-
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
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
I have doubts that mined H2 will be cheaper than H2 produced by electrolysis.…
BTW, no, I am not putting any money into hydrogen as a fuel at any point in the near future. Just wanted to point out the rest of the article that focuses on gaseous H2.
This could ring a bell for our rocket fuel aficionado, @Gigapress - does that article showing "gaseous H2 almost for free" help any of your cost assumptions about renewable rocket fuel? You know, for the SpaceX Model S?
With the right design, electrolysis is cheap for every factor of production except for the electricity itself. We’re talking around 70 to 100 kWh consumed per kg of H2 produced, and at least 40 kWh is required at thermodynamically ideal reaction efficiency (which probably can’t be achieved with cheap electrolyzers). If solar power cost trends continue, the marginal cost of electricity at the right time of day will be very cheap, and the electrolyzers can act much like batteries, absorbing loads when excess power is available. For example, if the cost of electricity were $0.01/kWh then the energy cost would be around $0.70 - $1.00/kg H2, which might enable an overall cost cheaper than H2 derived the traditional way from natural gas. I don’t know the exact breakeven point and it probably varies from one region to another, but basically I think it’s somewhere around this cost of electricity, and solar is trending to get there in the next ten years or so.
H2 is a bad idea for powering transportation, but as others have pointed out it is necessary for certain chemical processing and it’s also necessary for sustainable chemical production. Notably, H2 is necessary to run the Sabatier reaction to produce methane (CH4), which SpaceX is pursuing for Starship fuel and which also can be a precursor to Fischer-Tropsch synthesis for producing a wide variety of other hydrocarbon chemicals that currently are derived unsustainably from finite petroleum and natural gas reserves while releasing greenhouse gasses and other pollutants in the process.
Also, without sustainable H2 supply we will have no ammonia and thus no crop fertilizer and thus no practical way to feed billions of humans and thus many people will starve. Therefore I expect H2 production will play a large role in the future of human energy consumption and will become a major demand driver for solar. I would like to see someone analyze how it might interplay with battery storage and EV charging for dynamically balancing supply and demand for electricity. I presume Tesla is probably already looking into this and hasn’t told us about it.
One problem with mining for H2 is the inherent refining and transportation costs, whereas an electrolysis plant produces pure H2, it could have a local solar farm on site and it could directly integrate the H2 output into the next step of the chemical processing (Sabatier, Haber-Bosch or whatever).
Last edited:
FSDtester#1
Craves Electrolytes
Place your bets... rate hike of .25% or does Darth Powell pause this time?
Next Fed decision isn't scheduled until May 3rd. Nothing in April.
CPI was just okay, PPI was good. Bank stuff may play into this decision.
Next Fed decision isn't scheduled until May 3rd. Nothing in April.
CPI was just okay, PPI was good. Bank stuff may play into this decision.
Exclusive: Tesla's Model 3, Project Highland Exposed: What’s Changing
Discover the latest updates on Tesla's Model 3 Highland, including changes to its design, technology, and production efficiency.
www.notateslaapp.com
I like positive rumors.
Sounds like Megapack Facility coming to Shanghai.
My guess is Tesla announces this and a third Megapack facility this year.
Sounds like Megapack Facility coming to Shanghai.
My guess is Tesla announces this and a third Megapack facility this year.
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
This is the 22nd short video Tesla has posted on YouTube in the last five months and the 15th in just 2023. It seems Tesla actually has begun earnestly advertising, though still without paying for promoting the videos.
Zheng seems to have inside sources. He also posted this, a comparison of two photos. The chinese says the first (shorter vehicle) is from the product page and the second is from the investor day powerpoint. Guess it's an overlay anchored on the wheels to get a possibly accurate comparison:
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
On the vehicle capacity expansion rumor, this seems to contradict the note on the Q4 report:
Tesla could have been understating or maybe “near term” meant only a few months, but I think we should bear this in mind when considering the credibility of this rumor.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
"... then you stand on the gas pedal..." Seriously?
Paracelsus
Active Member
Thanks for the thoughtful response @Bobfitz1 - Several of your comments which I highlighted are a great segue into a broader discussion of the Diablo Canyon vs Renewable argument, and perhaps to help untangle the 'Nuclear is Good for the Climate' concept a bit since the media has gone all-in on nuclear in the last year or so.
