Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Neil_Anderson  

View Neil_Anderson's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To tomfrompv

    Who said anything about coal or oil becoming obsolete in the next 50 years?

    Obsolensce of coal or oil will indeed take at least 51 years, and possibly much longer.

    But one thing is certain, obsolensce will claim coal and oil at some point in time, because mother nature cannot not make such resources as fast as we consume them.
    Mar 25, 2015. 09:26 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << Nothing would have suited Saddam Hussein better than to put a stop to Iraq (and Kuwait) having to sell oil to Americans and instead to put his country's and ideally his region's oil on the free market...For once we're going to agree, Cecil. Saddam was dong an end run, selling oil out the back door in non- dollar denomination payments...... Daddy bush, put the warning shot across his bow >>

    What are you guys talking about?

    I thought Oil was traded in free markets, where the highest bids get Oil shipped to home ports.

    I thought Oil was priced (or denominated) in US dollars simply for expediency of the Saudi's finances, and that most other nations followed suit because it's simpler for their finances as well, since the US dollar has that reserve currency status. (Oil has got to be one ofthe most heavily traded products in world, so foreign nations need dollars to buy it.)

    So, was Iraq required to sell "all" it's Oil to the US in the Treaty ending the 1st Gulf War, or the 2nd Gulf War?

    Or was there an "arm's length" contract for the purchase and sale of Iraqi Oil between Iraq and the US.

    Are you saying we took advantage of Iraq as would the conquerer and the conquered?
    Mar 25, 2015. 09:14 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Ramifications Of The Fed's Portfolio Exit [View article]
    To mike904

    I'd say there's two things wrong with your numbers:
    1.) Your numbers start with "total" issuance over ten years and the % purchased, rather than simply what % of the total outstanding is owned today by the Fed. That diifference could be very large, or very small.
    2.) Your numbers don't seem to add up to 87% or 76%. I'm not even sure which number you believe is supposed to be in the divisor to obtain 87% or 76%.
    Mar 25, 2015. 08:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ramifications Of The Fed's Portfolio Exit [View article]
    To mike904

    Have a link for the 87% and 76%?
    Mar 24, 2015. 01:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwki

    << "Solar Industry subsidies power electric cars" ... no it doesn't >>
    Sure it does. Solar energy that powers your house reduces your demand from the grid, while your neighbor's Tesla soaks up the resulting excess demand. These are the two biggest innovations in the grid.

    And there are commercial operators of solar electrical plants collecting lots of the desert sunlight.

    And your neighbor can just charge his Tesla directly from his solar panels.

    << But this leaves the US reliant to foreign sources>>>>... 60 Minutes just tonight did a piece on Rare Earth elements,, (speaking of reliant)... If you believe that the U.S. isn't already reliant on China, you'd be wrong. This isn't going to change, and is oly going to worsen. >>

    Actually, you're agreeing with me.

    << "If people drop out of the Oil market because prices are too high due to cheaper substitutes" ... and cheaper substitutes are available we will and should be using them. >>

    You & I should start a new car company to take advantage of them. What source of energy would be cheaper and more advantageous than gasoline, diesel and electricity?
    Mar 23, 2015. 08:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << why are manufactures using all that f'k'g expensive aluminum?! >>

    Well, sir, since it's not for fuel efficiency, it must be for "other" reasons.

    Surely you can imagine some "other" good reasons to lighten a car, or avoid materials that "oxidize", you know, "rust".

    Lighter cars accelerate better, corner better, and stop better. And all three are better on tire wear.

    Or from another point of view: maybe a 4,600 lb car couldn't take another 500(?) lbs of weight. The S85 is truly a behemoth.

    Do you recall the problems the Mercedes flagship had with tires about a decade ago? Rumor has it that the car was so heavy that if it sat overnight, the tires would go "out of round", so the ride would always be "bumpy", even on a smooth road.

    Pop quiz: Why do car manufacturers try to make wheels light? And why does this prevent sports cars from sporting electric motors "in the wheels"?
    Mar 23, 2015. 08:39 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To tomfrompv

    Thalidomide? Really? That's what you're going to hang your hat on in the comments section of a article on Tesla? And you despise Tesla? YAWN.
    Mar 23, 2015. 08:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << "Being so dependent on Oil puts our economy at grave risk." -- So does a weak military ... How many batteries does it take to fly a F-14 Tomcat or a tank? >>

    How many batteries can be stuffed into a F-14? Beats me.
    How does that strengthen the Air Force?

