Tesla And The Art Of Waiting For Tomorrow [View article]
To Decoy0527
gee thanks for permission to rationalize all I want --
<< Another problem I have with the Model S is that tax dollars are going from middle and lower class families to help millionaires buy an expensive $80,000 second or third car as a toy. Why should a Model S owner get a $7500 check from the government?>>
The author, Dwi Fatmawati, needs to address reality:
A small start-up car-company with unproven technology, unproven manufacturing quality, unproven service quality, and unproven financial health must offset all these risks with a low price. In other words, the Model S85 isn't worth $87,500. It's only worth, say, $80,000. Therefore, the $7,500 doesn't really end-up in the rich guy's pocket because, after all he bought an $80,000 automobile for $80,000 cash-net-of-subsidy.
Subsidies benefit industry, not the consumer. Benefits to industry are benefits to shareholders, not the consumer, whether he is rich or poor. The wise and wonderful Federal Government could have made payments directly to industry, but they preferred this method for reasons unknown.
So, the subsidy benefits shareholders who are mostly rich folk. But 80% of US Federal Income Taxes are paid by 20% of the taxpayers, who are the rich folk. So most of the subsidy is paid by rich folk ... and benefit shareholders who are mostly rich folk.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To obieephyhm
<< @neil1236: methinks you confuse physics with chemistry. >>
Yes, you may be correct, sir.
I was thinking that the temperatures of super conductivity had been lowered due to some crazy-ingenious mixing and matching of elements' chemical signatures, which are controlled by the outer shell of electrons. So it seemed like a triumph of chemistry that produced a result that looked like physics, you know, like how scientists created neodydium (spelling?) magnets. But, yes, I admit I'm no expert as is plainly obvious.
I was also thinking about the recent discoveries like the Higgs boson and the (unrelated and possibly imaginary) so-called dark matter. The idea being that there are particles "beneath" or "within" or "comprise" the elemental atoms and may (someday) have an application in a chemical sense. These particles are the new "smallest", replacing atoms as being the "smallest". Imagine packing quarks into a battery, you might get a whole lot more bang for the buck. Yes, crazy, again.
I was also thinking about the new process being pursued by Metalysis. Better to google the company than have me mangle their ideas.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Dave_M
"Let them eat cake"
These were the words (translated from French) that were uttered by one of the most infamously out-of-touch members of the Royal Family of France, which not only touched-off the French Revolution, but caused Marie to be beheaded. Or something like that, I'm certainly no expert in French history.
Yet, I did blindly assume everyone would have understood the reference to Marie Antoinnette. My apologies for any mispelling which prevented you from recognizing her infamous name which is that of the woman who, upon discovering that the peaseants were starving and rioting for bread, dryly remarked "[if there is no bread], let them eat cake" -- apparently the Royals had no shortage of anything, and she didn't even realize that bread and cake were made from the same ingredients. Well, after all she never had to cook anything, as her only expected contribution to society was to be squared away in the bedroom. Now, that's the epitome of being "out of touch".
Ironically, with a little more education, and a little more sensitivity, she might have kept her head and made a less remarkable imprint on history.
"Let them drive ICE automobiles" is what I should have said, no?
BTW, I grew up in Nashville Tennessee which spends less per pupil in public school than 46 other States. At times, I played basketball in my bare feet, like roughly half the kids in public school who could not afford sneakers. Obviously, I wasn't any good at basketball, but neither was I suffering the abject poverty you suffered in your youth as described in your post. I apologize for any undue anguish I caused you.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Dave_M Fr a conservative
<< For a majority of Model S customers, mpge is not a consideration. Look at the surveys and you will find why people are attracted to Model S. Performance, range, storage, roominess, zero gasoline, etc. MPGe is only important to non-customers. >>
I wasn't thinking about the Model S customer profile when I mentioned that "we all" seem to overlook the potential high cost of heating and cooling the battery compared to the low cost of energy used per mile.
So, yes, you're absolutely right, the Model S customers would probably not care at all.
But the Gen III customers might care ... and they might be the more important customer category for Tesla's long-run success. I currently count myself as a Gen III customer, but I also have to admit I'm no expert.
