An analyst I read thinks most of it is from systems designed by people from the country who happened to host the prior company that screwed Tesla on their AP HW (M.E.) (I'm not saying nor implying those two things are related, merely using them as an address finder), but that was that analysts' conjecture based upon lots of evidence.
SpaceX, charter schools, living, daily, and security expenses (what isn't expensed), loan interest, too, but I think most the SpaceX investments were extensively talked about years ago, so that can be looked up seperately. He claims Boring Company has very little investment from him, but I've not tracked the exact amounts through time; the merchandising has been some of the funding.
Jack Rickard / EVTV said:
Generally speaking, most large buildings hire the right people with the right experience and education in those types of construction engineering, and unlike electric car motors, electric car battery cells, and electric car marketplaces, the construction education for that is pretty well established and pretty well understood, and even though it continually updates and goes through changes, mostly those updates and changes are also on pathways that are also pretty well established and pretty well understood. However, one can always use one's own eyeballs and see a few of the same things they're going to measure and put into their engineereing calculations. Also, it's easy to stand in the middle of an engineering company hierarchy as someone's boss and point at someone and order them to ignore something; it could be one little tiny number or tiny variable, that throws the whole thing. So, I wouldn't discount the experience of the entire construction education and industrial system, nor would I discount the ability of those of us with eyeballs and brains to use those too. While the water issue is a concern, I too think that it is not a showstopper; already, we've seen that most tsunamis don't come from the direction that would affect that land area, and I presume that we will experience that outcome of no problems during the growth phase of Tesla. My guess is that by the time anything of the sort happens, it will simply be at a time in Tesla's industrial life that it has enough redundancy that those issues are more of a local problem than a corporate problem. However, I want them to thoroughly look into such things to make certain they aren't putting themselves prematurely at risk; if not, fine, but if so, just align things so that it works out. Maybe there's some insurer with enough cash to underwrite it away.
I read his post as looking at the time dimension properly. It's been a common refrain from many ever since the start of Tesla to not look at the time dimension. Seriously, please stop that.
Right. Just keep in mind those teardowns assumed a 10k/week production rate and we are at about half of that. Having said that, mandatory PuP and higher capacity/margin packs help for sure.