    << And, if a small reactor can propel an aircraft carrier, why can't it light a small city? >>

    Beats me. But I'd guess the answer can be found by comparing the "electrical demand profile" of the Aircraft Carrier to that of a city.

    I'd guess the Aircraft Carrier either has a more constant electrical demand that more closely matches the power output of the reactor, or the reactor has more variable output (a seagoing reactor would be more valuable than a fixed-location reactor in a city due to national security issues, hence a bigger budget), or the Carrier has less headaches dumping excess heat (into the ocean) or some combination of the three.

    How is any of this relevant?
    Mar 23, 2015. 08:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << Graphite Might Be the Source of Tesla’s Next Headache >>

    So what? Starting up any new industry is always going to entail a lot of risk. And, the invisible hand of the market will encourage more production of all necessary raw materials. And environmentalists will have a field day spreading alarm about Tesla and every other product produced under the sun. And, so what?

    Where do we source a "low-profile" product like gravel? Strip-mines, but environmentalists don't get catchy headlines from stumping against products like gravel ... it just reminds people that every product entails some form of pollution or another. So what?

    I doubt that graphite will the be the "only" source of headaches for Tesla.
    I'm sure there will be many more. So what?
    Mar 23, 2015. 08:07 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << However, oil doesn't produce electricity. >>

    Yes, but that's not the point:
    Solar Industry subsidies power electric cars.
    Oil Industry subsidies power ICE cars.

    << [Oil] is however, the most important required commodity for the most powerful mechanized militaries on the planet >>

    And if we ever run out of Oil before some other nation, like Mr.Putin's, we will be at grave risk. Oil is too valuable to be wasted on things we are presently using it for.

    << [The] "holy grail [of] energy" [has immediate supply upon] demand 24/7, biggest bang for the buck, available from fossil fuels, a country with many, trucks, planes, ships, tanks, and armored vehicles is going to require a lot of oil. >>

    Like I said, Oil is too valuable to be wasted on things we are presently using it for.

    << ... not even mentioning the government’s take of royalties, lease revenue, as well as corporate taxes, works out to be about 40 percent of revenue from oil and gas produced on federal property. >>

    Nor even mentioning the offsetting fact that entities in the US economy are paying those royalties, lease revenue, and corporate taxes on Federal property that Uncle Sam is receiving.

    If these entities in the US economy were paying some other US entity for energy, there'd clearly be more economic activity and more taxes paid.

    If these entities in the US economy were paying some foreign entity for energy, there'd also be more economic activity and more taxes paid, but it is not as clear-cut as in the previous example. This example relies on the benefits of trade. People do not trade unless both parties are better off. And if your counter party is foreign, we can assume that the foreigner beat all US potential counter-parties.

    But this leaves the US reliant to foreign sources. But that's better than utilizing a dwindling source in the US without solving the underlying issue of preserving our domestic Oil for uses in which it is most valuable, like the M1A1 Abrams Tank, or bombers and fighters. Domestic Oil is more valuable than foreign oil, because in a war, the foreign oil may not be available to us at all.

    << Since a collapse of world economy is a likely consequence of very high oil prices ... People will be dropping out of the market too fast for supply to ever be less than demand. >>

    If people drop out of the Oil market because prices are too high due to scarcity, or cost of production, then that'd be evidence that a recession or depression is in the near future.

    If people drop out of the Oil market because prices are too high due to cheaper substitutes, then that'd be evidence that a boom or market mania is in the near future.
    Mar 22, 2015. 05:10 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << ... I'm NOT in favor of the government swindle of taxpayers by picking corporate winners and losers pushing political agendas. >>

    I'm not in favor of such govt' intrusions in the market either. But the gov't intrudes in almost every market.

    Our elected representatives passed the laws we dislike. This is a republic, all we can do is vote the idiots out of office. But there are so many intrusions into so many markets, that we really ought to blame our idiot forefathers for getting into this situation, which is not easily reversed. It may take a generation, it may be impossible. I have a theory on why it may be impossible.

    << Real science is evidence based. Climate "science" is consensus based. >>

    Amen. But sometimes all you have is consensus, and that's all you'll ever have. And sometimes the risk is huge, if you're wrong.