I only recently came to the obvious conclusion the vast majority of Tesla customers will need to have a garage, and that means that customers in the middle class will probably be targeted for Tesla's lowest priced cars. The poor can drive ICE, as Marie Antoinette would say. I'd heard that Musk wants everyone to have an electric car, but I dont think such a car is available, at least for for a while.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Glenn Abrett Fr a conservative
<< the actual apples to apples comparison with your numbers is the amount of energy required to produce the drivetrain (engine, gearbox, transmission and so forth) of a comparable (to tesla model s) BMW or Audi >>
I'd bet there's a big difference simply because iron is more easily recycled than a L-ion battery. The iron needs to be mined only once. The L-ion battery cannot be re-cycled until a cheaper process of separating the metals is invented and/or the cost of mining lithium and other metals increases (as the low-hanging fruit is devoured first).
However, the issue of embedded energy is an environmental issue, not an economic issue. "Embedded energy" does not take into consideration the cost or value of energy used to create the battery.
Energy is an asset. Some energy is clean, some is dirty, some is easy to obtain, some is dangerous. All energy (like any asset) can be classified by its cost or value. Some is low cost, some is high cost, some is high value some is low value.
So, is it possible to use low-cost or low-quality assets to create a high-value asset? If so, then a profit is possible and the invisble hand of the market can do the rest, in theory.
Eggs are a low value asset (obviously, few people eat them raw). Add some heat, some other low cost ingredients and human labor, and you get an Omlette, a high-value asset.
I haven't addressed pollution and other externalities because "embedded energy" doesn't address them either. "Embedded energy" is a concept that I studied in the 1970s, iIt's not a new concept.
Even gasoline has embedded energy that is probably about 20% according to John Petersen's previous posts. Bread probably has more embedded energy than it provides in calories.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
to 481086
<< Fossil fuels have been one of, if not *the* greatest of gifts to humanity in all of history. Over the course of a couple of hundred years, the fossil fuel industry has made this world an immeasurably better place. >>
How did the human population get to 7 billion? I think the gift of oil made a lot of things possible that would not have otherwise been possible, especially industrialized agriculture and cheap transportation.
It seems quite plausible to me that the end of the oil era could be disasterous, as millions if not billions could starve.
Awww, why should we worry? That worry for our kids, not us.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To John Petersen
<< When was the last time you heard of a major technical advance in chemistry? >>
Does high-temperature super-conductivity count? Do quantum effects count? Do new methods count, like the one being advanced this very moment by Metalysis?
I wouldn't really blame you for denying that any of those count. But it seems highly unlikely that any valuable advance in chemistry is going to be public knowledge, much less widely disseminated.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Randy Carlson Fr a conservative
<< ... it would be wise policy to pay down the debt by taxing this industry [the financial industry] back to the stone age, right away. >>
I wish I had said that.
If you ever run for polictical office, I will make a contribution.
You know, the Banksters caused the Great Recession and put in peril the livelihood of millions if not billions of hard working people around the globe.
They were the first to recover, report profits and large bonuses.
But they weren't making loans. So how'd they get the profits? They parked excess funds at the friendly Federal Reserve and got paid interest, thanks to the largess of you and me, the US Taxpayer.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Glenn Doty Fr a conservative
<< It disgusts me that my tax dollars are spent so that you someone can make a vanity purchase that pollutes far more than a much lower cost option that has better versatility. >>
I know you weren't addressing me, but I have to say that the subsidies for Tesla EV's do not disgust me in the least. Government larges is never pretty, but it is a fact of life. If I wanted to buy a Tesla, I would be a fool to waive the subsidy. John Petersen agrees with this small point, even on the purchase of a so-called "high-pollutin" Tesla.
But, you do have a right to be disgusted ... unless, of course, you've previously benefitted from a past subsidy, or you are looking foward to benefitting in the near future.
So, how many wind turbines does Doty WindFuels have now? And were any of these turbines purchased with the benefit of a subsidy, grant, handout or other type of government larges?
Subsidies, like all government larges, are not geared for the benefit of the consumer, they are targetted for the benefit of the company (or industry), and thereby enrich the shareholders, the majority of whom are already rich. Furthermore, if you have any monetary interest in Axion Power you should be just as loudly criticizing Axion for applying for a government grant, which would also enrich shareholders.
Don't blame Tesla, don't blame the consumer. Blame your wise and wonderful government.
If your answer to the 2nd question above is "none", then I have one more question.
Hi-Ho Silver: How SLV and PSLV Differ [View article]
To Kid Dynamite Fr a conservative
Sorry I'm so late to this discussion. (I'm here because I'm "following" someone else who is "following" only one person, and that is you. So I wanted to read some of what you have written.)
