-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Knightshade and future battery availability discussion (out of main)
- Thread starter Knightshade
- Start date
It'd probably help if you learned what a troll was first though
"OMG HE SAID TESLA WOULD ONLY BE WILDLY SUCCESSFUL NOT ALSO CURE CANCER AND HE SAID EVS WILL BE A MAJORITY OF CARS IN 10-20 YEARS NOT EVERY SINGLE CAR! WHAT AN ANTI-EV TROLL!"
Correct, that is the case NOW. What is the real barrier to changing that? Peanuts, especially 110v charging which is sufficient for people who live in places where they don't have garages (i.e. cities). Why do you think charging infrastructure will remain static over the next 10 years?
I don't think it'll remain static over the next 10 years.
I also don't think it'll get to 95-100% saturation in that time either.
A company installing a few plugs either while building the parking garage or after to get some green PR is just good business and cost very little.
Retrofitting the electrical stuff to install hundreds of plugs, one for every spot- that costs real money.
So does the electricity they'd be giving away free unless they're also gonna meter and bill for every spot somehow....which would require hardware...that costs money...
So the idea every company and municipal and public parking garage is gonna magically deploy charging everywhere for every spot (which you'd need to get close to if "all" cars become EVs) seems... unlikely.
Again- even Tesla- which has by far the largest market share in EVs- and has huge financial motivation to make charging easy and common- has missed their targets for supercharger installs, by large percentages, pretty much every year.... and if you plot % increase of superchargers vs % increase in car sales, it's not remotely keeping up with new cars on the road....
(same is true of service centers- but that's a whole OTHER discussion...though relevant in that any other company wanting to go primary EV is gonna need a lot of service staff who knows WTF they're doing on an EV- which so far hasn't gone great for legacy auto either- In most states VW dealers won't touch an eGolf for repairs or parts- and there's Audi and Jaguar EV owners out there complaining about service not knowing what to do on their cars either... now multiply that by all the other service centers for all the other brands even further behind.... again it's a VERY solvable problem but it's not solvable VERY FAST)
Are you even capable of reading and understanding the totality of my posted reply? Please read it again.
40M new cars being BEV's in 2030 would indeed be 90%+ of the new car market, because total car sales will plummet due to Osbourning of the entire ICE market.
The rest of your points are just repeats of your talking points without understanding how they've already been answered by the previous links I provided.
So here's my last explanation to you:
"Not everyone has access to electricity" (aka apartment dwellers don't have an outlet that their car can plug into)
- Do they have a dedicated parking spot?
- Yes? Then an outlet can be run to that parking spot. Many apartment owners are doing this to attract EV owning tenants
- No? Any public parking space can get EVSE's added, that's why many malls/stores/shopping centers are adding them. They're much cheaper to add than a single gasoline station. Streetlamps and parking meters can be co-opted to provide EVSE's as well.
- Are we at the point of being ubiquitous yet? No. Work is being done to make it so. The landscape now, will not match the landscape 10 years from now. See prior mentioning of London. No one would've expected London to ban all combustion vehicles on its streets 10 years ago.
"Tesla's market share is only 0.5% worldwide now, 95% is complete fantasy"
"We will not get to 95% of ALL cars (1B+) being EV's in 20 years"
- NO ONE advocated for this, nor claimed this. You put words into our mouths.
- 95% of NEW car sales being EV's (including chinese and korean brands) in 20 years is the target. NOT just Tesla's.
- if you think I claimed otherwise, then you've misunderstood me.
"you lack logic and math skills"
- you lack reading skills as you couldn't understand what I wrote enough to see that my logic and math were spot on.
- you missed my typo, where I cited 5TWh, when the link wrote 2TWh, and quoted me on it and failed the math on the extrapolation. The link specified 40M cars from 2TWh of batteries, not 30M. You can't create your own data and then argue from there. That's a logical fallacy called a strawman argument.
- I provided production plans (from all the world's largest battery manufacturers, who will drive their own mining needs) for 2TWh of batteries by 2028, so increasing it to 5TWh (enough for 80M BEV's of 62kwh each) by 2040 is almost a linear progression. But you ignored it to repeat your flawed point about how current production is a proxy for not being able to meet future needs.
Edit: from your response to nocturnal.
"There aren't enough charging spots for every car to be an EV"
- See London as an example. London (currently) has 2700 evse's, 200 fast chargers, and yet has 20,000 electric vehicles registered in the city! By your logic, 17,000 of them must be unusable!
