The Magnis deal looks real.
Minimum 17,500 tons/yr starting Feb 2025, maximum 35,000 tons/yr for minimum 3 yrs at fixed price.
Minimum 17,500 tons/yr starting Feb 2025, maximum 35,000 tons/yr for minimum 3 yrs at fixed price.
-
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
Direxion actually uses a different type of derivative called a swap to gain the leverage with TSLL. Swaps commonly use loans, so it's not that much different than using margin to gain leverage on a TSLA position. I own all three: TSLA, TSLL, and Tesla Leap calls. How's that for diversification?
So this confirms that a new GF announcement is imminent because where would Tesla store all these tons of unused battery material??
I don't think the Tesla Investor Day on March 1 will accelerate the timeline to peak Fossil Fuel use.
However, Elon probably believes Tesla can accelerate the decline in Fossil Fuel use after the peak, and so do I.
Generate sufficient momentum for a rapid decline, once it has momentum it is hard to stop, getting it moving is harder than keeping it moving.
For an investment perspective, there is a lot of money invested in Fossil Fuel companies. Peak Fossil Fuel use, followed by a steep decline, should be enough to make a lot of it search for a new home.
“Tesla doesn’t have a technology advantage”
I think this is somewhat old news, but it came across my Twitter today and it reminded me of all the little things that contribute to the Tesla experience. Yes, often the car tells you what’s wrong with it. That’s pretty rad.
I think this is somewhat old news, but it came across my Twitter today and it reminded me of all the little things that contribute to the Tesla experience. Yes, often the car tells you what’s wrong with it. That’s pretty rad.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Yeah, version 2022.36.5 and up, you can check your alignment in the service menu (which can be accessed by everyone - Google if you want to know how).
Greatly reduces the guessing on if your car needs an alignment!
Last edited:
This Teslarati article focuses upon a known flaw in the human system. Essentially, "familiarity breeds contempt" is a very real issue. Here, IIHS comments upon the problem of this tendency of people to become complacent when using automated driving aids.
You really cannot depend upon many/most drivers to exercise the level of vigilance needed as the march of 9s strives to reach a functional full autonomy. There will be those instances of tragedy, and uncounted instances of near tragedy, as the data is gathered to accomplish this worthy goal.
On the flip-side, there will still be many, many lives saved which will not be counted, simply because you don't tend to notice when a system is working well.
Tesla’s FSD Beta recall gets response from IIHS President
Harkey noted that drivers of partially automated cars have shown a tendency to treat their cars like they are fully autonomous.www.teslarati.com
And yet here were are, with over 350,000 FSD Beta running around without any major accidents. I think real world trumps an "experts" opinion, don't you?
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Economic output *is* a function of carbon emissions. There are other factors that have been reducing the carbon intensity per $ of GDP, but for the last four decades it's been steadily at about 300-500 kg of CO2 per $1 generated. See chart from the IEA below (link).Excellent thread. I particularly enjoyed this graph which debunks the tired old trope that "GDP is a function of carbon emissions": (NOT!)
TL;dr WINNING!
There have been gradual, modest improvements by about ~2x since 1980, but it's been remarkably consistent despite wildly fluctuating fossil fuel prices and despite dramatic changes in human civilization and technology.
Only solar/wind/battery power has the potential to break this equilibrium. tCO2/$GDP will plummet and I expect Joules/$GDP will shoot up by an order of magnitude or maybe more, depending mainly on 1) how cheap SWB power actually ends up in the long run and 2) how much additional use we find for all this cheap electricity (i.e. the price elasticity of demand for electric energy).
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
This is really all it should come down to. Maybe the statistics could be more sophisticated in terms of making sure it's an apples to apples comparison of Tesla vs. non-Tesla, but at the end of the day the "Tesla's FSD/Autopilot system is dangerous" hypothesis can be tested by looking at collision, injury and fatality rates.
Thus far human-supervised FSD Beta has been extremely safe compared to the US average. The trend shows there's been probably about 110 million miles by now and still there's been zero injuries or deaths as far as we know publicly. (The total number of collisions is unknown, but probably not high because news media would report on it whenever possible and they speculate about whether FSD was active when Teslas crash even before facts are available.)
This big zero compares with the US national average of 1.3 deaths per 100M miles and 80 injuries. At this sample size, zero deaths by itself isn't too impressive (or statistically significant) of an accomplishment, but zero injuries sure is, and so is the apparent absence of hundreds of collisions being reported.
