Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Zythryn

Pages: [1]
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: February 03, 2020, 12:31:58 PM »
What would building and driving 7.500.000.000 electric cars do to our biosphere?
The total number of fossil fuel powered cars driven on the road is 1.2B, IIRC. 80M are built and sold every year. What does that do to the biosphere? Are those cars "luxury" or not? Regardless, they are still driven. And built.
I can say with confidence that driving 1.2B EVs will harm the biosphere much less than driving these 1.2B ICE cars.
As for building them, I believe the harm to the environment is quite similar. Lithium is needed, but oil is not. Oil mining is very harmful (need I mention fracking?), also EVs last longer than ICE, so less need to be built. Ergo, better.
Note these are relative statements. EV is better than ICE. Not EV is perfect or EV solves all of humanity's problems.
As for affording e-bikes, I believe the state should supply those to anyone for free, and hope this will come to pass one day. But the damage done by these 1.2B ICE cars is too great to ignore, and speeches have failed to convince their owners to stop using cars. So.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: January 17, 2020, 08:56:04 AM »
My dear nanning - we are talking about electrifying privately owned cars because there are over a billion of them around the globe, and ~80 million of them sold new every year. Whether you (or me) like it or not, these cars are being churned out of factories and then are emitting CO2 and other pollution over their lifetime. This issue is too large to ignore and just saying private cars are bad will not make it go away anytime soon.
So while measures should be taken to reduce the desirability of these cars for private people - for example, adding more public transport, bike paths, designing walkable cities, etc., as well as taxing pollution and changing the system - this thread discusses specifically about reducing the emissions and pollution of these cars by converting the new cars to electric. So that the private people who don't care much about emissions, pollution and AGW (or who care but really want/need their private cars) and who are going to buy a new car anyway, despite all the science and the fine words by those who have seen the light, will buy cleaner cars.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 05, 2020, 01:15:58 PM »
In the last seven months, short positions on Tesla shares have lost $8.4 billion, according to S3 Partners, a financial analytics firm.

This is capitalism in the nutshell. Imagine that money invested in future technology instead of feeding the whales. But doing right is not what capitalism is for.

There is abuse both in capitalism and socialism and, especially, in communism. This is abuse of the system.  I've been pretty clear on my views. Shorting, then providing quasi viable reasoning, is nothing more than market rigging.

It would be wonderful to think that this money would be used for something other than making even larger cash piles.  But that is not how life works.

Communism has burned more cash, lives and environment, than can be easily accepted. Socialism attempts to present a better face to Communism but has its own elite. This was never more true in the last UK election where the social masses rejected Elite Socialists and their message.

Instead of pointing to the excesses of Capitalism and saying "see it doesn't work", we should punish the excesses so that the system works as designed.

The main problem is the custodians of Capitalism are half the issue. Witness the Latin saying about who guards the guardians.

Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: December 30, 2019, 05:43:18 PM »
A letter to a fisherman friend
Jon, There is a current called the Oyashio that flows south along the Eurasian continent from Russia towards Japan. As it mixes with very cold salty water that is the result of ice formation in the Sea of Okhotsk , the mixed water sinks to form intermediate waters that then flow across the Pacific under the Kuroshio Current. When the Oyashio sinks it carries
all the plankton and biogenic material to depths where it is dark . The plankton dies and is consumed by bacteria. This process is called remineralization , the biological material is changed back into it’s mineral components. Nitrogen, calcium, carbon ,phosphorus ,and potash are returned to the water and will eventually upwell and provide fertilizers for plankton and plants to grow again. When the carbon is released it oxidizes and CO2 is the result. The CO2 then turns into carbonic acid and a Hydrogen ion is released. Free Hydrogen ions are what are measured by a pH meter. The water becomes more acidic and  the bacterial remineralization process uses oxygen so the water also loses oxygen.
The intermediate water formed off Japan takes about 35-50 to cross the pacific and  it will upwell along the Pacific coast bringing up it’s load of dissolved CO2 . When we get strong upwelling conditions from spring through summer we also get upwelling and water acidified enough to dissolve shell material( calcium carbonate ). This process is called ocean acidification.
Half of the extra CO2 we release from burning fossil fuels is taken up by plant growth on land and in the oceans, the rest stays in the atmosphere. The part that is taken up by plankton sinks because of the calcium carbonate shells that some plankton make. This is good because it takes atmospheric CO2 , converts it to shells , and sinks the carbon into the deep ocean... for awhile , up to a thousand years. The problem is shell formation releases hydrogen ions and acidifies surface water. The worlds oceans have taken up about 30% more hydrogen ions than where there before we started to burn fossil fuels and as a result the ocean is about thirty percent more acidic than it was two hundred years ago.
At some point the surface waters become too acidic to support shell growth and the CO2 will stay in the surface waters , building up there instead of sinking. The process of ice formation and the cold brine that is squeezed out also happens around Antarctica and in the North Atlantic. Our earth is dependent upon ice formation to take cold water to depth along with the organic matter it contains. As the earth heats  this process slowly losses strength.  The earths atmosphere also increases in humidity as it heats resulting in more evaporation. This causes more rain which erodes minerals that will flow back into the oceans and slowly neutralize the extra hydrogen ions we put there by burning fossil fuels. Problem is the neutralization process takes thousands and thousands of years to rebalance ocean pH... up to a hundred thousand years .
We my friend are headed into an extinction event that will challenge the other five major extinction events over the last 500 million years. Ocean acidification and heating will be one of the main drivers along with ocean hypoxia and anaerobic oxygen conditions.
Trying to shorten acidification into a few short paragraphs obviously leaves out details ! The shells that sink onto the shelf are generally preserved and contribute to very long term carbon burial. Potentially millions of years. If the shell falls into intermediate or deep water in the Pacific it will dissolve and upwell within a thousand years. As the ocean acidifies the area of shelf exposed to undersaturated water increases and the area that supports long term calcium carbonate burial will shrink.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: October 25, 2019, 07:20:14 AM »
Why the need for words such as "nutcase" and "total moron"? This is not language befitting a civilised discussion by civiiised people. Please restrain yourselves emotionally. Before posting, take a deep breath, sigh and take a small break ;).
Let's not lower ourselves to Mr.Trump's level :).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 21, 2019, 06:53:17 AM »
00Z run of the GFS setting up dipole by 72hrs, full ridge from CAA/CAB/north Greenland by 120, persists through 240+, pretty consistent with ECMFW 12Z...where's Friv...?

Would also like to share my condolences, and gratitude to Neven. Admiration for all your efforts from a longtime lurker.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: June 30, 2019, 05:42:33 PM »
Thanks...both of you.
I want to take this opportunity to thank particularly the venerable ( meant respectfully) Gerontocrat and those that support his analyses- for not just keeping us informed on what is happening on Greenland almost in real time- but also for adding to our understanding of the processes involved. Thanks!

The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 16, 2019, 01:20:12 PM »
Anyone who is serious about AGW, should fly as little as possible, and never for a holiday. That's just common sense. I hear more and more people talking about 'flying shame', so that's great, because taboos are a good way to change cultures.

But it's also about ROI. If going somewhere to talk about AGW, convinces people to stop flying or save energy by other means, it's worth it. There are always exceptions to the rule.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 04:53:21 PM »

Everything needs to grow, all the time, forever. The economy needs to grow, and so corporations need to maximize profits, doesn't really matter how, by making people sick, by destroying the environment, by starting wars, by circumventing any legal or cultural restrictions through propaganda and corruption.

Why? Because wealth needs to get bigger, and the most efficient way for wealth to grow exponentially, is to make it increasingly concentrated.

That seems intuitively obvious at first glance, but I don't think it holds up to analysis.
Does a single billionaire drive more unhealthy growth than a thousand millionaires?  Same billion $.
Does a single billionaire drive more unhealthy growth than a million people with a thousand dollars in the bank?  Or a billion people with zero accumulated wealth?  We're talking about the same billion $, differently distributed.

I don't think it's true that the more wealth a person has, the harder they'll push to get more.  I suspect the opposite is true.

I'll grant that the picture is a bit different when corporations are in the picture, rather than just human beings.  Modern corporations tend to be structured with a single-minded focus on profits and growth.  Bigger corporations have more levers to influence laws and regulations, more levers to shift income and operations to minimize taxes.  Corporations tend to be much more ruthlessly efficient, within their legal limits, than most humans.

I think tighter global regulation of corporations is more important than fixing wealth inequality among humans.