- Not every car needs to charge every night.
40M new cars being BEV's in 2030 would indeed be 90%+ of the new car market, because total car sales will plummet due to Osbourning of the entire ICE market.
The rest of your points are just repeats of your talking points without understanding how they've already been answered by the previous links I provided.
So here's my last explanation to you:
"Not everyone has access to electricity" (aka apartment dwellers don't have an outlet that their car can plug into)
- Do they have a dedicated parking spot?
- Yes? Then an outlet can be run to that parking spot. Many apartment owners are doing this to attract EV owning tenants
- No? Any public parking space can get EVSE's added, that's why many malls/stores/shopping centers are adding them. They're much cheaper to add than a single gasoline station. Streetlamps and parking meters can be co-opted to provide EVSE's as well.
- Are we at the point of being ubiquitous yet? No. Work is being done to make it so. The landscape now, will not match the landscape 10 years from now. See prior mentioning of London. No one would've expected London to ban all combustion vehicles on its streets 10 years ago.
"Tesla's market share is only 0.5% worldwide now, 95% is complete fantasy"
"We will not get to 95% of ALL cars (1B+) being EV's in 20 years"
- NO ONE advocated for this, nor claimed this. You put words into our mouths.
- 95% of NEW car sales being EV's (including chinese and korean brands) in 20 years is the target. NOT just Tesla's.
- if you think I claimed otherwise, then you've misunderstood me.
"you lack logic and math skills"
- you lack reading skills as you couldn't understand what I wrote enough to see that my logic and math were spot on.
- you missed my typo, where I cited 5TWh, when the link wrote 2TWh, and quoted me on it and failed the math on the extrapolation. The link specified 40M cars from 2TWh of batteries, not 30M. You can't create your own data and then argue from there. That's a logical fallacy called a strawman argument.
- I provided production plans (from all the world's largest battery manufacturers, who will drive their own mining needs) for 2TWh of batteries by 2028, so increasing it to 5TWh (enough for 80M BEV's of 62kwh each) by 2040 is almost a linear progression. But you ignored it to repeat your flawed point about how current production is a proxy for not being able to meet future needs.
Edit: from your response to nocturnal.
"There aren't enough charging spots for every car to be an EV"
- See London as an example. London (currently) has 2700 evse's, 200 fast chargers, and yet has 20,000 electric vehicles registered in the city! By your logic, 17,000 of them must be unusable!
- Not every car needs to charge every night.
That's not a red herriing- it's again facts.
Which you seem allergic to.
Most apartment dwellers don't have a 110v they can plug their car into.
Many duplex owners don't either since they have only on-street parking across a public sidewalk.
There's threads on these forums RIGHT NOW from such people- and that's with Tesla having a new car market share less than 0.5% worldwide.
So the idea 95% of the market can go to this is complete fantasy right now.
Good thing I never said that huh?
The number is of course vastly more than 5% not having access to a 110 they can plug their car into.
They have them for a coffee maker inside their 3rd floor apartment. But they can't drop an extension cord down tot he street and run it across the sidewalk to their car.
Except, they would. They'd just buy a $15,000 gas car instead of a $35,000 EV because they lack easy access to charging.
EVs will be down to cheap ICE car range in the relatively near future- but until all those folks have a simple way to plug in every night that won't matter much.
You seem to be lacking both
No- it's citing the guy who insisted the market fixes everything quickly.
Which it clearly doesn't.
The original discussion was if "all" cars would be replaced by EVs in 20 years.
Some folks insisted doubting that it'd happen in just 10 made you an anti-EV trolls, actual facts be damned.
I've yet to find any realistic projections supporting those claims (and have supplied a number of them countering them- all while agreeing a MAJORITY of cars can easily be EVs by then)
Again you fail at math.
According to Tesla, 35gwh gets you 500k EVs.
So 1 twh gets you 15 million of them.
So 5twh gets you.... 30 million of them.
We need 80 million.
(or even in your fantasy where for some reason 1/4 of the world suddenly stops buying the # of new cars they have for decades- we need 50 million of them)
So again- even YOUR OWN MATH agrees with me.
50-60% totally doable.
95-100%? Not so much.
And even THAT is only if -all- that production ONLY goes to EVs. We're gonna need a lot of it for grid storage as solar gets bigger.
Again suggesting "The majority of new cars are likely to be EVs in 10-20 years" is "anti-EV" is batshit insane
Again, I LITERALLY SAID THAT EXACT THING.
Pointing out all the issues preventing adoption rates getting to 95-100% are SOLVABLE.