All of these what-if arguments against Tesla's safety approach to FSD Beta and testing on public roads had much more weight a year or two ago. Now there's so much data that it's absurd to still talk about this as a topic of controversy. If it's dangerous, where are all the wounded and dead bodies?
Last edited:
Paracelsus
Active Member
Posted here because 'all things Tesla' is still the solution between the lines....and because it was written by Mark Jacobson of course.
"BILL GATES has put billions of dollars into new technologies he believes will help halt climate change: small modular nuclear reactors, biofuels, capturing carbon dioxide from the air (direct air capture) and geoengineering (reducing solar radiation by adding particles to the atmosphere). ExxonMobil is building a “blue hydrogen” plant that produces the fuel from natural gas and tries to capture the CO₂ emissions. The US Inflation Reduction Act provides funding that Gates, ExxonMobil and other companies can use to capture CO₂. It also helps to fund Gates’s dreams of small modular reactors and bioenergy. The problem is that none of these technologies is useful for helping to solve the climate crisis, let alone the wider air pollution or energy security problems the world faces. We only have until 2030 to eliminate 80 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and until 2035 to 2050 to banish the rest to avoid 1.5°C of warming. Moreover, 7 million people die prematurely each year due to air pollution and hundreds of millions more become ill. About 90 per cent of this pollution is from energy. Lastly, the world faces several energy-security risks, including the instability that will result from fossil fuels and uranium running out. Given the magnitude and urgency of these problems, the best solution is one that can be implemented quickly, at low cost, while tackling all three issues at once. However, the technologies proposed by Gates and ExxonMobil, among others, don’t even attempt to address pollution or energy security – and they hardly help with climate change. Carbon capture, direct air capture and blue hydrogen – which all require equipment and energy – increase air pollution, fuel mining and fossil-fuel infrastructure, while scarcely reducing CO₂. New nuclear plants have a 10 to 21-year time lag between planning and operation (too long to help solve the problems discussed here), costs that are five to eight times those of new wind and solar power per unit energy, and CO₂ emissions that are nine to 37 times those of onshore wind. Bioenergy produces air pollution and greenhouse gases while using rapacious amounts of land and water. Rather than searching for a miracle, we need to look at the wind, water and solar technologies right in front of us. Combining these with storage, efforts to encourage people to shift the time of their electricity use to even out demand, a well-interconnected electrical transmission system and efficient electrical appliances, such as heat pumps, will allow us to solve all three ginormous problems at low cost worldwide. A wind, water and solar system would use much less energy than a combustion-based one. Globally, the energy that people use typically falls by over 56 per cent with these technologies. On top of that, wind, water and solar reduce the cost per unit energy by another 12 per cent on average, resulting in a 63 percent lower annual energy bill worldwide. The global upfront capital cost of building such a wind, water and solar system by 2050 is around $62 trillion. However, due to the $11 trillion annual energy cost savings, the payback time is less than six years. What is more, we already have 95 per cent of the technologies we need to solve the problem. The ones we don’t have include long distance aircraft and ships, and some industrial technologies, but we know how to shift to those. We don’t require “miracle” technologies. To solve our problems, we need to avoid policies that divert funds from true solutions. We must educate the public and policy-makers about what works and what doesn’t, and thus overcome the misinformation that has distracted us to date."