I'd agree that wealth inequality is a social evil.  It desperately needs to be addressed vigorously.  But I don't see that fixing this problem is a prerequisite for appropriate climate change action.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 26, 2019, 04:52:47 AM »
Patiently I wait.
Yes it's biased by selection of dates, or more to the point your belief that it signals something about Tesla is biased. BMW is leading European plug-in sales in Feb 2018-  Jan 2019. Meaningless - Model 3 did not ship to Europe during that period, and most would-be EV buyers were waiting for it. Tesla is leading by far over BMW (and everyone else) in Feb-March 2019 in EV sales in Europe. Also meaningless - there was a 2-year backlog to be satisfied. The big question - what will the "normal" demand be moving forward, for EVs in general and for Tesla in particular, in Europe and elsewhere, and at what price point? I don't know, and neither do you nor anyone else.
You saw a meaningless but negative headline about Tesla and ran with it. As obviously a lot of your posts about Tesla are biased negatively (we will agree to disagree about this opinion of mine).
But I will not be drawn into a slinging match over this, hence why I avoided responding, I see no point in it. You will obviously disagree with me, and other readers can form their own opinions based on the material as already presented.

BTW, yes I do think that Sigmetnow's posts about Tesla are biased positively. But at least she is nicer about it and does not call names and heap derision on other members of this thread.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:26:29 PM »
One of the dire and real issues are billions of combustion engines out there producing CO2 in huge amounts.

Without Tesla successfully showing the potential of electric vehicles, we would not see the EV revolution we are in now.

Call it "hype", i think calling it "change" is more accurate.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: March 15, 2019, 10:01:21 PM »
However ... in general, I find myself wondering many, many, many times while reading (candidly, mostly comment posts, not the data posts) who's "ROOTING" for LESS ice...?
Nothing like that.  To an individual I'm certain we would be delighted if climate change were proven to be a hoax by everything going back to status quo of the 19 century.

But you see, it won't.

So the hope is, (at least from my stand point) is for there to be a sudden, irrefutable, dramatic climate event that forces world leadership to act.  To that end, a more dramatic demise of the ice is desirable from my stand point.

So again, "rooting" is the wrong word.  "Hoping" for an event that galvanizes society would be correct.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 11, 2019, 11:24:57 AM »
In 1 year, Tesla will own 0% of the mud field. And Tesla will be seen as a mix of Enron, Theranos, and DeLorean.

GSY, given the prowess of your predictive abilities, re Tesla and the fact that you predicted they would go bust by Jan 2019, whereas Tesla actually increased profit, paid back more than $1bn in loans (to date) and continued to go from strength to strength, I'll take that statement with a truckload of salt.

As was already posted, Tesla has no really large outstanding debt until 2020.  In that time they have ample scope to continue to increase revenue and profits and also to pay back the loan for the Gigafactory 3.

At which time Tesla will have fully paid for a fully operational factory in the largest growing EV market in the world.  All funded out of profits and cash flow.

I wish I could do business that badly, I'd retire in 2 years!

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 15, 2019, 09:45:31 AM »
It's pretty straight forward: A radical transformation of our society. Redistribute labor and wealth to both decarbonize our world while becoming an equitable society.
This will be the result of a revolution.
A commendable goal. But how is this revolution coming along? I fear not at all, at least for the next two decades.

What you have to understand that a revolution is to occur no matter what. Things are not getting better, things are getting worse and worse. Economically, politically, and of course environmentally. A couple decades from now, the 9 billion people on this earth are not going to handle the simultaneous assault of climate change and extreme inequality with much grace. People who are on the brink of starvation are not going to look at billionaires and say to themselves "those guys tried their best, I will just rot here, no problemo". No, Things are going to get Very Ugly.
I agree.  But I strongly doubt the result will be an equitable redistribution of wealth and labor. I foresee lots of wars of strong against weak, fighting over diminishing resources, with the end resembling feudalism.

MAKE A SACRIFICE. And maybe... just maybe.... We can create a better world. But simply buying solar panels and an expensive car isn't enough. You have to be creative. You have to be bold.  And you have to start now!
Maybe we can convince a majority of the global population. But probably not, and certainly not in time IMHO. And then you get the full environmental disaster.

Ask yourself this. Let's say you're in your twenties, and have to decide how you're going to confront climate change. And lets say you have an extra $60,000 to blow.  Do you use the $60,000 to buy a fancy EV. Or do you use that money to get active in radical transformation by organizing events, printing pamphlets, supporting other orgs, and of course riding a fucking bike.