But not in the timeframes some people seem to fantasize about.
Even your own math on battery production proved that.
Last edited:
I read it- it's simply not credible.
This is complete nonsense argument.
Your source tries to suggest half the entire new car buying market will just stop buying cars- for years- because they want an EV and there's not enough of them.
It offers no actual evidence this has ever happened in any worldwide industry of this size- ever.
In fact- it didn't even happen to Osbourne
Their entire argument is based on an urban legend.
The time from Osbourne announcing the new model that caused people to "wait" and not buy current ones to the time the company going bankrupt was months not years.
Nor was it even the main reason the company went bankrupt! Your argument is largely based on economic urban legend.
Taking Osborne out of the Osborne Effect
The story goes on to explain the thing that really killed them was a rogue VP decided to waste 2 million dollars to try and get some use out of 150k in old parts. And they couldn't afford it.
Which is probably why- as your own source admits- every actual economic and financial expert doesn't suggest this 50% drop in total new car sales like they do.
Because the experts know better.
You don't appear to though.
I hear the argument- I just don't find it credible. And I'm not sure why you do.
Mainly because they didn't "answer" anything.... even explained how when I replied to em.
this is my dubious face
.... what?
You're gonna install hundreds of electrical outlets- one for every spot in an apartment complex parking lot- in every apartment complex? All over the world?
And do it in just a matter of a few years too.
You're hilarious.
Yes.... adding a few, for places with hundreds or thousands of parking spots.
Not one for every car that can park there.
Nor is "just charge at the shopping center on L2" sufficient for day to day use unless you work AT the shopping center.
And BTW- estimates of the number of parking spots just in the US alone- not worldwide- are somewhere around 2 billion
But I guess 2 billion EVSEs are gonna magically be manufactured overnight too... plus all the additional electrical service to feed all 2 billion of them... and some system whereby the parts and service and install all get paid for by...someone...2 billion times...in a way that makes economic sense... all in the next 10 years.
And same will also happen everywhere ELSE in the world that uses cars too!
Yeah- again- hand waiving magical thinking is your only response to real problems that again are totally solvable but not quickly
Again you seem to imagine everywhere in the world is London, with streetlamps every 10 feet- and running 220v power too.
(and even IN london they've only got 1300 total of those lamp chargers... with a city of like 9 million people... but hey, details- HANDWAVE some more and it's all fixed!)
I did.
1300 total streetlight outlets. In a city of 9 million. And that's basically the bleeding edge of this. The US is way behind them- so's most of the world.
Nor have they actually done so.
ONE specific street has. That's it.
If it goes well they might expand that in a couple years to a few more streets.
And then MAYBE make just one square mile or so of the financial center emissions free by 2030. Not the rest of the city though.
How will the petrol and diesel car ban work?
As to the whole UK-
How will the petrol and diesel car ban work?
The UK is banning ICE cars as of 2035.
Which is weird since you insist they'll be 100% EV by 2030 somehow.
Why would they need to ban something everyone stopped selling 5 years ago?
Oh- right- because unlike you, they know new ICE cars will still be sold 15 years from now because EVs won't 100% replace them everywhere.
HOLY NONSENSE BATMAN!
Or... at least 17,000 people (in a city of 9 million) have actual home charging.
Nobody's saying NOBODY has home charging- just that not EVERYONE does (indeed, even in the US where they're most likely to- it's only somewhere around 2 in 3 people on average)
(Have you ever actually been to London BTW? It never sounds like it when you discuss it)
I mean- now you are just lying.
That was the entire point of the original post
ORIGINAL QUOTE THAT STARTED THE WHOLE TOPIC said:
So yes, someone absolutely said that
And then my response, that you and a few other folks went apeshit over insisting I was wrong, was:
My original post in this discussion said:
Interestingly- that "most optimistic prediction" was actually cited in the 'osbourne' source of yours... 56% EV market share in 20 years.
Which, ya know, is what I originally said.
I never said they had to all be Teslas....Hell you just quoted me saying 95% of ALL cars" which obvious is NOT me saying "all Teslas"
Once again you misread and argued a point nobody made.
I was pointing out how small a share even the LARGEST EV company had.
All the other car companies are way far behind- most "hoping" to produce 1/10th the # of EVs Tesla does this year- and in some cases they won't even get to that number for a year or two maybe, and some without any serious plans to even do that.
So they aren't likely to magically produce 20 TIMES Teslas production anytime soon.
No, they weren't.