For those who don't routinely follow Mark Jacobson, my post of his criticisms of Diablo Canyon unfortunately made it difficult to understand his perspective in the larger context of just where renewable energy capacity could-and-should be already in California. My apologies for that. Diablo Canyon is becoming a great metaphor for the policies and PG&E protectionism that have delayed and deterred renewables in California. Mark's point in arguing Diablo Canyon and Renewables IMO is that we must do better and we must think bigger and we must act more quickly. Diablo Canyon represents a failed approach compounded by failed policy. And by pointing a finger at Diablo Canyon, we are pointing a finger at much more than a single nuke plant.
It is fair to argue the potential merits of continuing to operate an existing nuclear power plant until there is sufficient Renewable sources to fully displace it IMO. However, the bigger point being made in that discussion IMO is that Diablo Canyon's life is being extended because California failed to prepare for this moment.
Batteries don't just come in Tesla Megapacks. And that's a good thing for the Planet. If PG&E was as forward thinking as Vermont's Green Mountian Power, they would be incentivizing the installation of Powerwalls and other storage in every customers home and small business. And those batteries would be charging from roof top solar on each of those buildings. And that solar would be incentivized at the Federal and State level, and would furthermore receive very favorable net metering opportunities for the Distributed Grid stability and reliability it would add to PG&E's current train wreck. But instead, residential and small commercial solar and storage is a perceived threat to the existing paradigm in California, with Grid operators insisting they need to own and control large-scale generation sources to stay relevant. And they are successfully doing so by lobbying for the implementation of net metering policies that are literally slowing California's solar and storage growth so much that this year Texas will install twice as much solar capacity as California while Californians debate whether residential solar projects can even be practical. This is not good for California residents and rate payers. This is not good for future California solar and storage adoption rates. And this is certainly not good in the larger transition away from fossil fuels in the larger Climate fight. And like many of us here on TMC, Mark Jacobson is not pleased about this either.
California cuts rooftop solar net metering: An industry reacts
Reactions to the passage of NEM 3.0., a rulemaking procedure that reduced rooftop solar export payments by 75%.
pv-magazine-usa.com
Washington and Oregon have failed to prepare for this day as well, which means the West Coast Grid has not prepared adequately for this day either. As I have pointed out before, WA Gov Jay Inslee's hydroelectric protectionist position was quite clear in his Op Ed letter in the San Francisco Chronicle where he specifically targeted California solar growth being wheeled on the same grid as Northwest hydro. I should point out that many NW hydro plants are under the microscope in a similar way at a similar time in their planned lifecycle, with deferred maintenance needs and environmental concerns always just below the surface. The NW desires the ability to sell hydropower on the southern end of the West Coast grid while CA has the potential of sending clean solar north on those same lines instead. The West Coast Grid was upgraded at significant cost after the Enron crisis opened a new market for NW hydro in Southern California, and a massive amount of money was spent to upgrade the grid to support continued NW hydropower sales to the neighbors in the south, however it seems nobody ever thought about the ability for energy to flow north on that same grid at the time. And it also seems like the Northwest would prefer California not grow its solar and storage potential too quickly, or it might be displacing more expensive NW hydro and NW natural gas plants. And that wouldn't make Warren Buffett too happy.
Op-Ed: California should collaborate on power grid | Governor Jay Inslee
Op-Ed in San Francisco Chronicle: California should collaborate on power grid As governor of Washington state, I’ve traveled around the country and around the world and have been encouraged at the momentum that’s building for climate action and the recognition of the West Coast states as climate lea
And then there are the concerns beyond CO2 that don't get too much play in the media anymore, and thus unfortunately result in a view that nuclear is much more climate friendly as a result. Nuclear plants make hot water hotter to power a steam cycle, and they do this by generating less CO2 than fossil fuel plants - which is the appeal on the surface from a Climate perspective. But nuke plants typically only achieve about 33% efficiency in the process. On a bright note, that could mean that 2/3rds of the heat generated could still be available for other uses - i.e. District Heating Systems in northern climates. But that almost never happens. And Diablo Canyon is in Southern California. And it draws 100% of its cooling water directly from the ocean. And it dumps 100% of its waste heat into the ocean. And that means that roughly 67% of the thermal heat generated by the 2.2 Gigawatt facility simply becomes thermal pollution directly into the Pacific Ocean. And in the case of Diablo Canyon, that is not a small amount of heat.