Because when 2050 rolls around and millions of people are dying from climate change related disasters, you're not going to look back and pat yourself on the back for buying a car.
Coming back just barely to the topic of this thread, ask yourself this. Do you have a recommendation or preference for the 100 million people buying a car or light truck each year, despite your best pamphlets and your bike-riding? My preference, after wishing for them to not buy that car, is for them to buy a car with the least long-term environmental damage. And such a car, with current technologies, is an efficient EV. And for these people to choose that EV, it has to be attractive and affordable compared to what they were going to get anyway. There you have it, this is why I am happy when EVs replace ICE cars, not because I think this is a sufficient or even a good solution, but because it lessens the environmental catastrophe awaiting mid-century. Meanwhile, I will keep hoping for an end to consumerism, but hope alone is not a viable strategy.
Tesla's long-term goal is to produce (or cause to be produced by others) efficient, attractive and affordable EVs. They started with $100k cars for the very rich, are now at upscale $40k cars for the well-to-do, and hopefully will get to average $25k cars in 5 years. These cars will also have a used market at cheaper prices. And Tesla's very existence is pressuring other automakers to come up with lots of other EVs, some even cheaper than that, thereby giving the 100 million car buyers cleaner options for their choosing.
This is why I hope Tesla will survive and prosper. And this is the subject of this thread. Not the coming revolution, not even whether EVs are environmentally better than ICE, only whether Tesla will succeed or fail and other related news and analysis.

Another Tesla-related point: I strongly believe that in your hatred for capitalism and over-consumption, and in you strong wish for an outright revolution, you are very skewed in your assessment of Musk and Tesla. Tesla is not a scam waiting to go bankrupt, and Musk is not an arch-villain. They have their failings and are not perfect, but they are not the problem, the problem is those 100 million people each year that nobody yet has managed to stop.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 03, 2019, 02:16:42 PM »
Now please lay off the false accusation, and just engage with me on what I am actually trying to discuss. We can totally disagree about the future of Tesla and actually have fruitful discussion about certain aspects related to the company. But not if you keep trying to triangulate several of my posts together to decide I was saying something I never said.

GSY, you are being selective with your viewpoint again.  The Q4 Tesla call stated that ALL EV's are historically weak on demand in January.  So if you have a backlog elsewhere and are expanding elsewhere in the world, in order to utilise the staff ramp up you have in place, you will deliver where the demand is.

US demand will pick up again, as it does historically, later in the quarter and then they will rebalance their deliveries.

This doesn't sound to me like a business going under, it sounds smart.  A business going under has factory shutdown days and a constant see saw in staff employment.

If you can give me a good reason why a company would switch supply to a market where demand has been high, but delivery low, when US demand is at it's historically lowest for the year, I'd love to hear it.  But without that reason I'd say you are reaching.

You predicted several things last year.  Two of which were that Tesla would make a technical and unsustainable profit in Q3 and that it would go bankrupt by being unable to fund both production and debts in Q4.

In fact what happened was that Tesla made a strong profit in Q3, sufficient to support Tesla in manufacturing and to also fund the debt in Q4.  Tesla continues to make a profit at the current rate of sales and price of the models that it makes.

You also predicted that Tesla would run out of free cash because of the rate at which it was burning it.  Notably free cash flow increased in Q4 even though profit did not.  This is indicative of a sustainable profit curve where Tesla can fund future operations out of existing reserves, reducing the cost of that money.

Right now, from a business perspective, Tesla is doing and reporting, everything a successful business should. Even though vehicle manufacture, around the world, is in recession.

You have told me that I don't understand how a company runs, how it is financed, how the markets work and that I'm producing clueless predictions as to how Tesla is going to continue.

So far I've been right and you have been 100% wrong.

What should we think?  I do believe that reigning in Musk, at this critical point, is going to stunt the possible future of Tesla, all to keep the SEC happy in compliance with the rules.  Which will, in the end, do far more damage to investors than any tweet Musk could do.  But that is a personal feeling and is not, currently, borne out by the facts of the company profit.

Tesla right now? Go LONG.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 02, 2019, 01:53:47 PM »

Turns out my 25%-75% range was cautious but alas correct. 75% collapse in sales.

That's some deceit you are trying to pull.  No mention that you were initially refering to the US market and if production hasn't increased then shipping abroad can only lead to a reduction in supply for the US market.

So your win is that focus of sales has shifted rather fallen, not exactly rocket science to work out that was happening.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 04, 2018, 05:51:16 PM »
Stock news and predictions/discussion:

#StanphylCapital [notorious TSLA short] down another 7% in Oct according to @markbspiegel's "investor" letter.
All losses due to $TSLA
YTD down -15.5% while the S&P $SPY is up 3% …
(More at the link.)

