who knows.

The TMI-2 cleanup. The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US$973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically.

AND large projects always have cost over-runs [corruption seems everywhere] even in Canada, example:

"Among other methodological errors, Ernst & Young counted the cost over-runs of nuclear stations as "economic benefits". For example, the 1978 "release estimate" for Ontario Hydro's Darlington Nuclear Generating Station was $3.95 billion, whereas the final cost of the station was over $14 billion." For much more detailed depressing info on Canadian Atomic Power costs - Executive Summary is a short read.
Nuclear Sunset: Economic Costs of the Canadian Nuclear Industry

Three proposed Strategies for Atomic Reactor Clean up:
AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO Reactor site has ever been available for re-use? You?
The second is of course a delay tactic allows rate payers to pay utility for decades for clean up costs - good luck with that.
The third is of course how Chernobyl is being handled - is the '2nd Entomb' done yet? EU paid perhaps even Norway helped?
(internet search on Chernobyl Clean up - Gorbachev claims it was the final straw that broke USSR.)

• Immediate Dismantling (or Early Site Release/'Decon' in the USA): This option allows for the facility to be removed from regulatory control relatively soon after shutdown or termination of regulated activities. Final dismantling or decontamination activities can begin within a few months or years, depending on the facility. Following removal from regulatory control, the site is then available for re-use.
• Safe Enclosure ('Safstor') or deferred dismantling: This option postpones the final removal of controls for a longer period, usually in the order of 40 to 60 years. The facility is placed into a safe storage configuration until the eventual dismantling and decontamination activities occur after residual radioactivity has decayed. There is a risk in this case of regulatory change which could increase costs unpredictably.
• Entombment (or 'Entomb'): This option entails placing the facility into a condition that will allow the remaining on-site radioactive material to remain on-site without ever removing it totally. This option usually involves reducing the size of the area where the radioactive material is located and then encasing the facility in a long-lived structure such as concrete, that will last for a period of time to ensure the remaining radioactivity is no longer of concern.

Seems Finland has the best clean up strategy. This is a really great video on the project - 100 year to construct and designed to last 100,000 years. search Onkola
[Only hope humans last that long. Humans may survive the current 6th mass extinction - worth some reading about. Norway probably not a problem? wild life and Salmon doing OK I trust? Still have healthy forests?]

In summary - too expensive to matter - will our societies survive this atomic fiasco? color me not sure.

 

[ggr]

The second is of course a delay tactic allows rate payers to pay utility for decades for clean up costs - good luck with that.

Ummm... San Onofre?

 

[adiggs]

Is this correct:
When shorts short TSLA, they get cash in their account.
They can then then buy other stocks with that money (per terms of margin account)
So if TSLA shoots up and they have to cover, they may need to sell off their other stocks.
Depending on the distribution, could that have material impact on other company's stock prices?
Say for instance short on TSLA, but long on GM?

Somewhat yes.

When you short TSLA, you get cash in your account (for the sale of the stock).

AND

You deposit cash with a 4th party bank an amount equal to 100% (or 102% - no difference for our purposes right now) of the value of the stock you borrowed as collateral against your ability to buy the stock back . That cash deposit is changed each day, up or down, depending on the changing value of the underlying stock.

AND

You must maintain some amount of value in your account separate from this position as margin. That value in the account is what enables you to deposit more cash (which is really your broker moving some of your money out of your account on up days, and putting money into your account on down days, from your cash collateral) on up days.


So yes you do get cash. You also see that cash all go right back out as collateral. AND you have the margin requirement for maintaining the position.


On balance, the dynamic you're getting at WILL exist. In the 2008 crash, it was one of the dynamics that led to me picking up a company for about 1/2 price. People were being margin called and the stuff causing the margin call had so little value, they were forced to sell other stuff that hadn't lost as much value just to raise cash and meet the margin call.

There were very good companies (and their stock) being swept up in the general market sell off, and this is one of the dynamics that contributes.

I don't think TSLA by itself is big enough to create much of an impact on the larger market.

 

[winfield100]

Well, I must admit CO2 from Atomic Reactor construction seems a minor point compared to clean up problems in my personal opinion.