"The power plant draws in seawater from a constructed intake cove to provide cooling for power plant operations. After passing through the plant's cooling-water system, approximately 2.5 billion gallons per day of heated water is discharged back into Diablo Cove. The discharge is approximately 11° C (20'F) warmer than ambient ocean waters under normal operating conditions. Even after significant mixing with the ambient receiving water, the discharge produces localized temperatures that are higher than those normally encountered by marine life in the area."
I would really encourage folks to think about that for a moment. A single power plant is dumping 2.5 billion gallons of water that is 20° F warmer than ambient every day - 365 days a year - directly into an ocean that is already warming at a rate that is of great concern. Nothing wrong with that picture...? A continuous titration of much warmer water into a body of water that we are hoping won't get warmer. Hey, its the ocean and its big and the pipes go way out there <s>. But if someone suggested warming up the entire discharge of the Sacramento River by 20° F for about 3 hours everyday (similar volume), the entire State would come unglued.
But we are already warming up the Sacramento River with the Shasta Dam, and we are thus already titrating warmer water into that ocean out of the Sacramento River because of hydropower. And we are already titrating warmer water into that same ocean as a result of all the hydroelectric projects across Idaho and Oregon and Washington into the Columbia River and also into the Puget Sound. And Diablo Canyon is only 1 of about 439 nuclear power plants around the globe that make hot water hotter. And those hydroelectric dams are just a few of the roughly 62,500 hydroelectric plants around the globe.......many of which can also contribute to increasing water temperatures of the systems they are powered by. And the biggest 'ocean warmers' are probably yet to come - like the Mekong River hydroelectric project that is currently underway.
Just because fossil fuels have been the talking points of the Climate debate, please don't think they are by any means the only major contributors to a warming ocean system that is fueling many undesirable changes. If Diablo Canyon alone is dumping 2.5 billion gallons a day of 20° F warmer water into the ocean, how much does the rest of those other ~63,000 'Climate friendly' energy sources contribute to our ocean warming? The answer is certainly not zero, and the answer will be much larger than almost everyone expected IMO. I have observed that we don't talk as much about Thermal Pollution of our waters as we used to, which I find odd since many of our hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants have a pretty direct connection to the ocean. I think @unk45 could add value to this discussion.
Mark Jacobson has also been understandably critical of the carbon footprint accounting of nuclear plants. While we typically see figures reported that are around the 50 g of CO2/kWh recommendation for power generation by 2030, those estimates may fall far short when the full life cycle from construction to decommissioning of a nuke plant is considered. When we include that full impact, Mark has "calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables."
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021
Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?
www.dw.com
Renewables and batteries can't get here fast enough. And California has the ability to accelerate that time frame and they are consciously not doing so.
"For the forest to be green, each tree must be green."
Last edited:
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
I and some of the other Pacific Northwest forum members are still in touch with Discoducky. He’s pretty busy with a new endeavor these days.
I think that is called marketing, not advertising.
I nominate this as a post of particular merit.Thanks for the thoughtful response @Bobfitz1 - Several of your comments which I highlighted are a great segue into a broader discussion of the Diablo Canyon vs Renewable argument, and perhaps to help untangle the 'Nuclear is Good for the Climate' concept a bit since the media has gone all-in on nuclear in the last year or so.
For those who don't routinely follow Mark Jacobson, my post of his criticisms of Diablo Canyon unfortunately made it difficult to understand his perspective in the larger context of just where renewable energy capacity could-and-should be already in California. My apologies for that. Diablo Canyon is becoming a great metaphor for the policies and PG&E protectionism that have delayed and deterred renewables in California. Mark's point in arguing Diablo Canyon and Renewables IMO is that we must do better and we must think bigger and we must act more quickly. Diablo Canyon represents a failed approach compounded by failed policy. And by pointing a finger at Diablo Canyon, we are pointing a finger at much more than a single nuke plant.