Anyway, I'm just wondering if there is any rule against your offering to borrow some PSLV shares from ReeferMac (or anyone else in this chatterbox) in order to sell them. Lending shares in this situation has problems that two parties might overcome.
Also, one of the other commenters pointed out that he regularly sees advertisements for PSLV and/or the gold EFT (forgot the name of it already), and challenged you to explain why they are advertising. I did not understand yoru answer.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To obieephyhm
<< more to the original point, this is an investing forum . . . which exists to exchange investing ideas and critiques. so, if you have anything more useful to say than inappropriate and largely unrelated cheap-shots, i'd certainly like to hear it. >>
Good advice. You should consider taking your own advice. You are way off the focus.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To obieephyhm Fr a conservative
"Oz, that's not what john said at all . . . "
I disagree with you, obieephyhm. Yes, it pretty much is what John said. John said "Once commenters like you ..." which is ad hominum. I saw no reference to the ideas presented by Oz_Rob. I have seen this type of response from John very often. John started the "ad hominum" thing and condescending thing years ago.
Can you disect some other message from John's response to Oz_Rob? If so, please educate me.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To Oz_Rob Fr a conservative
I have no idea what "sophistry" means, do you?
I agree that John's rebuttals are as unfortuante as you describe. And I think your point about John's rebuttals having an negative impact on John's credibility is correct.
John provides a lot of information that "we" would not see otherwise. And we need to see it and decide if it is important or not. Sometimes, it's not found to be important and that's hard to swallow for anyone in his position.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
To John Petersen Fr a conservative
Sorry, but I don't have an extensive vocabulary. What does "prostelitization" mean? Is that really a word?
Are you saying that Tesla's marketing claims are overblown? Come on, isn't that just *good marketing* ... or at least "par for the course"?
"Caveat Emptor" are two of my biggest words. In business school, I was taught that its a Latin phrase meaning "let the buyer beware" which is the underlying guideline of our free enterprise system, which means that the Marketing Department is given free rein to make claims that stretch, twist and mangle the truth, you know, just like lawyers do.
So, returning to your comment, which of Tesla's marketing claims do you find so objectionable?
Tesla And The Art Of Waiting For Tomorrow [View article]
Subsidies benefit industry, not the rich buyer. Benefits to industry are benefits to the rich shareholders.
But since 80% of US Federal Income Taxes are paid by 20% of the taxpayers, it's mostly the rich folk who fund the subsidy.
So, the subsidy is funded mostly by rich folk ... and the subsidy benefits shareholders, most of whom are rich folk, as well.
This is hardly an issue to get upset about
Tesla And The Art Of Waiting For Tomorrow [View article]
gee thanks for permission to rationalize all I want --
<< Another problem I have with the Model S is that tax dollars are going from middle and lower class families to help millionaires buy an expensive $80,000 second or third car as a toy. Why should a Model S owner get a $7500 check from the government?>>
The author, Dwi Fatmawati, needs to address reality:
A small start-up car-company with unproven technology, unproven manufacturing quality, unproven service quality, and unproven financial health must offset all these risks with a low price. In other words, the Model S85 isn't worth $87,500. It's only worth, say, $80,000. Therefore, the $7,500 doesn't really end-up in the rich guy's pocket because, after all he bought an $80,000 automobile for $80,000 cash-net-of-subsidy.
Subsidies benefit industry, not the consumer. Benefits to industry are benefits to shareholders, not the consumer, whether he is rich or poor. The wise and wonderful Federal Government could have made payments directly to industry, but they preferred this method for reasons unknown.
So, the subsidy benefits shareholders who are mostly rich folk. But 80% of US Federal Income Taxes are paid by 20% of the taxpayers, who are the rich folk. So most of the subsidy is paid by rich folk ... and benefit shareholders who are mostly rich folk.
Is this really an issue?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
<< @neil1236: methinks you confuse physics with chemistry. >>
Yes, you may be correct, sir.
I was thinking that the temperatures of super conductivity had been lowered due to some crazy-ingenious mixing and matching of elements' chemical signatures, which are controlled by the outer shell of electrons. So it seemed like a triumph of chemistry that produced a result that looked like physics, you know, like how scientists created neodydium (spelling?) magnets. But, yes, I admit I'm no expert as is plainly obvious.
I was also thinking about the recent discoveries like the Higgs boson and the (unrelated and possibly imaginary) so-called dark matter. The idea being that there are particles "beneath" or "within" or "comprise" the elemental atoms and may (someday) have an application in a chemical sense. These particles are the new "smallest", replacing atoms as being the "smallest". Imagine packing quarks into a battery, you might get a whole lot more bang for the buck. Yes, crazy, again.
