SebastianR
Active Member
Ahm...we had this studying by GM officially in 2013:
All this studying and obsession didn’t really do anything. And the most recent Cadillac EV (ELR I believe) didn’t exactly fly off the shelves...
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Ahm...we had this studying by GM officially in 2013:
All this studying and obsession didn’t really do anything. And the most recent Cadillac EV (ELR I believe) didn’t exactly fly off the shelves...
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Yeah, journalists not lying and trying to write truthful articles still exist. I was asking for some background information about the supposed incident of the EU bribing Ford to move production from the UK to Turkey.
(It's rather ironic that Brexiters are actually inflicting more harm on UK carmakers than the EU ever did.)
When I read this over the weekend my thought was that it was a fairly weak comment to a non-selective audience.
Re-reading it now, nothing more apt springs to mind than that first line of the old chestnut: “First they laugh at you”.
If there's any short conspiracy theory that's as as funny as #CraneGate, it's the one about how the SpaceX's Starship Hopper photo that Musk tweeted is a Photoshop fake, because the flag is on the wrong side and it's on a concrete pad and the only buildings visible are a couple satellite dishes way in the distance.
Next time you see that one, share this with them:
RGVAerialPhotography on Twitter
(Some of them were also tweeting about how the sci-fi astronaut gantry for Dragon 2 was also a Photoshop fake, which is even funnier, given how many shots from the ground show it, and seriously, they think Musk can't build a gantry? )
Everything's fake, everyone! Musk doesn't make anything real! That Tesla that you think you're driving? Boy, Musk really pulled the wool over your eyes with that one
Next time you see that one, share this with them:
RGVAerialPhotography on Twitter
(Some of them were also tweeting about how the sci-fi astronaut gantry for Dragon 2 was also a Photoshop fake, which is even funnier, given how many shots from the ground show it, and seriously, they think Musk can't build a gantry? )
Everything's fake, everyone! Musk doesn't make anything real! That Tesla that you think you're driving? Boy, Musk really pulled the wool over your eyes with that one
Last edited:
shlokavica22
Member
My guess (absolutely speculative) is that they see drop in the demand. This message is more aimed at their current/potential customers- "Truck business is a serious matter- difficult and demanding. Trust the pros and don't gamble with unreliable newcomers."
There have actually been plenty of negative amazon articles in the Washington Post. About pricing and impact on small businesses and quality of conditions in the fulfillment centers and injuries at same.
Elon is up to the challenge, rocketry is even more difficult.
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Unfortunately, there are people out there that believe just that. Everything Elon touches is a scam and Tesla/SpaceX/Boring Company are nothing more than fronts for getting Elon richer. I am friends with one such person. It is the only thing we lock horns over. He sees everything in the most negative/skeptical light possible. Drives me crazy. I have had to just block him from most of my Tesla posts anymore because he immediately replies with FUD. *sigh*If there's any short conspiracy theory that's as as funny as #CraneGate, it's the one about how the SpaceX's Starship Hopper photo that Musk tweeted is a Photoshop fake, because the flag is on the wrong side and it's on a concrete pad and the only buildings visible are a couple satellite dishes way in the distance.
Next time you see that one, share this with them:
RGVAerialPhotography on Twitter
(Some of them were also tweeting about how the sci-fi astronaut gantry for Dragon 2 was also a Photoshop fake, which is even funnier, given how many shots from the ground show it, and seriously, they think Musk can't build a gantry? )
Everything's fake, everyone! Musk doesn't make anything real! That Tesla that you think you're driving? Boy, Musk really pulled the wool over your eyes with that one
Dan
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
I'll refrain from characterizing the three (four) outcomes, other than pointing out the obvious, that finally even Theresa May appears to be realizing that they really don't want to be blamed for a no-deal "hard" Brexit on March 29 ...
Overall macros are still very lousy: the China trade balance news is weighing on the markets.
OT (probably needs a thread)
My point is kinda a gestalt thingy, bit vague around the edges and interior
Science fiction used to envisage giant orbiting arrays of solar collectors beaming down power from 23,000 miles up (geosynchronous orbit)
Collecting sunlight and converting it, these stories written when PV was over $600/watt back in the 1950’s and 60’s
(My rooftop array covers 59.9 sq meters and collects photons from 93 million miles away, straight line)
Right now in Australia there are plans for a 50,000 VPP, (virtual power plant) loosely coupled with software for FCAS etc (frequency ancillary services etc) AND being built
PV + batteries (Google VPP)
If the cost of electricity is “cost of production” plus “cost of transmission and distribution”
AND
Cost of T&D is 4-6 cents per kWh (probably closer to 4)
Why ship electrons 1,000 miles when you can ship them 50-100 feet? And you can make them for less than cost of T&D?