Now add in steel and actual site construction equipment - of course all human construction has the exact same problems - dams, tall building, bridges etc.

The clean up and storage of Atomic Reactor Waste we can't yet imagine.
Clean up of Fukushima alone, is ESTIMATED at 40 years US$180 billion (- and this alone nearly doubles costs of ALL ~50 Atomic Reactors built in Japan. )

Hanford, WA, USA similar est. 2065 $165 billion on going problems since 1988 start of clean up - in my home state of WA. Oak Ridge Tenn. currently spending $0.5 billion/year no end insight. The ~112 Atomic Reactors should cost less but who knows.

The TMI-2 cleanup. The cleanup of the damaged nuclear reactor system at TMI-2 took nearly 12 years and cost approximately US$973 million. The cleanup was uniquely challenging technically and radiologically.

AND large projects always have cost over-runs [corruption seems everywhere] even in Canada, example:

Three proposed Strategies for Atomic Reactor Clean up:
AS FAR AS I KNOW, NO Reactor site has ever been available for re-use? You?
The second is of course a delay tactic allows rate payers to pay utility for decades for clean up costs - good luck with that.
The third is of course how Chernobyl is being handled - is the '2nd Entomb' done yet? EU paid perhaps even Norway helped?
(internet search on Chernobyl Clean up - Gorbachev claims it was the final straw that broke USSR.)


Seems Finland has the best clean up strategy. This is a really great video on the project - 100 year to construct and designed to last 100,000 years. search Onkola
[Only hope humans last that long. Humans may survive the current 6th mass extinction - worth some reading about. Norway probably not a problem? wild life and Salmon doing OK I trust? Still have healthy forests?]

In summary - too expensive to matter - will our societies survive this atomic fiasco? color me not sure.

can.not.resist.must.restrain.self

"what melts in the ground and not your hand?" "Hershey, Pennsylvania" {and Baltimore, Washington DC and Norfolk, Virginia} (3 Mile Island)

"How do you make Chicken Kiev?" "Take 1, 900 pound mildly radioactive, 3 eyed chicken from Chernobyl"

 

[mongo]

Somewhat yes.

When you short TSLA, you get cash in your account (for the sale of the stock).

AND

You deposit cash with a 4th party bank an amount equal to 100% (or 102% - no difference for our purposes right now) of the value of the stock you borrowed as collateral against your ability to buy the stock back . That cash deposit is changed each day, up or down, depending on the changing value of the underlying stock.

AND

You must maintain some amount of value in your account separate from this position as margin. That value in the account is what enables you to deposit more cash (which is really your broker moving some of your money out of your account on up days, and putting money into your account on down days, from your cash collateral) on up days.


So yes you do get cash. You also see that cash all go right back out as collateral. AND you have the margin requirement for maintaining the position.


On balance, the dynamic you're getting at WILL exist. In the 2008 crash, it was one of the dynamics that led to me picking up a company for about 1/2 price. People were being margin called and the stuff causing the margin call had so little value, they were forced to sell other stuff that hadn't lost as much value just to raise cash and meet the margin call.

There were very good companies (and their stock) being swept up in the general market sell off, and this is one of the dynamics that contributes.

I don't think TSLA by itself is big enough to create much of an impact on the larger market.

Thanks!
So the cash from the short sale is not in play, just stock used as additonal margin collateral. So much less that the 8-10 billion or so that TSLA is shorted...

 

[adiggs]

Thanks!
So the cash from the short sale is not in play, just stock used as additonal margin collateral. So much less that the 8-10 billion or so that TSLA is shorted...

Yes.

This of course does not apply to anybody with a naked short. Naked short selling - Wikipedia

The simplistic way I understand it, a naked short hasn't borrowed the stock that they've sold. Therefore they don't have the collateral requirements.

They do have the 3 or 2 day settlement period in which they will need to square up the trade (borrow or buy the stock that they've sold), so I think that makes it a short term position. And of course, the trader entering into a naked short position will need a broker or market maker that will allow them to.


I don't know what happens on a Failure to Deliver - I assume that the broker / market maker has to deliver in lieu of the trader, and thus the broker / market maker is strongly incentivized to not allow any but the very largest of customers to ever have a failure to deliver.