It is fair to argue the potential merits of continuing to operate an existing nuclear power plant until there is sufficient Renewable sources to fully displace it IMO. However, the bigger point being made in that discussion IMO is that Diablo Canyon's life is being extended because California failed to prepare for this moment.
Batteries don't just come in Tesla Megapacks. And that's a good thing for the Planet. If PG&E was as forward thinking as Vermont's Green Mountian Power, they would be incentivizing the installation of Powerwalls and other storage in every customers home and small business. And those batteries would be charging from roof top solar on each of those buildings. And that solar would be incentivized at the Federal and State level, and would furthermore receive very favorable net metering opportunities for the Distributed Grid stability and reliability it would add to PG&E's current train wreck. But instead, residential and small commercial solar and storage is a perceived threat to the existing paradigm in California, with Grid operators insisting they need to own and control large-scale generation sources to stay relevant. And they are successfully doing so by lobbying for the implementation of net metering policies that are literally slowing California's solar and storage growth so much that this year Texas will install twice as much solar capacity as California while Californians debate whether residential solar projects can even be practical. This is not good for California residents and rate payers. This is not good for future California solar and storage adoption rates. And this is certainly not good in the larger transition away from fossil fuels in the larger Climate fight. And like many of us here on TMC, Mark Jacobson is not pleased about this either.
California cuts rooftop solar net metering: An industry reacts
Reactions to the passage of NEM 3.0., a rulemaking procedure that reduced rooftop solar export payments by 75%.
Washington and Oregon have failed to prepare for this day as well, which means the West Coast Grid has not prepared adequately for this day either. As I have pointed out before, WA Gov Jay Inslee's hydroelectric protectionist position was quite clear in his Op Ed letter in the San Francisco Chronicle where he specifically targeted California solar growth being wheeled on the same grid as Northwest hydro. I should point out that many NW hydro plants are under the microscope in a similar way at a similar time in their planned lifecycle, with deferred maintenance needs and environmental concerns always just below the surface. The NW desires the ability to sell hydropower on the southern end of the West Coast grid while CA has the potential of sending clean solar north on those same lines instead. The West Coast Grid was upgraded at significant cost after the Enron crisis opened a new market for NW hydro in Southern California, and a massive amount of money was spent to upgrade the grid to support continued NW hydropower sales to the neighbors in the south, however it seems nobody ever thought about the ability for energy to flow north on that same grid at the time. And it also seems like the Northwest would prefer California not grow its solar and storage potential too quickly, or it might be displacing more expensive NW hydro and NW natural gas plants. And that wouldn't make Warren Buffett too happy.
Op-Ed: California should collaborate on power grid | Governor Jay Inslee
Op-Ed in San Francisco Chronicle: California should collaborate on power grid As governor of Washington state, I’ve traveled around the country and around the world and have been encouraged at the momentum that’s building for climate action and the recognition of the West Coast states as climate leawww.governor.wa.gov
And then there are the concerns beyond CO2 that don't get too much play in the media anymore, and thus unfortunately result in a view that nuclear is much more climate friendly as a result. Nuclear plants make hot water hotter to power a steam cycle, and they do this by generating less CO2 than fossil fuel plants - which is the appeal on the surface from a Climate perspective. But nuke plants typically only achieve about 33% efficiency in the process. On a bright note, that could mean that 2/3rds of the heat generated could still be available for other uses - i.e. District Heating Systems in northern climates. But that almost never happens. And Diablo Canyon is in Southern California. And it draws 100% of its cooling water directly from the ocean. And it dumps 100% of its waste heat into the ocean. And that means that roughly 67% of the thermal heat generated by the 2.2 Gigawatt facility simply becomes thermal pollution directly into the Pacific Ocean. And in the case of Diablo Canyon, that is not a small amount of heat.
"The power plant draws in seawater from a constructed intake cove to provide cooling for power plant operations. After passing through the plant's cooling-water system, approximately 2.5 billion gallons per day of heated water is discharged back into Diablo Cove. The discharge is approximately 11° C (20'F) warmer than ambient ocean waters under normal operating conditions. Even after significant mixing with the ambient receiving water, the discharge produces localized temperatures that are higher than those normally encountered by marine life in the area."