"BILL GATES has put billions of dollars into new technologies he believes will help halt climate change: small modular nuclear reactors, biofuels, capturing carbon dioxide from the air (direct air capture) and geoengineering (reducing solar radiation by adding particles to the atmosphere). ExxonMobil is building a “blue hydrogen” plant that produces the fuel from natural gas and tries to capture the CO₂ emissions. The US Inflation Reduction Act provides funding that Gates, ExxonMobil and other companies can use to capture CO₂. It also helps to fund Gates’s dreams of small modular reactors and bioenergy. The problem is that none of these technologies is useful for helping to solve the climate crisis, let alone the wider air pollution or energy security problems the world faces. We only have until 2030 to eliminate 80 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions and until 2035 to 2050 to banish the rest to avoid 1.5°C of warming. Moreover, 7 million people die prematurely each year due to air pollution and hundreds of millions more become ill. About 90 per cent of this pollution is from energy. Lastly, the world faces several energy-security risks, including the instability that will result from fossil fuels and uranium running out. Given the magnitude and urgency of these problems, the best solution is one that can be implemented quickly, at low cost, while tackling all three issues at once. However, the technologies proposed by Gates and ExxonMobil, among others, don’t even attempt to address pollution or energy security – and they hardly help with climate change. Carbon capture, direct air capture and blue hydrogen – which all require equipment and energy – increase air pollution, fuel mining and fossil-fuel infrastructure, while scarcely reducing CO₂. New nuclear plants have a 10 to 21-year time lag between planning and operation (too long to help solve the problems discussed here), costs that are five to eight times those of new wind and solar power per unit energy, and CO₂ emissions that are nine to 37 times those of onshore wind. Bioenergy produces air pollution and greenhouse gases while using rapacious amounts of land and water. Rather than searching for a miracle, we need to look at the wind, water and solar technologies right in front of us. Combining these with storage, efforts to encourage people to shift the time of their electricity use to even out demand, a well-interconnected electrical transmission system and efficient electrical appliances, such as heat pumps, will allow us to solve all three ginormous problems at low cost worldwide. A wind, water and solar system would use much less energy than a combustion-based one. Globally, the energy that people use typically falls by over 56 per cent with these technologies. On top of that, wind, water and solar reduce the cost per unit energy by another 12 per cent on average, resulting in a 63 percent lower annual energy bill worldwide. The global upfront capital cost of building such a wind, water and solar system by 2050 is around $62 trillion. However, due to the $11 trillion annual energy cost savings, the payback time is less than six years. What is more, we already have 95 per cent of the technologies we need to solve the problem. The ones we don’t have include long distance aircraft and ships, and some industrial technologies, but we know how to shift to those. We don’t require “miracle” technologies. To solve our problems, we need to avoid policies that divert funds from true solutions. We must educate the public and policy-makers about what works and what doesn’t, and thus overcome the misinformation that has distracted us to date."
Last edited:
All the dead bodies are hidden behind the protection from MSM, in which they refuse to report on any accidents, injuries, and fatalities from Tesla crashes.
hahahahaha who am I kidding? They report them so much that it is literally the most accurate way to account for every single death no other car manufacture gets to have access to for their own cars.
H2 powered bike. Sounds right to me.
jabloomf1230
Minister of Silly Walks
2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
I don't understand your question. Perhaps you haven't heard, past performance is no guarantee of future results. There are a lot of variables to account for.
Do you think there is no chance of there ever being a collision? (never been a fan of the term "accident" in the context of car crashes)
It is more than clear that Tesla is approaching solving FSD the best way they can. Responsibly pushing the envelope. My post touched on the human aspects that are being studied in order to accomplish this. It was about the march of 9s. Getting there without loss of life would be great. I hope that is how it happens.
테슬라 모델 2(Tesla Model 2) 스파이샷 업데이트
테슬라 엔트리 모델이 될 모델2(Tesla Model 2) 테스트카입니다한차례 출시가 연기된 상태죠늦어도 올 하반기에 나올 거 같습니다디자인은 기존 모델3와 모델Y를 섞은 느낌일 듯하네요2만5천달러 선에서…
www.autospy.net
Anyone seen this?.. Possibly a Model 2?
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
The Limiting Factor on YouTube has the best research on batteries for Tesla. As of Nov ‘21 the analysis projected CATL’s share of Tesla’s battery supply growing a lot in the next few years. This time last year, CATL broke ground on a giant battery factory three blocks away from Giga Shanghai.
(Link)
No— it has door handles and a place for a gas cap. Photoshop in full effect.테슬라 모델 2(Tesla Model 2) 스파이샷 업데이트
테슬라 엔트리 모델이 될 모델2(Tesla Model 2) 테스트카입니다한차례 출시가 연기된 상태죠늦어도 올 하반기에 나올 거 같습니다디자인은 기존 모델3와 모델Y를 섞은 느낌일 듯하네요2만5천달러 선에서…www.autospy.net
Anyone seen this?.. Possibly a Model 2?
That is a Mazda cx30 with Tesla lights. Probably a photoshop too. It even has the Mazda tailpipe cutout.테슬라 모델 2(Tesla Model 2) 스파이샷 업데이트
테슬라 엔트리 모델이 될 모델2(Tesla Model 2) 테스트카입니다한차례 출시가 연기된 상태죠늦어도 올 하반기에 나올 거 같습니다디자인은 기존 모델3와 모델Y를 섞은 느낌일 듯하네요2만5천달러 선에서…www.autospy.net
Anyone seen this?.. Possibly a Model 2?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