Edit:  Here’s a timely article on Mark Spiegel’s Tesla predictions since 2013:
5 Years Of Incorrect Claims & Forecasts About Tesla From TSLA Bear Mark Spiegel

ValueAnalyst’s predictions for Tesla earnings for Q3 were higher than anyone’s on Wall Street — yet were much lower than the actual results.

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 11/3/18, 5:44 PM
Even bulls deemed the following Aug 24 prediction "enthusiastic," but it will actually prove conservative.

ValueAnalyst (@ValueAnalyst1) 8/24/18, 12:17 PM
#Tesla Prediction
$1B in GAAP profits
$2B in Free cash flow

$5B in GAAP profits
$5B in Free cash flow

<< 5B GAAP profit in 2019 translates to $30 EPS. This is 50% higher than the highest estimate from Wall Street.
VA:  Yes
<< After your bold Q3 $1 EPS call, I have to believe everything is possible now.  $30 EPS is conservative in your view.  I will take a wild guess. Let’s say $40 EPS. Times 50 multiple which translates into $2000 target price in 2019. Bears are going to have heart attack with this.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 14, 2018, 03:54:54 PM »

Take note of this rhetoric and the narrative it's building. Green tech giants are going to insulate themselves from failure by using public funds as bailouts. They will build empires of expensive, inefficient "green" solutions that will be desperately heralded as the only way to defeat climate change.  They will use their cult of personalities and strong lobbying efforts to pump their companies with public funds during start-up, and continue to do so as they falter and fail. They will use this money to purchase private jets and mansions, just like Musk has. 

Tesla has already received billions in government subsidies to build cars that reinforce a suburban lifestyle. That money should have been spent on things like medium density housing, public transport, and other inclusive sustainability projects.  But instead we keep on building expensive hunks of metal for rich people and claiming it as saving the world.

It greatly upsets me that this is the path we're taking. And it is unbelievable disappointing to see a forum of such smart people endorse it.  I know I come off as a raving lunatic on this forum, and have my account ignored by many people. And maybe I am crazy. And maybe this path will work out in the end. But I have a awful feeling that maintaining the status quo but with a green "twist" is going to be an utter failure. I can't help but to think that solving the problem with the techniques that got us into this mess is a really bad idea.

There are two narratives going on in this thread -

- Is TESLA a going concern?
- Is the strategy being used to address environmental degradation and destruction going to work?

There is a probability that TESLA is a going concern at least until the existing economic system enters its end of days. (ps: TESLA is a minnow in extracting public subsidies compared with the whales that are the Fossil Fuel majors).

Will CO2 emissions (and all the other stuff) be fixed by the existing economic system? Probably not. Will the people rise and force change through the ballot box? Probably not. Will Trump clones offer simplistic solutions and get into office either through the ballot or other means? Probably yes.

But EVs will reduce CO2 emissions (or at least slow the increase) as part of a mitigation strategy.
Bellowing and screaming about Musk and TESLA is a waste of time and effort. Indeed, it is entirely counter-productive, a diversion from the immense effort that is required to wean people off the growth / consumption carousel.

And that is (definitely) all I am going to say about that.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 08, 2018, 01:39:25 PM »
Wow!  Safety is a prime factor in car-buying choice for many people.  Tesla just gave them another reason to go to their brand.

Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA
The Tesla Team October 7, 2018
Based on the advanced architecture of Model S and Model X, which were previously found by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to have the lowest and second lowest probabilities of injury of all cars ever tested, we engineered Model 3 to be the safest car ever built. Now, not only has Model 3 achieved a perfect 5-star safety rating in every category and sub-category, but NHTSA’s tests also show that it has the lowest probability of injury of all cars the safety agency has ever tested.
In addition to its near 50/50 weight distribution, Model 3 was also designed with an extremely low polar moment of inertia, which means that its heaviest components are located closer to the car’s center of gravity. Even though Model 3 has no engine, its performance is similar to what’s described as a “mid-engine car” due to its centered battery pack (the heaviest component of the car) and the fact that Model 3’s rear motor is placed slightly in front of the rear axle rather than behind it. Not only does this architecture add to the overall agility and handling of the car, it also improves the capability of stability control by minimizing rotational kinetic energy.

Tesla Model 3 achieves lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 06, 2018, 12:42:30 PM »
Let's not forget that this is all the result of the underlying causes...

Musk has been leading several businesses for the last 18 years...NOT ONE HAS TURNED A SINGLE ANNUAL PROFIT!