I would really encourage folks to think about that for a moment. A single power plant is dumping 2.5 billion gallons of water that is 20° F warmer than ambient every day - 365 days a year - directly into an ocean that is already warming at a rate that is of great concern. Nothing wrong with that picture...? A continuous titration of much warmer water into a body of water that we are hoping won't get warmer. Hey, its the ocean and its big and the pipes go way out there <s>. But if someone suggested warming up the entire discharge of the Sacramento River by 20° F for about 3 hours everyday (similar volume), the entire State would come unglued.
But we are already warming up the Sacramento River with the Shasta Dam, and we are thus already titrating warmer water into that ocean out of the Sacramento River because of hydropower. And we are already titrating warmer water into that same ocean as a result of all the hydroelectric projects across Idaho and Oregon and Washington into the Columbia River and also into the Puget Sound. And Diablo Canyon is only 1 of about 439 nuclear power plants around the globe that make hot water hotter. And those hydroelectric dams are just a few of the roughly 62,500 hydroelectric plants around the globe.......many of which can also contribute to increasing water temperatures of the systems they are powered by. And the biggest 'ocean warmers' are probably yet to come - like the Mekong River hydroelectric project that is currently underway.
Just because fossil fuels have been the talking points of the Climate debate, please don't think they are by any means the only major contributors to a warming ocean system that is fueling many undesirable changes. If Diablo Canyon alone is dumping 2.5 billion gallons a day of 20° F warmer water into the ocean, how much does the rest of those other ~63,000 'Climate friendly' energy sources contribute to our ocean warming? The answer is certainly not zero, and the answer will be much larger than almost everyone expected IMO. I have observed that we don't talk as much about Thermal Pollution of our waters as we used to, which I find odd since many of our hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants have a pretty direct connection to the ocean. I think @unk45 could add value to this discussion.
Mark Jacobson has also been understandably critical of the carbon footprint accounting of nuclear plants. While we typically see figures reported that are around the 50 g of CO2/kWh recommendation for power generation by 2030, those estimates may fall far short when the full life cycle from construction to decommissioning of a nuke plant is considered. When we include that full impact, Mark has "calculated a climate cost of 68 to 180 grams of CO2/kWh, depending on the electricity mix used in uranium production and other variables."
Fact check: Is nuclear energy good for the climate? – DW – 11/29/2021
Supporters of nuclear energy say it can help us wean our economies off polluting fossil fuels. No surprise, it's a heated issue. But what about the facts? Can nuclear power really help save the climate?
Renewables and batteries can't get here fast enough. And California has the ability to accelerate that time frame and they are consciously not doing so.
"For the forest to be green, each tree must be green."
It is a post full of good information. It also is way off topic and while along with its prior parallel post is not being deleted - No. It will not enter the PPM Thread.
Higher rates for longer and the market is living in a fantasy world pricing in cuts this year yet again after only briefly accepting the higher rates for longer reality prior to the banking stuff.
Badly-run banks going under won’t change this IMO. Maybe the banking stuff will actually lead to lending tightening up and that could be disinflationary, but it certainly isn’t in the data.
Dot plot and narrative + other projections wil be the most important parts I think
If PG&E was as forward thinking as Vermont's Green Mountian Power, they would be incentivizing the installation of Powerwalls and other storage in every customers home and small business. And those batteries would be charging from roof top solar on each of those buildings. And that solar would be incentivized at the Federal and State level, and would furthermore receive very favorable net metering opportunities for the Distributed Grid stability and reliability it would add to PG&E's current train wreck. But instead, residential and small commercial solar and storage is a perceived threat to the existing paradigm in California, with Grid operators insisting they need to own and control large-scale generation sources to stay relevant. And they are successfully doing so by lobbying for the implementation of net metering policies that are literally slowing California's solar and storage growth so much that this year Texas will install twice as much solar capacity as California while Californians debate whether residential solar projects can even be practical. This is not good for California residents and rate payers. This is not good for future California solar and storage adoption rates. And this is certainly not good in the larger transition away from fossil fuels in the larger Climate fight. And like many of us here on TMC, Mark Jacobson is not pleased about this either.
