-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
andrewt3000
Member
Shameless plug for my new site... Tesla News
I built this cuz I have been finding it very interesting how different media outlets report the same news in conflicting ways... also there is a link on my site to bypass the wsj paywall.
"Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to repeal federal tax subsidies for renewable energy." - wsj
Trump hasn't said he will attempt to repeal the tax credit, which last year was extended through the end of 2019, but analysts believe that could be on the table. -buffalo news
I built this cuz I have been finding it very interesting how different media outlets report the same news in conflicting ways... also there is a link on my site to bypass the wsj paywall.
"Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he wants to repeal federal tax subsidies for renewable energy." - wsj
Trump hasn't said he will attempt to repeal the tax credit, which last year was extended through the end of 2019, but analysts believe that could be on the table. -buffalo news
Now this. Does Trump want to take the risk?
Donald Trump's victory isn't the most terrifying news today. There's something even worse
Donald Trump's victory isn't the most terrifying news today. There's something even worse
andrewt3000
Member
Here are some ways trump's victory could be good.....
fear of losing the federal tax credit could drive sales in this quarter.
trump getting rid of the cafe standards and tax credits... could have a positive effect on tesla's image. many people have a deeply rooted fear of government intervention and... "picking winners and losers." It would get rid of that argument... sorta like paying back the doe loan.
fear of losing the federal tax credit could drive sales in this quarter.
trump getting rid of the cafe standards and tax credits... could have a positive effect on tesla's image. many people have a deeply rooted fear of government intervention and... "picking winners and losers." It would get rid of that argument... sorta like paying back the doe loan.
andrewt3000
Member
Why is Elon tweeting this? How does it benefit Tesla? He should learn when to shut up
I was hoping that Elon would at least maintain a warm relationship with help from Peter Thiel. Start a fight right after the election??
Will of the people is sacred and must be honored even if it is different from ours. Trump is our president now and he deserves full respect and cooperation for the next 4 years.
Elon is a mission driven founder and CEO. It's more important to stick to that mission than to kowtow.
Ulmo
Active Member
So, will this affect Tesla stock in 3 months, 8 months, or 24 months? Here's my prediction:
Having said all that, I hate dirty air near where I live, so that's enough of a reason for me to switch to clean energy. Another reason to switch to clean energy that by itself is enough for me is that I do not want to support the activities that using oil and coal cause: for oil, war, and lots of mining, and for coal, pollution in terrible ways and also mining concerns. That's double enough reason for me to switch to clean energy, and that's all without considering climate change.
I think a science foundation oriented approach and fact based approach which has respect for the policy makers and their assistants will be the best course of action in the near term. After that, if that turns out to be insufficient, it can be revisited. However, there have been too many lies, and most Republicans are already inoculated against anything that sounds like a lie right now, so it's not good to jump into the coattails of those who keep repeating old mantras, because they'll be too easy to ignore. Fresh sourced information will be very important. Luckily, we've seen a steady stream of new information, so hopefully this isn't impossible to find. Looking for it honestly and with integrity right now in the next few months while it's potentially easy to do is probably a very good idea.
I grew up in Aptos, California, and have walked in the second-growth redwood forests for all my life. Those trees, despite being second growth (clear-cut around a century ago), were tall and sturdy when I was young, and the ecosystem seemed reasonable. Now, those same trees feel like paper mache, weak, hollow, and deteriorating. I suspect a number of causes, but I have no proof. Maybe my nose, skin, nerves, muscles and memory operate differently and my sensory input is fooling me. Maybe this is excess traffic on Highway 1 from Watsonville raising the temperature of the fog the trees need to survive dissipating it before it gets to them. Maybe excess trade with China has imported excess insects that eat the trees. Maybe climate change is a contributor to different weather that removes the fog. I want to try each one of those solutions to figure out how to fix the problem. But I live here, and Trump lives in a golden room in the top of a skyscraper in Manhattan. How many redwood forests does he walk through throughout his life? He most likely does not have the same first-hand feeling, intuition and knowledge of the environment that others like I have. Yet, that is not scientific; it is intuition. I can't use my experience alone to tell someone else to dictate policy. And worse, Trump probably thinks it's fine if we loose redwood forests. (Personally, I have ideas of terraforming Earth to add redwood forests that are man-made, not naturally occurring through non-man made means. I have methods to do it that would reveal some of my huge profit making ideas that I don't want to talk about now.) My point is that a respectful discussion of climate change needs to consider the history of the topic and the person who we are discussing it with, from their point of view.