Eventually if you lose money every year, no amount of hype can bring in more money.

Musk only knows how to hype, and now that it is not working, he is having a breakdown. It's kinda fun to watch, but it's also kinda painful on a human level.

Interesting position.

You might want to read this article about the current and future profitability for SpaceX.

It has a clear statement.

Over recent years, though, SpaceX has done well to dominate the space launch services sector – offering to launch commercial (and occasionally military) satellites at a much lower price than incumbents while largely remaining profitable.

Granted this is because SpaceX is working in an industry that charges Government level prices, i.e. astronomical.  However they have more than halved their average launch costs as the launches have increased and streamlined.

Essentially your statement is fundamentally incorrect.  SpaceX is and has been consistently, making profits.  SpaceX was founded in 2002.  SpaceX is only, since 2016, into making high volume and consistent profit raising product.

You also might want to think about the fact that SpaceX is very close to human launches and would take a slice of the ISS human launch schedule which is costing NASA (and others), such a large amount of money paid to Russia.

Notably SpaceX is driving other space launch providers to become cheaper and more flexible instead of the incredibly wasteful way they have been operating.

One of the most interesting statements in the article is:

SpaceX stands out among the list of multi-billion dollar private companies as one of the few startups that has grown by competing with incumbents head-on, rather than disrupting industries through the use of technology.

Whilst Musk attempted to use technology to disrupt the car manufacturing business, he is , right now, meeting them head on.

Tesla was founded in 2003, is competing in a high volume market with lower margins.  Tesla is likely to become sustainably profitable in Q4 2018.  At that point, just like SpaceX, Google, Amazon and many other 21st century (OK some started in the latter part of the 20th but they follow the pattern), start-ups, Tesla will use those profits to drive up volume, cut margins and expand the company horizontally into other markets.

Traditional investors who think they are going to get a high dividend return out of Tesla can think again.  They will only make their margin by selling the stock on the top of a volatile market or by holding on to it and waiting for it to grow even more in value based on a physical growth of the company.

In reality there should be a reassessment of the shares market for 21st century companies and they should not over value them just because they do things differently.  Hardly the fault of the company officers though.

I know that your viewpoint is diametrically opposed to this one.  However your viewpoint, outside of Tesla, is not, quite, backed up by the facts.  In order to follow your viewpoint you need to look at the world with a  very small filter, coloured by the dislike of the man at the helm of Tesla.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 04, 2018, 10:11:41 PM »
Tesla has begun publishing quarterly safety data, as promised.

Q3 2018 Vehicle Safety Report | Tesla
At Tesla, the safety of our customers is our top priority, which is why it’s critical that we design and build the safest cars in the world. Not only do we conduct extensive in-house testing and simulation to ensure our vehicles achieve top safety performance before they ever reach the road, we are also uniquely positioned to leverage the hundreds of thousands of miles of real-world data our fleet collects every month to continuously improve our vehicles and develop a more complete picture of safety over time.

Because every Tesla is connected, in most instances we are able to learn immediately when a Tesla vehicle has been involved in a crash. Additionally, our non-traditional sales model allows us to have a direct relationship with our customers for the lifecycle of ownership, providing an avenue for us to supplement our records and gain even more insight as needed. In contrast, automakers whose cars aren’t connected and who utilize networks of third-party franchised dealers may never know when a vehicle is involved in an accident. Through traditional channels, it can take months or even years for lawsuits or claims to be filed that provide automakers with insight into an accident that allows them to draw meaningful conclusions and improve safety.
Here’s a look at the data we’re able to report for Q3:

Over the past quarter, we’ve registered one accident or crash-like event for every 3.34 million miles driven in which drivers had Autopilot engaged.

For those driving without Autopilot, we registered one accident or crash-like event for every 1.92 million miles driven. By comparison, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) most recent data shows that in the United States, there is an automobile crash every 492,000 miles. While NHTSA’s data includes accidents that have occurred, our records include accidents as well as near misses (what we are calling crash-like events).

Moving forward, we will publicly release these accident figures on a quarterly basis.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 02, 2018, 01:57:14 PM »
The Sigmetnows and Archimids of the world answer:

"Well, we tried our gosh darn hardest. You see, there's this guy from South Africa who got his fortune from apartheid gem mining. He bought nice cars like McLaren and rode on a private jet. One day he bought a electric car company and was going to build one for every person in the world. That's how he was going to save the world. He didn't like public transport so he was going to make a super special underground vacuum tube where you could drive your own car in. Very cool. very innovative. what a genius. too bad the oil companies and shorts got in his way. what a shame. everything would be fine now. OH! and he wanted us to go to mars! how cool! "

I find it fascinating that with all the people or organizations you could "go after" regarding the plight of our planet ..... that you choose Elon Musk.