I was also thinking about the new process being pursued by Metalysis. Better to google the company than have me mangle their ideas.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
"Let them eat cake"
These were the words (translated from French) that were uttered by one of the most infamously out-of-touch members of the Royal Family of France, which not only touched-off the French Revolution, but caused Marie to be beheaded. Or something like that, I'm certainly no expert in French history.
Yet, I did blindly assume everyone would have understood the reference to Marie Antoinnette. My apologies for any mispelling which prevented you from recognizing her infamous name which is that of the woman who, upon discovering that the peaseants were starving and rioting for bread, dryly remarked "[if there is no bread], let them eat cake" -- apparently the Royals had no shortage of anything, and she didn't even realize that bread and cake were made from the same ingredients. Well, after all she never had to cook anything, as her only expected contribution to society was to be squared away in the bedroom. Now, that's the epitome of being "out of touch".
Ironically, with a little more education, and a little more sensitivity, she might have kept her head and made a less remarkable imprint on history.
"Let them drive ICE automobiles" is what I should have said, no?
BTW, I grew up in Nashville Tennessee which spends less per pupil in public school than 46 other States. At times, I played basketball in my bare feet, like roughly half the kids in public school who could not afford sneakers. Obviously, I wasn't any good at basketball, but neither was I suffering the abject poverty you suffered in your youth as described in your post. I apologize for any undue anguish I caused you.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
<< For a majority of Model S customers, mpge is not a consideration. Look at the surveys and you will find why people are attracted to Model S. Performance, range, storage, roominess, zero gasoline, etc. MPGe is only important to non-customers. >>
I wasn't thinking about the Model S customer profile when I mentioned that "we all" seem to overlook the potential high cost of heating and cooling the battery compared to the low cost of energy used per mile.
So, yes, you're absolutely right, the Model S customers would probably not care at all.
But the Gen III customers might care ... and they might be the more important customer category for Tesla's long-run success. I currently count myself as a Gen III customer, but I also have to admit I'm no expert.
I only recently came to the obvious conclusion the vast majority of Tesla customers will need to have a garage, and that means that customers in the middle class will probably be targeted for Tesla's lowest priced cars. The poor can drive ICE, as Marie Antoinette would say. I'd heard that Musk wants everyone to have an electric car, but I dont think such a car is available, at least for for a while.
Just my opinion. What is yours?
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
<< the actual apples to apples comparison with your numbers is the amount of energy required to produce the drivetrain (engine, gearbox, transmission and so forth) of a comparable (to tesla model s) BMW or Audi >>
I'd bet there's a big difference simply because iron is more easily recycled than a L-ion battery. The iron needs to be mined only once. The L-ion battery cannot be re-cycled until a cheaper process of separating the metals is invented and/or the cost of mining lithium and other metals increases (as the low-hanging fruit is devoured first).
However, the issue of embedded energy is an environmental issue, not an economic issue. "Embedded energy" does not take into consideration the cost or value of energy used to create the battery.
Energy is an asset. Some energy is clean, some is dirty, some is easy to obtain, some is dangerous. All energy (like any asset) can be classified by its cost or value. Some is low cost, some is high cost, some is high value some is low value.
So, is it possible to use low-cost or low-quality assets to create a high-value asset? If so, then a profit is possible and the invisble hand of the market can do the rest, in theory.
Eggs are a low value asset (obviously, few people eat them raw).
Add some heat, some other low cost ingredients and human labor, and you get an Omlette, a high-value asset.
I haven't addressed pollution and other externalities because "embedded energy" doesn't address them either. "Embedded energy" is a concept that I studied in the 1970s, iIt's not a new concept.
Even gasoline has embedded energy that is probably about 20% according to John Petersen's previous posts. Bread probably has more embedded energy than it provides in calories.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
<< Fossil fuels have been one of, if not *the* greatest of gifts to humanity in all of history. Over the course of a couple of hundred years, the fossil fuel industry has made this world an immeasurably better place. >>
How did the human population get to 7 billion? I think the gift of oil made a lot of things possible that would not have otherwise been possible, especially industrialized agriculture and cheap transportation.
It seems quite plausible to me that the end of the oil era could be disasterous, as millions if not billions could starve.
Awww, why should we worry? That worry for our kids, not us.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
<< When was the last time you heard of a major technical advance in chemistry? >>
Does high-temperature super-conductivity count?