They rely on magical thinking, based on the Osbourne Urban Legend- but then extending the imaginary effect from months to years, and from ONE company in an industry to the ENTIRE industry (everyone ELSE had no issue selling computers during this time after all)
I didn't.
I even explained the math. You apparently failed to understand it. Again.
Tesla cites 35 gwh to make 500,000 cars.
Source:
Tesla, Panasonic to seek productivity gains before new battery investments
(and remember- Teslas are more efficient and virtually all other makers EVs- so everyone else would need more batteries to get that many cars with comparable range)
Which means roughly 1.5 million cars per 100 gwh (well, 105 technically.
So 2Twh/105gwh gets us 19.04... times 1.5 million gets us.... 28.57 million EVs from 2twh of battery.
I generously rounded up to 30 million.
Which is still not nearly enough to replace the 80 million new cars a year. Not by half.
And ALSO doesn't leave ANY batteries for static storage. Which you'll need a LOT of if you suddenly want massively more electrical capacity in the grid everywhere to feed tens of millions more EVs annually.
Wait... all the people building battery factories also own and operate all their own raw materials mining operations?
Citation needed as the kids say.
So first- again- you're pretending 100% of that capacity goes into EVs.... instead of at least SOME of it going into the other stuff that needs batteries.... (including- in large amounts- static storage like powerwalls and the like)
And even then...I'm not sure linear progression makes sense though and you've not given much reason to think otherwise.
For example regarding lithium-
Lithium supply is set to triple by 2025. Will it be enough?
As I said, supply chain of raw materials via mining is not a "Oh, there's money in it- the market will fix everything quickly and on time!" thing.
It's complex. It's long. And you're GOING to get bottlenecks and mismatches between investment, expected demand, and ability to supply.
And even then- industry is looking at a 3x growth in Lithium supply between now and 2025.
Which is great- except demand is expected to increase 10x by 2030. So they're gonna need more than "linear" there.
And as the story notes- those supply chain hiccups can crater prices in the short term- leading to people NOT investing in new mining for a while... and then years of delay to get it up and running when the hiccup clears and supply gets short and prices go up again.
Again from the story-
Not insurmountable... at all./. but it means more time.
On the contrary- I'm always happy to learn.
But seem to only have had the chance to teach here (not that you seem interested in in learning yourself...)
Mostly about why you should base arguments on facts instead of magical thinking and old computer industry urban legends (that don't really support your argument timeframe even if they WERE true)
no comment.
I'm talking about the social phenomenon, not the company. Being an urban legend only points to the effect being mis-labeled. Here's a better reference to the effect: Osborne effect - Wikipedia
So far, experts like the EIA and IEA have been wrong about renewable energy and electric vehicles for the past 10 years. So why should I believe their forecasts now?
See, lack of comprehension on display again. So because 1/3 of americans live in apartments, without dedicated charging, representing less than 30 million households (most of which don't own a vehicle, let alone a new one), we somehow need to deploy 2 billion chargers just to argue that this is too expensive of a solution?!?
I point out what can and IS happening nationwide (property owners deploying EVSE's on their properties to attract tenants, and shopping centers adding chargers to attract shoppers), and you present a contrived hypothetical.
because there aren't any streetlamps in the US? Or that London is no longer deploying additional outlets in the city? I'm not handwaving jack squat. These are all changes being implemented on a daily basis, by people who don't sit around and complain about how insurmountable the EV adoption problems are.
I never claimed the UK would be 100% EV only by 2030. But it seems your data point undermines your claim of 2040 being impossible to be 95% EV. If the UK (2.5M/yr), China (26M/yr), and many other major markets are banning combustion vehicles before 2040, how can EV sales NOT be significantly higher than 50%? Even if Osbourning does NOT have an effect, the global ZEV goals will ensure that very few combustion vehicles are sold after 2040. Enough to make what the rest of us are saying to be reality.
Doesn't seem like a point is being made here. So moving on.
Context matters. I've made sure to quote your train of thought exactly as you posted it. See how the context was about new car sales (even Barra's response to the question), and NOT ALL CARS? Care to rescind your claim of me lying?
As for your original post that we went "apeshit" over, 20 years is a long time. Many new production/mining plans can be devised 10 years from today and still make 80 million BEV's by 2040 a reality. The point is that 20 years is too long of a timeframe for what you currently see planned to have any kind of deterministic impact.