Do this over neighborhoods
Btw state of California has mandated 100% solar PV on all new residences and has highest uptake of PV panels in the US.
I seriously expect Tesla Energy to outgross revenues if they don’t stumble too much
There are companies out there already doing VPP’s. I’m a latecomer to the party.
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
As a background to why macro might suck for weeks, weighing on $TSLA:
Anyone who finds this as unbelievable as me should check out this video of Trump desperately trying to gain the attention of Putin the first time they were meeting in 2017.
The weekend news is that they secretly met and that transcripts of five meetings with Putin were collected from the translator and the translator was forbidden to talk to anyone about those meetings. (Some of the meetings only had a Russian translator - only Trump and Russians were present. We'll probably never know what was said.)
Another one is the following statement by Trump during the following debate:
But as we now know that was 3 lies about his Russian contacts in short succession:
Here are the weekend bombshells:
So Trump is in serious legal jeopardy and I'd expect macros to be very volatile until it settles one way or another ...
Anyone who finds this as unbelievable as me should check out this video of Trump desperately trying to gain the attention of Putin the first time they were meeting in 2017.
The weekend news is that they secretly met and that transcripts of five meetings with Putin were collected from the translator and the translator was forbidden to talk to anyone about those meetings. (Some of the meetings only had a Russian translator - only Trump and Russians were present. We'll probably never know what was said.)
Another one is the following statement by Trump during the following debate:
"I know nothing about Russia. I know Russia, but I know nothing about the inner workings of Russia. I don’t deal there, I have no businesses, I have no loans from Russia."
But as we now know that was 3 lies about his Russian contacts in short succession:
"Even as Trump was standing there on national television telling the world he had “no business” in Russia, his attorney, Michael Cohen, was actively seeking a real estate deal to build a Trump Tower Moscow, with the full knowledge and guidance of Donald Trump. Numerous high profile Russian oligarchs had snatched up Trump condos and other Trump real estate at unusually high prices. Around the same time Trump was on that stage with Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, through attorney Michael Cohen, had made a corrupt offer to Vladimir Putin via Dmitry Peskov, his press secretary—approve the Trump Tower Moscow deal and Putin would be given a $50 million penthouse condo in the building."
Here are the weekend bombshells:
1. F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia (NYT)
2. Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration (WaPo)
3. Americans blame Trump and GOP much more than Democrats for shutdown, Post-ABC poll finds (WaPo)
4. Pressure on Senate Republicans to break shutdown impasse grows (WaPo)
But for example yesterday's leak about the White House developing plans to attack Iran is possibly related as well, a classic distraction maneuver to split media coverage.2. Trump has concealed details of his face-to-face encounters with Putin from senior officials in administration (WaPo)
3. Americans blame Trump and GOP much more than Democrats for shutdown, Post-ABC poll finds (WaPo)
4. Pressure on Senate Republicans to break shutdown impasse grows (WaPo)
So Trump is in serious legal jeopardy and I'd expect macros to be very volatile until it settles one way or another ...
Last edited:
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Dan Detweiler
Active Member
Well, love it or hate it, satan or saint, the majority of the American Electoral College votes did go to him so he is our President. Let us not throw stones, on the likelihood that it might place your glass house in peril, especially if one did not have a say in putting him in the Oval Office. Why are we lingering of politics in this thread anyway?
Just a thought...
Dan
Well, as FC stated at the beginning of the post you quoted:
"As a background to why macro might suck for weeks, weighing on $TSLA:"
Just a response ...
ZachF
Active Member
Denmark is a tiny country with pretty low consumption that can dump it's excesses (or borrow from) Sweden, Norway and Germany.
Wind power wont be more than a supplement. It's too variable. Power generation goes to the fourth power of wind speed, so forecasts being off by just hugely impact power generation.
It's nowhere near as predictable as solar. It can generate nothing for weeks at a time then generate at 100% for weeks at a time. Adding a full day of storage to something like that doesn't increase the capacity factor as well as something like solar.
Offshore wing is not cheap either, it's triple the cost of onshore wind, and future price declines are 100% in solar's favor since wind still needs huge amounts of steel and concrete structures.
When we get all of our power from renewables it's going to come from solar in sunny places with dependable sunlight for all seasons pumped to where it is needed... For Europe that means Northern Africa.
When all the fossil plants are dead that's when the nuclear plants should be taken offline, IMHO.
There is a thread for Market Politics. There is a thread for Brexit. There is a thread for Competitor BEV progress.
And all that happened while I was sleeping to create several more pages by the time I came in this morning.