Do quantum effects count?
Do new methods count, like the one being advanced this very moment by Metalysis?
I wouldn't really blame you for denying that any of those count. But it seems highly unlikely that any valuable advance in chemistry is going to be public knowledge, much less widely disseminated.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
<< ... it would be wise policy to pay down the debt by taxing this industry [the financial industry] back to the stone age, right away. >>
I wish I had said that.
If you ever run for polictical office, I will make a contribution.
You know, the Banksters caused the Great Recession and put in peril the livelihood of millions if not billions of hard working people around the globe.
They were the first to recover, report profits and large bonuses.
But they weren't making loans. So how'd they get the profits?
They parked excess funds at the friendly Federal Reserve and got paid interest, thanks to the largess of you and me, the US Taxpayer.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
<< It disgusts me that my tax dollars are spent so that you someone can make a vanity purchase that pollutes far more than a much lower cost option that has better versatility. >>
I know you weren't addressing me, but I have to say that the subsidies for Tesla EV's do not disgust me in the least. Government larges is never pretty, but it is a fact of life. If I wanted to buy a Tesla, I would be a fool to waive the subsidy. John Petersen agrees with this small point, even on the purchase of a so-called "high-pollutin" Tesla.
But, you do have a right to be disgusted ... unless, of course, you've previously benefitted from a past subsidy, or you are looking foward to benefitting in the near future.
So, how many wind turbines does Doty WindFuels have now? And were any of these turbines purchased with the benefit of a subsidy, grant, handout or other type of government larges?
Subsidies, like all government larges, are not geared for the benefit of the consumer, they are targetted for the benefit of the company (or industry), and thereby enrich the shareholders, the majority of whom are already rich. Furthermore, if you have any monetary interest in Axion Power you should be just as loudly criticizing Axion for applying for a government grant, which would also enrich shareholders.
Don't blame Tesla, don't blame the consumer.
Blame your wise and wonderful government.
If your answer to the 2nd question above is "none", then I have one more question.
Hi-Ho Silver: How SLV and PSLV Differ [View article]
Fr a conservative
Sorry I'm so late to this discussion. (I'm here because I'm "following" someone else who is "following" only one person, and that is you. So I wanted to read some of what you have written.)
Anyway, I'm just wondering if there is any rule against your offering to borrow some PSLV shares from ReeferMac (or anyone else in this chatterbox) in order to sell them. Lending shares in this situation has problems that two parties might overcome.
Also, one of the other commenters pointed out that he regularly sees advertisements for PSLV and/or the gold EFT (forgot the name of it already), and challenged you to explain why they are advertising. I did not understand yoru answer.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
<< more to the original point, this is an investing forum . . . which exists to exchange investing ideas and critiques. so, if you have anything more useful to say than inappropriate and largely unrelated cheap-shots, i'd certainly like to hear it. >>
Good advice. You should consider taking your own advice.
You are way off the focus.
My advice: Forgive and forget. Or just laugh.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
"Oz, that's not what john said at all . . . "
I disagree with you, obieephyhm. Yes, it pretty much is what John said.
John said "Once commenters like you ..." which is ad hominum. I saw no reference to the ideas presented by Oz_Rob. I have seen this type of response from John very often. John started the "ad hominum" thing and condescending thing years ago.
Can you disect some other message from John's response to Oz_Rob? If so, please educate me.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
I have no idea what "sophistry" means, do you?
I agree that John's rebuttals are as unfortuante as you describe. And I think your point about John's rebuttals having an negative impact on John's credibility is correct.
John provides a lot of information that "we" would not see otherwise. And we need to see it and decide if it is important or not. Sometimes, it's not found to be important and that's hard to swallow for anyone in his position.
Give John some leeway to rant if he must.
Why Batteries Are Too Valuable To Waste On Solar Power Integration And Electric Cars [View article]
Fr a conservative
Sorry, but I don't have an extensive vocabulary. What does "prostelitization" mean? Is that really a word?
Are you saying that Tesla's marketing claims are overblown?
Come on, isn't that just *good marketing* ... or at least "par for the course"?
"Caveat Emptor" are two of my biggest words. In business school, I was taught that its a Latin phrase meaning "let the buyer beware" which is the underlying guideline of our free enterprise system, which means that the Marketing Department is given free rein to make claims that stretch, twist and mangle the truth, you know, just like lawyers do.
So, returning to your comment, which of Tesla's marketing claims do you find so objectionable?