Stars aligned
Member
The same can arguably be said for this site.
-
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
Agreed. Since people here with knowledge of accounting are so happy about 'recurring revenue' it occurred to me that for non-Tesla owners to get access to the Supercharger network, they should not only have to pay-per-use (probably incl. per-unit-time to limit stall occupancy by slow chargers), but also pay a recurring monthly fee for the tangible benefit it provides to always be able to just go on a road trip with no worries about fast charging.
Dutch Fastned has a monthly 12 Euro subscription for 'Gold' members that then pay about as much per kWh as does a Tesla driver. Btw, during one's first Fastned charging session, one can connect one's Fastned payment method to one's Tesla, so subsequent charging sessions are authenticated just by plugging in. So for some brands of EVs, the Tesla charging experience should be possible at a Supercharger.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
It would be quite optimal if Gambit (Texla
) just went ahead and installed enough Solar/Battery projects to meet demand, and brought them online, all while Buffet and Abbot are still working out how the political payola will be distributed.Heck, with all the wind power available in Texas they might be able to do it with just batteries.
Since Dad, whom I've related before thought supremely highly of that new kid-on-the-block Warren B, can't roll over in his grave (and, sad to say, Dad also would unlikely to have changed his leopard spots that much, even as admiring as he was of those newfangled Tesla Roadsters), I'm thinking of acting in his stead and sending WB and BRK the coruscating letter he deserves. Unfortunately, Buffett not only doesn't know me personally but I'll suspect his senility has erased too much of his past memories for any such to have the needed effect.
corduroy
Active Member
There's no "may" about it. The NG pipelines were frozen so the peaker plants couldn't run. In the DFW area, where freezing temperatures are normal--usually for one or two weeks a year--there was enough winterizing so that they weren't affected.
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
Last edited:
That thing is only about 40 miles from where we live and is tied into our power distribution provider (Texas New Mexico Power).It would be quite optimal if Gambit (Texla
Heck, with all the wind power available in Texas they might be able to do it with just batteries.
Tesla is plugging a secret mega-battery into the Texas grid
Elon Musk is getting into the Texas power market, with previously unrevealed construction of a gigantic battery connected to an ailing electric grid that...
www.google.com
Last edited:
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
That is a good start.
How many more would then need to build to offset the Peaker plants Buffet wants to build?
He was right, climate change never was a risk for him. Dont know if he ever cared for others or the planet in his investments.
I always tried to stay away from the « Profits at all cost philosophy ». I see no difference between growing profits while destroying the planet like oil industries knowing what we know today with climate change or growing profits by destroying directly human lives like tobacco industries or coca labs in Columbia knowing what we know today on human dependance. I don’t know what to think yet of all the tech industries of social media exploiting physchologic human traits to create dependance of their usage.
I have some shares of BRK-B bought a decade ago, QQQ and oil through S&P500 ETFs, however the major portion of my portfolio of green energy, EV stocks, EV energy, etc. Trying to stop allocating any new money to companies that have an overall negative effect for the planet and society in general.
It is supposedly 100 MW of power, but no mention of storage capacity. Supposedly this is for “grid stabilization” as Angleton is a “volatile” ERCOT node. This is probably due to the current rules in Texas that batteries are part of distribution, not production.
I have moved my S&P 500 ETFs (SPY and IVV) to SPYX - an oil-free alternative. Has performed a bit better than S&P 500 over the past 5 years.
SPDR S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Reserves Free ETF (SPYX) Performance History - Yahoo Finance
Current and Historical Performance Performance for SPDR S&P 500 Fossil Fuel Reserves Free ETF on Yahoo Finance.
finance.yahoo.com
SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY) Performance History - Yahoo Finance
Current and Historical Performance Performance for SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust on Yahoo Finance.
finance.yahoo.com
He is comparing Deep Blue chess mastery with FSD AI. He knows nothing. But he keeps talking, that is for sure.
j6Lpi429@3j
Closed
I think some people are definitely confusing peaker plants and grid stabilisation.
When you have variable wind/solar energy over the course of a few hours (or even minutes!) you need grid stabilisation. Thats the thing that often requires sub-second response, or 10 minute response, and where batteries are the ultimate solution (because gas takes a while to spin up).
When you have a powerplant or interconnector FAIL or some major weather event knocks out, or down the power supply for hours or days... thats when you need a peaker plant.
There is an order of magnitude difference in the capital investment required, and number of batteries required to perform these tasks.
edit: great chart showing this on wikipedia for the hornsdale facility:
Tesla may well think that their batteries are more profitable put in new cars, or semis, before they put any in grid stabilisation facilities, and only when they are plentiful maybe build some peaker-plant scale facilities.
