Thanks.
Yes. ICE vehicles are far less efficient at converting fuel to motion. Even if you assume an EV is 100% coal powered today, an EV produces less emissions simply due to efficiency of converting fuel to motion. In addition, every year that goes by the EV produces fewer emissions as the grid gets cleaner.
The grid will never be "Ready" for EVs. Power companies are not going to spend 10 years investing in infrastructure which might be needed but is not currently. They are going to respond to actual demand today. So there will literally never be a time where we have a bunch of excess grid capacity for EVs to grow into.
I do agree on some of his points but....
That was straight solar. Adding a Powerwall2 costs around $9-10,000 USD extra. Although there are a lot of other cheaper batteries around as well as some rebate and VPP schemes.
Then subsidised Australian prices are USD $17k, US subsidised are $25k, and UK unsubsidised are $19k. That is for 12kW PV + 10kWh storage. Interesting.
How are we winning when $TSLA is only up 1.2% and GM is up 2.6% today??Lol, do you mean the MA(200) and the MA(10) or 50? That's not going to happen on a upswing, we crossed the 200-day Moving average 3 session ago.
View attachment 854250
The Upper-BB acts like a cap as the SP moves up, so can't say we 'ride-it' either. More like we 'drive' it. I think you need to spruce up your chartology...
I'd say the Open Interest for Call and Puts at 300/310 is driving the SP action right now, with MMs also needing to replace some shares from last Fridays, but they have 13 days before they have to report any non-delivered shares.
Overall, we've been in a holding pattern since Aug 01 waiting on Q3 results, with hard-core shortzes holding out for the twiitr tryal. No matter, Tesla is winning.
Cheers to the Longs!
Ultimately, that's no different than the evolution of ICE and the gas station infrastructure. Henry Ford started producing the Model T in 1908 IIRC-there wasn't an Exxon on every corner. From what I've read, an early sources for gas was at pharmacies, where they sold it by the can. Yet the infrastructure developed and expanded organically-without government intervention. The same has been happening (though with more government involvement) in the charging world. Just look where we are now vs a decade ago. Grid and charging infrastructure will have to be developed just as the gas distribution infrastructure did.
Probably closer $15.5k USD for 12kW PV + 10kWh storage including local battery subsidies. (Powerwall2 is 13.5 kWh and would be more expensive. Available battery rebates are around $2k.)
Looks like over the last week the 50day Has risen nearly 10 points from 275 to around 285.
That's great, is there an FSD thread it should be posted in. Sorry for the snark but I've given up simply disliking the "personal views on FSD" posts that have been clogging up this thread recently
I understand your point and don't argue that TSLA has the best charging solution. But that doesn't mean every EV maker has to have to have their own charging network (let alone unique plug). A decade ago, TSLA was the only practical game in town (along with a couple companies building glorified golf carts). There was no DC charging infrastructure at the time-TSLA was pretty much forced to develop that infrastructure in order to sell their cars. Fast forward and you have multiple companies developing charging infrastructure. There is much less need for every manufacturer to have their own system, when you have EVGO, Chargepoint and EA out there expanding quickly (quality/uptime are other issues). We don't see Chevy/Ford/Toyota gas stations, we don't need manufacturer-specific chargers on every corner.
GigaBerlin's VINs are sequencially increasing and the subset that are exported to Norway are public (at e.g. Tesla Registration Stats), so the "German Tank Problem" is perfectly suited to estimate GigaBerlin's production:
With the expectation that the production rate at GigaBerlin is non-constant, the total production is less interesting than the recent rate of production on e.g. a weekly basis. As such one can base the estimate on the most recent D days - where for those D days the effective maximum observed VIN is the actual maximum observed VIN minus the maximum observed one D+1 days ago.
Because of the random nature of the day when a new maximum VIN is observed, the estimated rate of production is strongly dependent on the choice of D. Further, with a too small D, the fluctuations in the estimate are less likely to reflect actual production rate fluctuations and more likely to be an effect caused by the random nature of the maximum VIN occurrence. Lastly, with a too large D the estimate is at risk of being impacted by actual changes in the production rate during those D days.
To overcome this, one can compute the estimate for all meaningful values of D, e.g. D=7,8,9,... up to some limit where the production rate can be assumed to not have changed (e.g. some time after GigaBerlin's 2nd shift started). One can then make a histogram of the production estimates over D.
Based on this approach (for any histogram bucket size in the range 50 - 150) the average weekly production rate at GigaBerlin in the past 5, 6 and 7 weeks is about 1750.
Some expected, systematic errors in this approach:
1) There is some latency in a VIN being produced at GigaBerlin before it can be observed in Norway - basically the time to transport and register the vehicle there,
2) It is possible that certain production days are allocated to Norway, while others are not - e.g. if a whole train is going to be filled up with Norway exports. In such a case (a "Norway wave") the observed VINs will indicate a fluctuation in production rate which is not real but rather caused by a sampling bias. If this actually happens it seems to be on a timescale not discernible among the noisy samples.