1)  FOX News:  Has been lying for over TWO DECADES about global warming.  Parading the likes of Joe Bastardi and others to lie to the American public.  Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Tucker Carlson, Lou Dobbs ..... take your pick.... all of them (except Shepard Smith) have been lying about global warming for decades.

2)  Donald Trump:
  Has been lying about global warming over the last decade.  Now when he is in a position to do something about it, what is he doing?  He's RAMPING UP GLOBAL WARMING. And he is a bigoted, sexist, narcissist to boot.

3)  Rick Scott, Governor of Florida:  Has been lying about global warming for at least a decade.  He is the governor of a state that is ALREADY being hammered by global warming, AND HE TELLS EVERYONE TO IGNORE IT.

So ..... instead of picking on one of the above ..... you choose to pick on someone that is actually doing something THAT WILL HELP MITIGATE GLOBAL WARMING.

I think you need to re-visit your priorities.  Maybe Elon should be further down on your list....



Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 02, 2018, 07:04:57 AM »
A secondary mystery to me is why does everyone on this forum put up with Sigmetnow's non-stop obsession in FLOODING so many threads with so much USELESS garbage from the know-nothing Media Pundits and other posts quoting so many fools including from Musk and Tesla and extremely manipulative deceptive websites?

If you wish to swim in an information sewer then this is right way to go about it. It's sick. It;s pathological that this is accepted behavior that is not properly moderated by Neven and other participants out of the Forum entirely.
Your way with words is commendable, showing proper decorum. Just for balance, I really enjoy Sigmetnow's updates all over this forum (not just the technological stuff). She saves me the need to browse an endless number of websites and twitter feeds. If some of these updates are on the positive side of things, I can use my own filtering as needed. Her posts are short and to the point, I wish that was true for some other certain posters here.
I also seem to remember she has reported to be invested in Tesla, I'm not sure why this should allow or disallow anyone to post stuff. (I am occasionally long via options, who cares?)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 23, 2018, 11:27:30 PM »
Third image:  New rankings of EV Range by price.
I think a proper comparison should either include only currently available cars (and then the actual Model 3 versions available should be used here, i.e. no $35k yet) or it should include all cars announced with range and pricing details, with a note of availability date next to each car.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 18, 2018, 07:23:19 PM »
”Fox Business’ article on the Tesla interns was 359 words long, whereas its article on the recent ouster of Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller ran just 236 words.”

The predictable irrationality of Tesla panic
Evolved human psychology and systemic media bias has created false narratives around crashes, fires, and executive turnover
...the human brain evolved in the world of stone tools and hunting-gathering, so we have natural inductive biases that drive us toward incorrect mental models of the modern world. For instance, the availability heuristic: the more often you see something happen, the more often you think it happens. For Paleolithic humans, this made perfect sense. For 21st century humans, this inductive bias is often misleading.

We no longer just see real, first-hand events. Trillions of events occur every day, and we filter them down using technologies like broadcasting and the Internet and social institutions like the news media. Our evolved availability heuristic has been co-opted by an information landscape in which the frequency that we see events happening often has no correlation or even an inverse correlation to the frequency with which they actually occur. If every single one of the 1.3 million annual deaths from car crashes were reported with the same urgency and alarm as plane crashes, I imagine a lot fewer people would be afraid of flying and a lot more people would be afraid of driving. Perversely, plane crashes get more frequent coverage because they are rare, not because they are frequent.

Media coverage and commentary on Tesla leads us to form incorrect mental models of the company because of the availability heuristic. Simply by virtue of the sheer amount of attention the company gets, the more instances of all Tesla-related events we hear about, especially negative events. ...

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 17, 2018, 04:35:50 PM »
It is not that their opinions differ from mine. It is an unconditional disregard for all evidence on one side of the spectrum. It is a total dismissal of anything anti-Tesla. It's the equivalent of telling someone "you are stupid that you think GHGs matter. all heat comes from the sun, and the sun is getting less bright. we need the sun to survive. you are an enemy of humanity." or "CO2 is plant food. we need plants to survive. we can't feed 8 billion ppl without a lot of CO2 in the air. you are an enemy of humanity."