Remember, many Republicans (not all) are conservatives, and conservative means conservation, and one example is to conserve nature, and while that's not how all conservatives are conservative, many of them are nature conservationists, to various degrees. That's something we need to leverage, not insult.
So, here comes my prediction: following my general outline above, we can watch the tea leaves, and see how that progresses. Eventually, we will get a sense of future policy direction. That future policy direction will either increase the rate of growth of clean energy or not. There may be temporary decreases in the rate of growth of clean energy, but they will be smoothed out by the continued cost improvements, industry transformations that continue, and worldwide marketplaces that continue with these conversions. I think then the stock price will take the profit to be made into consideration, and slowly arrive at a reasonable adjustment to factor policy in. I also think that those number changes are medium to long term, and any short term reactions will be immature, but possible, and temporary. I also think that those numbers will not change a huge amount, because most of the industry is changing worldwide at an average pace that will not be as abrupt as various regions.
I predict that within 6 months from today, Trump will have looked at this issue from his own staff studies, and come up with a path. If that path is acceptable, we can go with that, and if not, we will have to educate him more urgently. I am still someone who respects science, meaning we are always trying to figure out the truth in science. I'm also aware that misdeeds have gone on with this topic from both sides, so I always welcome a fresh look.
Having said all that, I hate dirty air near where I live, so that's enough of a reason for me to switch to clean energy. Another reason to switch to clean energy that by itself is enough for me is that I do not want to support the activities that using oil and coal cause: for oil, war, and lots of mining, and for coal, pollution in terrible ways and also mining concerns. That's double enough reason for me to switch to clean energy, and that's all without considering climate change.
I think a science foundation oriented approach and fact based approach which has respect for the policy makers and their assistants will be the best course of action in the near term. After that, if that turns out to be insufficient, it can be revisited. However, there have been too many lies, and most Republicans are already inoculated against anything that sounds like a lie right now, so it's not good to jump into the coattails of those who keep repeating old mantras, because they'll be too easy to ignore. Fresh sourced information will be very important. Luckily, we've seen a steady stream of new information, so hopefully this isn't impossible to find. Looking for it honestly and with integrity right now in the next few months while it's potentially easy to do is probably a very good idea.
I grew up in Aptos, California, and have walked in the second-growth redwood forests for all my life. Those trees, despite being second growth (clear-cut around a century ago), were tall and sturdy when I was young, and the ecosystem seemed reasonable. Now, those same trees feel like paper mache, weak, hollow, and deteriorating. I suspect a number of causes, but I have no proof. Maybe my nose, skin, nerves, muscles and memory operate differently and my sensory input is fooling me. Maybe this is excess traffic on Highway 1 from Watsonville raising the temperature of the fog the trees need to survive dissipating it before it gets to them. Maybe excess trade with China has imported excess insects that eat the trees. Maybe climate change is a contributor to different weather that removes the fog. I want to try each one of those solutions to figure out how to fix the problem. But I live here, and Trump lives in a golden room in the top of a skyscraper in Manhattan. How many redwood forests does he walk through throughout his life? He most likely does not have the same first-hand feeling, intuition and knowledge of the environment that others like I have. Yet, that is not scientific; it is intuition. I can't use my experience alone to tell someone else to dictate policy. And worse, Trump probably thinks it's fine if we loose redwood forests. (Personally, I have ideas of terraforming Earth to add redwood forests that are man-made, not naturally occurring through non-man made means. I have methods to do it that would reveal some of my huge profit making ideas that I don't want to talk about now.) My point is that a respectful discussion of climate change needs to consider the history of the topic and the person who we are discussing it with, from their point of view.
Remember, many Republicans (not all) are conservatives, and conservative means conservation, and one example is to conserve nature, and while that's not how all conservatives are conservative, many of them are nature conservationists, to various degrees. That's something we need to leverage, not insult.