    I don't know if EVs really are green, or not. But I do know that diversifying our energy resources is vitally important to the hegemony of the US and our allies. Being so dependent on Oil puts our economy at grave risk.
    Mar 22, 2015. 04:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << ... how green [is] mining, transporting, and processing billions of tons of raw material ... to manufacture and recycling millions of tons of batteries!? >>

    How green? Beats me. I do know that everything we call growth or progress causes pollution or rape of the land. For instance, even a simple mundane product like gravel comes from strip mining.

    If you're a true environmentalist, why focus on a small company that's doing far less pollution and destruction than other industries? Educate me.

    And you aren't talking about neodymium, are you?

    << That question doesn't require an expert for an answer. >>

    I disagree. Actually, it does take an expert, and one with credibility and a good argument. No should accept my word on it, or your word, without a robust argument.

    << A 4600lb. Tesla with almost a half ton of batteries, hauling around 1-2 people 98% of the time, completely destroys the logic of the EV ! It's not green. It's not economical, and it's complete nonsense to believe otherwise ! >>

    << 4600 lbs ... hauling around 1-2 people 98% of the time >> sounds like your typical BMW, Mercedes, sedan or SUV ... And, no, this does not destroy the logic of an EV for two good reasons:

    1.) Fuel efficiency depends on air resistance, not weight. And ...

    2.) The electric motor's efficiency (when measured in miles driven per charge) benefits greatly from regenerative braking, which turns kinetic energy into electrical energy and stores it in the battery to be reused later on.

    3.) Regenerative braking also saves your (friction) brake-linings, since your traditional friction brakes will not be needed or used as much.

    It's not green enough in your opinion? Then I must recommend that you avoid buying one. Don't worry, you will be in good company, as roughly 95% of the people will not buy one either. EVs aren't for everyone.

    Who are you to tell me or anyone else that this product is unworthy of our money? I've seen lots of self-proclaimed environmentalists (Glenn Doty, John Petersen, etc) throw up a lot of misleading information which then falls flat under simple investigation. I'm sure that similar criticisms of far greater validity could be leveled against your choice of car.

    Please do not pretend that this product will destroy the world all by itself. There are plenty of other industries already doing that, and at a far higher rate.
    Mar 22, 2015. 03:53 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    To fiwiki

    << Wind turbines use magnets made with neodymium and dysprosium, rare earth minerals mined almost exclusively in China ... An MIT study estimated that a 2-megawatt wind turbine contains about 752 pounds of rare earth minerals. "This vast, hissing cauldron of chemicals is the dumping ground for 7 million tons a year of mined rare earth after it has been doused in acid and chemicals and processed through red-hot furnaces to extract its components," ... the foul-smelling radioactive waste ... "anything we planted just withered, then our animals started to sicken and die." >>

    1.) I'm no expert, but I wonder if the extraction method being used in China is the cheapest method available. Perhaps there is another method that pollutes less, but costs more.

    2.) There's a lot of bad information being pumped into the media by the Big Coal, Big Oil, etc, just as Big Tobacco continues to fund a lot of "studies" that seem to indicate smoking is not so detrimental to your longevity.

    3.) Coal, Natural gas and Oil are not going to last forever. We'll have to develop new energy resources sooner or later. The sooner we do, the longer Coal, Gas and Oil will last.

    4.) I'm no expert (again), but if the Tesla automobiles can generate electricity without magnets, then maybe a wind turbine can do so, as well, albeit perhaps not quite as efficiently. But maybe that lower efficiency is "good enough" because according to Betz's Law, there is a limit to how much energy can be extracted from wind of any particular speed, and my recollection is that it's a low limit.
    Mar 22, 2015. 09:40 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Comprehensive Look At Tesla's Home Batteries [View article]
    CORRECTION

    original, as misquoted:
    "2.) costs about $.08 per kWh"

    corrected:
    "2.) costs about $.80 per kWh" ... I regret the error.
    Mar 22, 2015. 01:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Audit The Fed? [View article]
    To Kunst

    If I made a mistake, I hope someone would correct my misunderstanding.

    If he author made a mistake, he should not be disseminating misinformation.

    If I made a mistake, you are free to correct me

    If the author made a mistake, then he should be corrected.

    This is why we comment.
    Mar 21, 2015. 12:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,120 Comments
1,482 Likes