Luckily home solar is connected to a breaker. An organized "solar walkout" in PGE territory would send quite a message.California cuts rooftop solar net metering: An industry reacts
Reactions to the passage of NEM 3.0., a rulemaking procedure that reduced rooftop solar export payments by 75%.
Buckminster
Well-Known Member
Pause is the only logical choice. Powell is nothing if not logical.
EDIT: Well I for one think I may have made a serious point here.
EDIT EDIT: 3 sentences, surely one was credible?
EDIT EDIT EDIT: Really?
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Bad mood(y):
Alexandra Merz on Twitter: "@jlg1138 Moody's rated SVB investment grade A until March 1st..." / TwitterTesla Boomer Mama scored a direct hit on Moody's over the weekend which resulted in the credit rating agency upgrading Tesla to "Investment Grade". Alexandra Murz (TBM) used a PR strategy to combine the efforts of 3 journalists to force the long-neglected ratings issue.
Reeling from their recent ridiculous rating of the now-failed Silicon Valley Bank, Moody's since faced a continuous drumbeat of inquiries from the Press about their equally ridiculous and outdated Tesla credit rating. Moody's finally capitulated during the After-hrs session on Mon, Mar 20th, issuing this Press Release rerating Tesla:
Alexandra explains how she outmanoevered the laggard Wall St. ratings agency (and her former employer) in this video interview yesterday. Tesla Boomer Mama also explains why Moody's acted as they did, and how Tesla's credit rating still has room for further upgrades:
E33: Moody's Rating w. Alexandra Murz | Brighter with Herbert (March 21, 2023)
Well done, Alexandra! This is a shining example of how courage, determination, and the dogged pursuit of truth can sometimes win the day. Not surprisingly, TSLA stock was up 7.8% on Tuesday while U.S. Tech macros were up only 1.4% (significantly outperforming their beta). BTW this PR campaign was worth about $50B in TSLA market cap. Thanks, TBM!
Cheers to the Super-Longs!
Last edited:
Dreadnought
Member
Before we throw a shade on hydroelectric power generation, let's do a bit of fact checking first.
Earth's energy balance is determined by radiation received from the sun (over a wide spectrum of frequencies) and dissipation through radiation, with the infrared component being the one of concern. Any differences between incoming and outgoing energy is absorbed by all mass on the planet (or provided by Earth's mass in case of a negative balance). The high specific heat capacity of water lets the oceans act as a giant buffer - but the same is true for any surface water. Without the oceans, the same amount of heat added to the planet would cause a greater rise in temperatures.
Earth's atmosphere inhibits the outflow of energy, which is a good thing in general. Without any greenhouse gases, Earth would be a rather chilly place to be. The rapid rise in greenhouse gas levels over the last two centuries has tilted the scale too much and that's why many of us feel the urgency to drastically reduce the output of greenhouse gases and ultimately even actively reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
TLDR;
- Every kWh of electricity produced without releasing more CO2 helps fighting climate change
- It makes no difference to the total energy balance if the sun heats a lake by 1° or the same amount of air by 4°.
I don't consider nuclear to be a viable alternative to solar, wind and water but the amount of waste heat is not a valid argument. 240W/m^2 or solar energy reach Earth's surface. A nuclear power plant of 2.4 GW electrical output generates 4.8 GW of waste heat, which is about as much as 20 km^2 of Earth's surface receives as input. A square of about 4.5 km in length / width.
The main issue with nuclear is the generated waste that radiates for several thousands of years.
Even though I was half-asleep already during the Investors presentation (it was close to midnight in my local time!) I immediately noticed that the model 3 image shown on the slide was different than the current model, so it's good to have a proper comparison done here. Although, since the highland "rework" is supposed to fill in some design gaps/improvements while streamlining the build process as much as possible, while I can understand changing some body components to do so, I don't understand how changing the shape of the car (even the dimensions appear to have changed) helps in doing that. Model 3 is already slightly too long for some (eu?) markets imho.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