I emphatically agree.Why is Elon tweeting this? How does it benefit Tesla? He should learn when to shut up
I was hoping that Elon would at least maintain a warm relationship with help from Peter Thiel. Start a fight right after the election??
Will of the people is sacred and must be honored even if it is different from ours. Trump is our president now and he deserves full respect and cooperation for the next 4 years.
So, here comes my prediction: following my general outline above, we can watch the tea leaves, and see how that progresses. Eventually, we will get a sense of future policy direction. That future policy direction will either increase the rate of growth of clean energy or not. There may be temporary decreases in the rate of growth of clean energy, but they will be smoothed out by the continued cost improvements, industry transformations that continue, and worldwide marketplaces that continue with these conversions. I think then the stock price will take the profit to be made into consideration, and slowly arrive at a reasonable adjustment to factor policy in. I also think that those number changes are medium to long term, and any short term reactions will be immature, but possible, and temporary. I also think that those numbers will not change a huge amount, because most of the industry is changing worldwide at an average pace that will not be as abrupt as various regions.
Last edited:
voyager
Active Member
He doesn't even read, and considers Global Warming a Chinese hoax. That's even worse than politicians who just deny that the global climate is warming up. Why Trump dragged the Chinese into this in the first place, I don't know.
Thanks for posting that link. As a European, it's difficult to image why americans would vote for Trump. But that's only because we only see his politcially uncorrect behavior here. Nobody in Europe talks about the policy changes he wants to introduce. As an example, his policy to improve education and lower higher eduction costs are very European, but that doesn't get any press here.
With respect to climate change (and possible short term effect on Tesla) I see two things in this link:
- use the billions of the climate change programs that USA would pay to foreign countries to improve the USA environment: that is just redirecting an environmental budget from foreign countries to the USA. Seen worldwide, it won't make a difference, but it would make a difference for the Americans.
- removing roadblocks for oil and coal production: that's OK for me. As green energy is becoming the cheapest way to produce energy, this will become stranded assets, and it will speed up de demise of the carbon based energy business.
The assets made possible by any of these policy changes WILL become stranded assets as green energy becomes the cheapest way to produce energy (refer to Elon's vision of electricity becoming practically free, or at least cheaper the transport cost). This will only speed up the demise of gas, coal and oil companies.
PaulRocket
Member
Why doesn't Tesla enter partnerships with some wind turbine manufacturers and offer a complete package to the customers? Could they build one with Vestas for example?
voyager
Active Member
Gerasimental
Member
'Eighty-four percent of all registered voters support more funding for energy sources like wind and solar, including 91 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans. A similar number, 81 percent of all voters, support giving tax rebates to people who buy energy-efficient cars or solar panels, including 91 percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans.'
"we will have to educate him more urgently"
there are some people that are so entrenched in their "beliefs" that they can no longer be educated... the only way out of this Trump situation is through impeachment.
Hogfighter
Professional Lurker
Imagine the number of left-leaning individuals who are horrified by the election, and want to make changes by themselves.
They will line up to buy EVs, solar roofs, and battery packs. Just my 2 cents....
They will line up to buy EVs, solar roofs, and battery packs. Just my 2 cents....
CALGARYARSENAL
Member
Tesla's success is up to the people. We can be fearless and invest in what is right and just or run away scared selling our soul and shares out of fear and greed.
Think of all Elon and us shareholders have been through this year. It could get worse, but my guess is that we are in for sunny days.
Think of all Elon and us shareholders have been through this year. It could get worse, but my guess is that we are in for sunny days.
Last edited:
Buddyroe
Active Member
Hmmm. I was thinking the same thing, but not about Trump.
I'm just waiting for the first "Climate Change" Church to pop-up. Oh wait, we already have them, I think they masquerade as universities.
Every single person that voted for Trump Tuesday simply doesn't believe that climate change is man-made. All of them look at the fact that water once covered a far greater portion of the earth LONG before there were humans as proof that the earth has been warmer, without any help from humans (please don't present arguments against this as I am just telling you what the Trump supporters believe). Additionally, those people are middle class working people that Tesla will eventually need to sell cars to in order to be successful and survive. As long as Tesla and Musk use Climate change as the reason for buying and EV, half the population of America will detest Tesla and see it only as another of the Global Warming scam. People don't like scams. The smartest thing Tesla can do is leave the environment completely out of any of its marketing and communications. Everyone that does believe in GW surely knows that zero-emission cars are better for the env. And can buy an EV accordingly. For everyone else, just market the products for what they are - GREAT products that are better on merit than their competition. The Model S is a better solution for those looking for a luxury sedan - without EVER considering its effect on the environment (or lack thereof).