Where did it say that?! My osbourne article showed EV's at 90%+ new vehicle sales by 2028, not 56% in 20 years out. It's a prediction, so I'm not relying on it to be time-accurate, but I at least want to make sure we're arguing about the same topic.
Then you've missed the crux of why I included Chinese and Korean brands in my answer. Globally, Tesla only sold 1/4 of all the BEV's in 2019. The rest were mostly Chinese and Korean brands.
Oh for crying out loud. Not every BEV has to have a 65KWh battery pack! That's what Tesla's projections are based off of for their gigafactory needs, but NOT what other manufacturers are basing their sales off of. Will most of the EV's be made by Tesla or the other car companies?!?! As I said, you're creating your own data!
grid storage needs are currently tiny in relation to EV needs. Plus V2G will supplement grid storage and reduce the amount needed for it.
How the **** do you read what I just wrote as owning and operating their own mining operations?! These are battery cell manufacturers, who have established supplier relationships for their raw material needs. If they're planning a new factory for 2-3 years down the line, they'll coordinate with their suppliers to get the mines lined up. The cell manufacturer isn't going to build the factory first and then talk to their suppliers after the factories done. Only you think that these people can't plan ahead! The legacy automakers are a different breed.
fun fact, most of the lithium currently produced isn't for batteries. So a 3x growth covers far more than 3x EV needs.
Lithium is also easy to mine, that's why the 2016-2017 price spike was just temporary and based only on speculation. As the speculators realized there wouldn't be a resource shortage, prices returned back to normal, despite EV production totals doubling in the two years since. Cobalt is a more limited mineral, but the chinese EV manufacturers are not dependent on it, and Tesla is working on not needing it either.
Your data doesn't support your "facts".
Turns out by dubious face when you claimed this last time was spot on
Yeah again though this does not support your actual argument.
It's examples of one specific maker in an industry hurting sales of one specific product.... not an industry-wide collapse. On top of that the few examples given were usually from specific makers that ALREADY had significant other problems going into the situation (Sega cited as already having a history of short-lifeing consoles... and Nokia ALREADY getting its ass handed to it by iOS and Android by the time they announced the Symbian switch)
As applies to cars- sales of the current-gen of a given car model tend to be low in the last year as some people who want THAT model might wait a few months for the next-gen one in the fall.
But the car industry as a whole keeps selling roughly the same number of cars year over year regardless of that.
There's no evidence, ever, of HALF an entire industry deciding to put off ALL new purchases for YEARS.
Which was the crux of the nonsense argument you were presenting.
Can you cite some examples of on what, and to what degree they were incorrect? (citing this for bloomberg would be especially useful since they're the ones with most optimistic projections of 50-60% market share of EVs by 2040)
Wait.... what?
Anyone else catch that switching up # of people to # of households trick there?
Also the "most don't own a vehicle" lie?
Only about 9% of households don't own a vehicle... but somehow most apartment dwellers don't own one?
Math fail. Again.
(and average households own 1.8-1.9 vehicles... so your theory is... what... somehow the 1/3rd of the nation who has no easy access to home charging will... just stop buying new cars totally since they'll all be EVs real soon now...and just keep passing around the old used ICE cars amongst themselves?)
If you want one for every parking spot- yes.
If you have some study on how many chargers we'd actually need to support 80 million new EVs every year coming onto roads in perpetuity- eventually replacing all billion+ cars in the world- I'd love to see it.
No- I point out the couple of token EV charging spots is woefully insufficient to support replacing 80 million ICE cars a year with EVs for EVERYONE buying a new car.
Because that's a fact.
Some places there's plenty. Some places there's none.
It's a big country though- and most of it is NOT dense packed cities like London.
It's miles to the nearest streetlamp where I live.
Even when I lived in the burbs there was maybe ONE for every 10-20 households living near it.
Again woefully insufficient when EVERYBODY needs one (or two since most households have nearer 2 cars than 1)
I'm sure they'll continue to deploy them. But if we stick with linear growth they're not going to have anywhere remotely near enough in 10 let alone 20 years.
Do you have a copy of their plan for massively larger deployment handy?
I mean- you absolutely are.
You keep pointing out "Look! they put in a few chargers!" and magically turning that into "Chargers will be ubiquitous everywhere as a result!"
That's what's so hilarious.
I've repeatedly said from the start none of these problems are insurmountable. On the contrary I've said I completely believe a MAJORITY of new cars sold in 20 years will be EVs. Just NOT ALL OF THEM yet by then (which- again- was the original argument that spawned this thread)
It really doesn't.... oh, look, you're about to get some math grossly incorrect again..... SHOCKER!
