Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Here is the per capita version ...... though to be fair to all countries the amount of offshoring of (especially) heavy industry in the immediate post-2000 period flatters many Western economies, to the detriment of China. Accounting for - and addressing fairly and squarely - such offshore emissions is a valid aim of CBAMs.

View attachment 836506
T
That's a little better, but it still doesn't fully take into account the effects of America's switch from coal to natural (methane) gas. It's only showing CO2. Also, it is not taking into account the historical, cumulative emissions.

Again, pitting one country against another is counterproductive. If we are going to get out of this climate mess, all large nations have to cut emissions drastically. We are all in this together.

Additionally, I'm surprised the mods are letting posts like this happen here.
 
These people who keep choosing to develop hydrogen vehicles, are they incapable of performing simple arithmetic?

If the only ones who benefit from hydrogen cars are the oil companies creating the product at high inefficiencies, while the owners of hydrogen vehicles place themselves in harm's way for potentially explosive results at each refill of a vehicle that can't hope to match pure BEV efficiencies, who is the winner here?

How many people does BMW expect to fall for these fallacies and be unable to do the math for total cost of ownership over time? Enough to keep their books in the black? I don't think so.

What kind of BS do the oil companies spout to the OEMs who take up their idiotic proposition for Fool Cell manufacturing? (BMW, Toyota, etc.)

What financial incentives must have been offered along with that hydrogen fool cell song and dance in order for board members to vote for such foolishness which is all but guaranteed to sink the company they control?

This won't end well for those involved in promoting this "alternative" to pure BEVs.
 
Morning from Eu!

Why isn't there Netflix documentary about Tesla's consensus bubble & record short selling and then being literally the best performance stock & company in 2020? It's hilarious and ironical AF, I mean the consensus worst turns out to be the best - out of thousands of companies. LOL. There is epic material from Spiegel's short selling seminar, bears in finance media, famous people shorting like Gates and Burry etc.

Someone make this happen! :p

When I watch a really good documentary, I am always amazed on how some of the documentarians kept filming for 5 years, 10 years and even 20 years.
I would have likely gone to editing once I had good material after year 2 or 3, I don't have the patience. But great stuff keeps coming after year 3.
Often when I watch these documentaries, it gets absurdly crazy and interesting in episode 3 and you think how can there be 10 episodes. . . . what's left?
Well episode 4 gets better and episode 5 crazier, episode 6 you yell "no way"!.
If someone is doing a documentary on TSLAQ, they are still filming . . .there are still a few good years where Tesla blows them away.
 
I always try to give people the benefit of doubt so when I read the CEO's quote, "hydrogen is the missing piece of the puzzle that can complete e-mobility where BEVs will not prevail", I thought ok maybe he's talking about vehicles in a 3rd world country where the grid is not well developed or some niche vehicle.
But then he goes on to say that the X5 would be the first vehicle . . . and that's where the benefit of the doubt walked out the door.
Bugs me too that he says, "will not prevail" as opposed to "may not prevail".
Note to self: BMW is in trouble.
 
These people who keep choosing to develop hydrogen vehicles, are they incapable of performing simple arithmetic?

I think some of the legacy OEM's are so desperate to utilize their existing ICE infrastructure they will do and say anything to convince themselves it's a great strategy. This includes ignoring the obvious fact that EV's and electric transportation are the future, NOT hydrogen. It's true hydrogen might find a niche purpose for long haul point to point trucking, but it has zero potential in consumer cars.

That ship has already sailed, and I find it sad that some legacy CEO's still can't come to terms with that fact. I feel sorry for the employees of those companies. :(
 
These people who keep choosing to develop hydrogen vehicles, are they incapable of performing simple arithmetic?

1659617025989.gif
 
I think some of the legacy OEM's are so desperate to utilize their existing ICE infrastructure they will do and say anything to convince themselves it's a great strategy. This includes ignoring the obvious fact that EV's and electric transportation are the future, NOT hydrogen. It's true hydrogen might find a niche purpose for long haul point to point trucking, but it has zero potential in consumer cars.

That ship has already sailed, and I find it sad that some legacy CEO's still can't come to terms with that fact. I feel sorry for the employees of those companies. :(
If you can source electric motors and charger/ inverter and cannot both
  • Source BEV levels of cells
  • Retool a car to package large batteries
Then a fuel cell you can outsource is one of your few options for de-ICEing (I say few because there are probably others, but IDK).
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Artful Dodger
Nope, no red flags here:

BREAKING!!! Lucid CEO Sells Stock: $180 Million - Massive! (Warren Redlich from Mar 10, 2022)


...can't say there were no signs. :p

Cheers!