In 100 days when asked about the list he will claim that it was not what he said or that congress will not allow it (he did make a lot of promises that are not for President to decide). You should know that Obama has not implemented his campaign list either.
Pollution is a global issue -simple example: if we do nothing the food we import will get more and more contaminated with arsenic, lead and PCBs.
If you listen to what what SolarCity is fighting for -if we let utilities invest in wrong infrastructure, stranded assets you mention, will be our responsibility to pay for.
Overall I think Democratic Party's hubris got us where we are today blaming it on individuals if the wrong way about it.
larmor
Active Member
The current political climate will make people think for themselves: is more pollution good or bad? Just because one person says there is no problem doesn't mean that everyone is required to think like that one person.
10-15 years ago, lots of people would say pollution is not a problem. Now with data and articles so easy to find, people can make more informed decisions.
10-15 years ago, lots of people would say pollution is not a problem. Now with data and articles so easy to find, people can make more informed decisions.
GoTslaGo over on the SCTY thread wrote this. It is something to think about and I found it such an informative posting, I thought it belonged on this thread with greater exposure:
"
"Time to revisit:
Battle of the Billionaires in Nevada:
Recap:
Round 1 was with Buffett (NV Energy) vs. Musk (SCTY). Musk was soundly trounced by the "independent" Nevada PUC who decided Residential Solar needed to go, and basically sent SCTY packing.
Round 2:
Sheldon Adelson (Sands) vs. Buffett (NV Energy). With decisive backing of Proposal #3, NV Energy is about to lose it's monopoly. This would eliminate the penalty that the major Casinos in NV would have to pay to get out of NV Energy's monopoly (to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars), and open up the energy market in NV.
Obvious benefit for Sands/Wynn, et al. would be that they could do like MGM and cover their millions of square feet of roofing with Solar, add in batteries, you can figure out the rest. Without penalty, or actually much less than the penalty. Given their real estate, they even could potentially become utilities in themselves. Recall the Adelson is a major supporter of Trump. So I am guessing that any business related renewable energy credit will likely stay in place. Also recall Buffett is (D), Adelson is (R).
It will take another vote in 2018 to make this so (as Cpt. Picard is apt to say).
There are two years between SCTY/TSLA merger and when the rules become final. IMHO, Musk has two years to prove the obvious benefits of Solar/TE, get a bunch of contracts, and show that it's the best and cost effective product out there. There's a lot of roofing waiting to be covered here in NV.
"
"Time to revisit:
Battle of the Billionaires in Nevada:
Recap:
Round 1 was with Buffett (NV Energy) vs. Musk (SCTY). Musk was soundly trounced by the "independent" Nevada PUC who decided Residential Solar needed to go, and basically sent SCTY packing.
Round 2:
Sheldon Adelson (Sands) vs. Buffett (NV Energy). With decisive backing of Proposal #3, NV Energy is about to lose it's monopoly. This would eliminate the penalty that the major Casinos in NV would have to pay to get out of NV Energy's monopoly (to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars), and open up the energy market in NV.
Obvious benefit for Sands/Wynn, et al. would be that they could do like MGM and cover their millions of square feet of roofing with Solar, add in batteries, you can figure out the rest. Without penalty, or actually much less than the penalty. Given their real estate, they even could potentially become utilities in themselves. Recall the Adelson is a major supporter of Trump. So I am guessing that any business related renewable energy credit will likely stay in place. Also recall Buffett is (D), Adelson is (R).
It will take another vote in 2018 to make this so (as Cpt. Picard is apt to say).
There are two years between SCTY/TSLA merger and when the rules become final. IMHO, Musk has two years to prove the obvious benefits of Solar/TE, get a bunch of contracts, and show that it's the best and cost effective product out there. There's a lot of roofing waiting to be covered here in NV.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