Can we please, please, please start using these other threads? It is getting impossible to keep up with this thread anymore. This is especially aimed at those who post 10 or more times a day. You should be familiar enough with the forum to know how it is supposed to work. A little self-policing, please.
End of rant.
And all that happened while I was sleeping to create several more pages by the time I came in this morning.
Can we please, please, please start using these other threads? It is getting impossible to keep up with this thread anymore. This is especially aimed at those who post 10 or more times a day. You should be familiar enough with the forum to know how it is supposed to work. A little self-policing, please.
End of rant.
HG Wells
Martian Embassy
Because if only a portion of what has come out this weekend proves true the markets will crash and crash hard.
When will the market accept the data or reject it. That is the question. Weeks or months. No one can say.
Variability (which it should be noted exists on the demand side as well, which sucks for baseload plants, particularly ones that only ramp up and down slowly like nuclear) has many different solutions.
1) Intermittent + different type of Intermittent = significantly less intermittency (e.g. solar and wind peak at different times of day)
2) Intermittent + geographic distribution = significantly less intermittency (day-night timeshifting, weather shifting, etc)
3) Intermittent overcapacity = significantly less intermittency
4) Intermittent + short-term storage = significantly less intermittency
5) Intermittent + long-term storage (such as pumped or non-pumped hydro) = rapidly ramped baseload
6) Intermittent + peaking = baseload
#1-4 amplify each other, while #4-5 are outright baseload replacement. And remember, no power system guarantees 100% uptime. One strives for as close to 100% as you can get, but unexpected outages strike fossil and nuclear plants as well. It's always a statistics game.
Vs. baseload, intermittent power sources have an inherent advantage in that you can sculpt them better to the demand curve. With nighttime power demands being far less than daytime power demand, providing your power with "baseload plants" means them spending much of their time idle, not earning money.
Nuclear power also plays poorly with intermittent power sources. As insanely expensive as nuclear power is already, those prices are based on it having high capacity factors, aka the plants being in almost constant use (nuclear power prices are overwhelmingly amortized capital costs, not operating costs). If the wind is blowing hard at a time of low power demand in a wind-nuclear mix, for example, your nuclear power plants have to cut back on generation, lowering their capacity factor, and making their power even more expensive per kWh.
There have been many, many research papers that have studied high-renewables grids. They work very well with a proper mix of #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. You don't even need to incorporate all of them.
As for the specific case of Denmark: Yes, they do rely on their connections to their neighbors to support their high wind penetration. But that's the whole point. That's how you make a high-renewables grid. A particularly valuable contribution is its connections with hydro-rich Norway and Sweden; hydro acts like a giant battery (#5).
1) Intermittent + different type of Intermittent = significantly less intermittency (e.g. solar and wind peak at different times of day)
2) Intermittent + geographic distribution = significantly less intermittency (day-night timeshifting, weather shifting, etc)
3) Intermittent overcapacity = significantly less intermittency
4) Intermittent + short-term storage = significantly less intermittency
5) Intermittent + long-term storage (such as pumped or non-pumped hydro) = rapidly ramped baseload
6) Intermittent + peaking = baseload
#1-4 amplify each other, while #4-5 are outright baseload replacement. And remember, no power system guarantees 100% uptime. One strives for as close to 100% as you can get, but unexpected outages strike fossil and nuclear plants as well. It's always a statistics game.
Vs. baseload, intermittent power sources have an inherent advantage in that you can sculpt them better to the demand curve. With nighttime power demands being far less than daytime power demand, providing your power with "baseload plants" means them spending much of their time idle, not earning money.
Nuclear power also plays poorly with intermittent power sources. As insanely expensive as nuclear power is already, those prices are based on it having high capacity factors, aka the plants being in almost constant use (nuclear power prices are overwhelmingly amortized capital costs, not operating costs). If the wind is blowing hard at a time of low power demand in a wind-nuclear mix, for example, your nuclear power plants have to cut back on generation, lowering their capacity factor, and making their power even more expensive per kWh.
There have been many, many research papers that have studied high-renewables grids. They work very well with a proper mix of #1, #2, #3, #4, #5 and #6. You don't even need to incorporate all of them.
As for the specific case of Denmark: Yes, they do rely on their connections to their neighbors to support their high wind penetration. But that's the whole point. That's how you make a high-renewables grid. A particularly valuable contribution is its connections with hydro-rich Norway and Sweden; hydro acts like a giant battery (#5).
Perhaps if you want to encourage people to switch to a given thread for a given topic you should include links to the threads people should be posting in instead, so that they don't have to search for them. Just a tip.
Helpfully, solar and wind also peak at different times of the year.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