I don't know how Texas grid works, but here in the UK, commercial-scale battery owners can 'opt-in' to multiple schemes at once, so you can make your battery available for grid stabilisation, or for longer term (hours) storage or supply, at the discretion of the grid operator, with payments being very different for each scheme.
When you have variable wind/solar energy over the course of a few hours (or even minutes!) you need grid stabilisation. Thats the thing that often requires sub-second response, or 10 minute response, and where batteries are the ultimate solution (because gas takes a while to spin up).
When you have a powerplant or interconnector FAIL or some major weather event knocks out, or down the power supply for hours or days... thats when you need a peaker plant.
There is an order of magnitude difference in the capital investment required, and number of batteries required to perform these tasks.
edit: great chart showing this on wikipedia for the hornsdale facility:
Tesla may well think that their batteries are more profitable put in new cars, or semis, before they put any in grid stabilisation facilities, and only when they are plentiful maybe build some peaker-plant scale facilities.
I don't know how Texas grid works, but here in the UK, commercial-scale battery owners can 'opt-in' to multiple schemes at once, so you can make your battery available for grid stabilisation, or for longer term (hours) storage or supply, at the discretion of the grid operator, with payments being very different for each scheme.
my only competence in AI is reading Life 3.0 book by Max Tegmark and from what I understood in deep learning neural nets integrating algorithms from all the datas explored and reviewed by computer engineers from problematic situation reported by all the fleet is what is giving the edge and the capability of programming an AI to respond adequately in every situation possible. Unless the other companies reverse engineer the coding and have an AI algorithm that improved itself without using all the real life data, you can’t reproduce all the problematic situations and make the AI improve itself without the computed data reviewed by engineers like they showed at Autonomy day.
I might be totally wrong, this is far from my field of expertise, and can’t wait for someone in the field to correct Gary Black or myself.
Yes. Not sure what assistance in 'copying' FSD Gary thinks would be obtained by buying a Tesla. Perhaps he needs to watch a few of the videos Dave Lee and James Douma have done on FSD and the Tesla FSD HW to learn how it all works.
Below is my estimate of Q1 production and deliveries. Tesla economist has come up with his estimate of Q1 production numbers:
The below is my comment on his estimate of 187,537
The Tesla factory numbers are capacity (NOT production), the 500,000 for Fremont needs to be discounted by about 15% to take into account downtime. That is a quarterly run rate of 106k at the start of the quarter. But model Y capacity is probably still growing (and maybe a bit of Model 3 capacity growth), so we can guess a run rate of 116k at the end of the quarter. Averaging those gives 111k - but the factory was down due to parts shortages for about an extra 3 days, so that is 5k less production. I would estimate Fremont production of 3/Y is about 106k.
There has also been some Model S production, perhaps a couple of thousand.
Agree with the Shanghai numbers for production.
As regards to deliveries there were some (but not many) inventory Model S/X left at the end of Q4 all of which have probably been sold. The limited Model S production this year seems to being delivered locally, so almost all those produced will be sold.
I think there were also some Model 3 which could not be delivered in Europe in Q4 due to late arrival of ships. This quarter the ships arrived a few days earlier, giving enough time to complete deliveries.
So my estimate for production (thousands) is 106 + 2 + 61 + 14 = 183 k
and for deliveries = 185 k
Edit: note: I did not do a start of quarter prediction but if I had it would have been 13k higher for production (no parts shortage shutdown, 8 weeks of Model S production) and 11k higher for deliveries (as I would have estimated deliveries = production).
The below is my comment on his estimate of 187,537
The Tesla factory numbers are capacity (NOT production), the 500,000 for Fremont needs to be discounted by about 15% to take into account downtime. That is a quarterly run rate of 106k at the start of the quarter. But model Y capacity is probably still growing (and maybe a bit of Model 3 capacity growth), so we can guess a run rate of 116k at the end of the quarter. Averaging those gives 111k - but the factory was down due to parts shortages for about an extra 3 days, so that is 5k less production. I would estimate Fremont production of 3/Y is about 106k.
There has also been some Model S production, perhaps a couple of thousand.
Agree with the Shanghai numbers for production.
As regards to deliveries there were some (but not many) inventory Model S/X left at the end of Q4 all of which have probably been sold. The limited Model S production this year seems to being delivered locally, so almost all those produced will be sold.
I think there were also some Model 3 which could not be delivered in Europe in Q4 due to late arrival of ships. This quarter the ships arrived a few days earlier, giving enough time to complete deliveries.
So my estimate for production (thousands) is 106 + 2 + 61 + 14 = 183 k
and for deliveries = 185 k
Edit: note: I did not do a start of quarter prediction but if I had it would have been 13k higher for production (no parts shortage shutdown, 8 weeks of Model S production) and 11k higher for deliveries (as I would have estimated deliveries = production).
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