.... well, for one, 28.5 million is way less than 50% of 80 million.... but more importantly China isn't doing that.
The 2040 target was in 2017.... turns out, things went SLOWER THAN PLANNED in the transition to EVs... so now the deadline is 2050. More recent source here:
Fossil Fuel Free: A Plan to Phase Out China’s ICEVs
2050. Which is a later date than 2040. 10 years later.
Seems even the Chinese government knows 2040 is unrealistic for 100% EVs
Meaning China DOES NOT expect EVs to be 100% of sales by 2040.
Just like I said and you keep disagreeing with.
What do YOU know that the government of China does not?
The point was your comment was nonsensical- you were claiming since there were 20k EVs in London and only 3k public chargers, obviously 17k people never charge.
It's an insanely dumb statement toward who knows what failed point- given in a city of 9 million it's not unlikely those 17k have home charging.
It's another example of you not grasping the difference between how easily SOME folks can go to EVs is NOT THE SAME as how easily EVERYONE can.
I've been citing 80 million the entire discussion. Which is the number of NEW cars sold each year.
It does seem like you're conflating what Barra said (the original thing I agreed with- that 20 years is too soon for ALL new cars to be EVs) with what some OTHER folks were saying about various timelines though.
Is it?
Total transition from horse to car took longer most places.
Total transition from land lines to cell phones took longer most places (and STILL isn't done a lot more than 20 years later- and replacing your phone is way easier than replacing your car)
Right in the article.
Did you not even read your own source?
YOUR source said:
I DO apologize for saying 56% when the article actually only said 55%. My bad.
YOURS for not noticing it even said this.
Each of which had LESS share than Tesla did.
So when I said Tesla had the largest share of any COMPANY I was, again, correct.
It's weird how often you disagree with something that turns out I'm right about because you didn't read the actual words I used.
That's true.
In fact most of the new EVs coming to the US this/next year have LARGER packs.... from Ford, Mercedes, and others... and many of the more recent intros (Audi, Jaguar, Porsche) ALSO have larger packs.
No- citing existing data. As more and more companies with less efficient tech than Tesla get into the game, packs seem to mostly be getting larger to try and offer non-garbage range.
Tell that to how far behind Teslas powerwall business is compared to original goals due to battery starvation
You wrote " all the world's largest battery manufacturers, who will drive their own mining needs"
As to your further claim-
And yet- as the source I cited tells you- that doesn't actually happen nearly as smoothly as you seem to think.
Hence prices spiked from shortages- miners then oversupplied and prices dropps, and mining investment dropped.... (and part of the reason for oversupply was turned out the DOWNSTREAM processing/battery factory parts were delayed).
it's almost like it's NOT a perfectly coordinated- always correct supply/demand- everyone works together system that never has months or years long inconsistencies and delays or something!
I mean- the miners just LITERALLY TOLD YOU they don't plan ahead very well so far.... and "unexpected" delays happen all the time all across the supply chain.
Unless, of course, EVs are the main reason for the demand increase.
Which is certainly what all the articles we've both cited suggest
I really don't.
In fact in at least one case I had to quote your own source back to you because you apparently hadn't read it and didn't realize it included the part I was citing.
Context has been in all my remarks- like how I pointed out your use of the Osbourne effect was ridiculous and inapplicable this discussion.
Third time you claiming you weren't going to post anymore.... let's see if it sticks this time
That was a perfect example of you taking things out of context. My source was the cleantechnica article claiming the Osbourne effect, not the bloomberg quote that the writer pointed out as being too conservative (that's why the writer had a convenient little graph further in the article showing this so that even the trolls can't ignore it). Context matters.
No, it's a perfect example of you not reading or understanding what you keep replying to (4th time after saying you were "done" too!)
I mentioned YOUR source had mentioned Bloombergs number at one point.
You denied that happened.
I pointed out it did, and quoted your source doing it.
You accused me of taking things out of context.
So you're either being intentionally dishonest, or just replying without really reading or understanding things.
To be fair, could be both.
It does.
You keep missing it.
Like the context of why the osbourne thing is nonsense.
First it's based on an urban legend.
Second, most of the examples of it "really happening" were to ONE specific vendor, for a few months...and usually in the context of them having OTHER problems that also tanked sales not JUST that one thing....and not an ENTIRE MAJOR INDUSTRY dropping to 50% sales for YEARS which is what the cleantechnica guy insists will happen despite having no evidence to support the claim.
Similar threads