This was a clickbait video. If you actually read the Form 4 filing, he had to sell shares to cover the taxes for options vested. It's similar to what happened with Elon.

I'm no fan of their CEO, he's too focused on "perfect" to get volume out the door, but he didn't do anything nefarious here.
 
Here is the per capita version ...... though to be fair to all countries the amount of offshoring of (especially) heavy industry in the immediate post-2000 period flatters many Western economies, to the detriment of China. Accounting for - and addressing fairly and squarely - such offshore emissions is a valid aim of CBAMs.

View attachment 836506
T
A big question of some relation to Tesla and the mission: How much of the egregious per capita emissions shown for Americans and Australians is related to driving cars? One look at the wide, low density population of a lot of car-loving America, and that same sort of distribution "on steroids" for giant and sparsely-populated Australia certainly gives a believable rationale for a lot of the height of those curves.
This makes me hopeful that the coming EV fleet conversion can really make a significant dent, quickly.
Related: Greatly appreciated the pictures of the ships bring Model Y to Australia earlier this week. Beachhead being established in a place where it could do a LOT! Cheers and gratitude to you Teals(?) (surely intended as a stealth anagram for Tesla ;) ) Down Under for getting things rolling.

*edited for matching parentheses
 
Who is investigating what? Was there a post about it? Something, somewhere? If so, please provide a link. Meanwhile, I've still not seen anything other than people being confused.

To be clear, if you look online at your broker and see one share of TSLA after the 5 for 1 split that isn't you being cheated. If you tell your broker to sell your five shares and he doesn't, then you may have been cheated (it depends on what rules you've agreed to for putting in orders and when they have to execute them). All the complaints I've seen don't involve any cheating, they are just people imagining that when they ask about their accounts that the information must be correct.
🤦

You’re so focused on being right about this (which you aren’t and all you needed to do was read the posts between your original one and this one and then just a few posts after this one for the answer) that you can’t even recognize when a poster is joking.

Overly serious and intense much?
 
Forward Observing

Turning a ship on a dime.

Legacy auto manufacturers are incapable of change beyond changing from a hand crank window to electric toggle switch to move a window up or down. How about the technology of adding a radio from option to standard equipment.

CEOs of legacy auto manufacturers are single dimensional thinkers. Therefore, no matter the IQ, they will never get out of the sandbox.

Elon knew this from the get-go, therefore he ran Tesla right up the middle of the playing field and is winning hands down.

Simple math. Even I figured it out:eek:

Cheers
 
These people who keep choosing to develop hydrogen vehicles, are they incapable of performing simple arithmetic?

If the only ones who benefit from hydrogen cars are the oil companies creating the product at high inefficiencies, while the owners of hydrogen vehicles place themselves in harm's way for potentially explosive results at each refill of a vehicle that can't hope to match pure BEV efficiencies, who is the winner here?

How many people does BMW expect to fall for these fallacies and be unable to do the math for total cost of ownership over time? Enough to keep their books in the black? I don't think so.

What kind of BS do the oil companies spout to the OEMs who take up their idiotic proposition for Fool Cell manufacturing? (BMW, Toyota, etc.)

What financial incentives must have been offered along with that hydrogen fool cell song and dance in order for board members to vote for such foolishness which is all but guaranteed to sink the company they control?

This won't end well for those involved in promoting this "alternative" to pure BEVs.
Don’t you worry your pretty little head; the Chinese got this.
 
Zipse, the CEO of BMW, is doubling down on his obvious strategic mistakes from the past, which I try to point out in many articles and newsletters for years. It is sad to see how desperately he tries to justify hydrogen and his 'one platform' approach that has put the company in a weak position. The "we've done everything right in the past" but reinvent us in 3 years completely statement is quite contradictory too. His outlook is pretty shocking as well.

BMW is now at the top of my Darwin extinction list, and if they continue on their course, I wonder how long he will keep his role and keep BMW in business.
 
Zipse, the CEO of BMW, is doubling down on his obvious strategic mistakes from the past, which I try to point out in many articles and newsletters for years. It is sad to see how desperately he tries to justify hydrogen and his 'one platform' approach that has put the company in a weak position. The "we've done everything right in the past" but reinvent us in 3 years completely statement is quite contradictory too. His outlook is pretty shocking as well.

BMW is now at the top of my Darwin extinction list, and if they continue on their course, I wonder how long he will keep his role and keep BMW in business.
So, essentially, what you are stating is that he doesn't know Zipse about successfully running a company? ;)