When the mainstream media is leading with stories about Telsa, but they are disregarded in this forum cuz it has negative implications for Tesla, that's fanboy behavior. Yes, it is hyperbole to say there is a 0% chance of profitability, but yikes things don't look good. If it all works, I'll happily admit I was wrong. However, I have a fundamental problem with Tesla. I believe they suck in a lot climate activism energy to a project that promises no compromises, perfect solution. We need to realize that our way of life needs to change, not just whats "under the hood". Tesla prevents that change by claiming to have an immaculate solution. A Tesla is nothing more than a rich persons way to feel better about themselves without having to make any sacrifices.

This entire thread from beginning till end has been tesla drones deflecting any criticism of musk and tesla as fud, lies, oil & gas lobbyist.  The critics have been attacked relentlessly. And now that everything is unraveling, and everything we've said is true, we still have to give musk and tesla the benifit of the doubt?
Defending musk is no longer about facts and data. It's grown into an unhealthy obsession. Everyone with some common sense needs to give it up.

Here is what it looks like to someone else on this thread:
It is not that their opinions differ from mine. It is an unconditional disregard for all evidence on one side of the spectrum. It is a total dismissal of anything pro-Tesla. It's the equivalent of telling someone "you are stupid and gullible because you see things differently".
When the mainstream media is full of negative stories about Telsa, lots of these coming from people with a financial interest in Tesla's failure (shorts, lawyers suing, companies who stand to lose big time if Tesla succeeds in its economic disruption) and they are posted in this forum as objective analysis, while positive stories are ignored cuz they has positive implications for Tesla, that's haters behavior.

This later part of this thread has been full of anti-tesla drones deflecting any positive opinions and news of musk and tesla as lies, fraud and fanboy and mainstream media fawning.  The critics have attacked relentlessly. And now that the company is managing to deliver lots of cars and approaching profitability, they baselessly claim everything is unraveling, and everything they've said is true.
Attacking musk is often no longer about facts and data. It's grown into an unhealthy obsession.

I think it would be best for all to stop the snark and disrespect, and just discuss facts and objective opinions without hitting anyone on the head with a hammer and without attaching any labels to any poster. There's clearly a great divide between those who believe Tesla, wholly or partially, and those who disbelieve anything coming out of the company. Posting about it ad nauseum is not going to convince or help anyone. Why not wait 6-12 months and see where the actual developments take Tesla, Musk and all that bunch?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 16, 2018, 02:23:10 PM »
Not sure how this was calculated. But loss of Tesla battery capacity over time is not constant.

The biggest problem here is the size of the sample and a complete lack of day by day detail as to how the vehicle is used and charged.

Yet you base your argument on a sample size of one....  ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 08, 2018, 12:30:08 PM »
Hand raised. I do believe Tesla is indeed going to be profitable this quarter. I do believe the Semi specs, though I have no clue when it goes into production. Quite sure not in 2019.
Musk strikes me as somewhat crazy with his trigger-happy actions, but if he can pull off this $420 going private thing, he's also a finance genius. The short burn of the century - maybe in the US, but in reality the VW short burn in Oct 2008 owns that title. There also a too-large short interest is what brought on the squeeze.
I believe a 10s of billions investor is not needed (in Musk's estimate). Of the 70 billion market cap (at $420), 20% is owned by Musk, and they probably estimate that many shareholders will stick with the company and not sell. Same with the employees who are all shareholders. The saudis have a 5% strategic stake (I assume). Short covering should provide a buyout of about 20% for those wishing to sell now. I guess all this is somehow taken into account. Musk also claimed that no one will have a controlling stake in the company after the deal goes through, so I guess the mystery financier pledged no more than 30 billion, probably a lot less.
But in any case I can't believe Musk - with all his gunslinger attitude - would make such an announcement if he didn't have the financing rabbit in his hat. As the saying goes, he might be crazy but he's not an idiot.
Of course, feel free to call me gullible. But love or hate Tesla and Musk, the whole thing is definitely interesting.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 05, 2018, 02:00:54 PM »
It is not government, corporate and civic involvement OR Tesla. It's all of the above. Our world can't wait for governments to mandate technological leaps and then wait for the technology to be developed. All stakeholders most work at the maximum pace of innovation and development they possibly can to accelerate the transition to a carbon free economy.

So far it seems that Tesla leads the pack on that decarbonization effort, but if all sectors of the economy don't jump on the decarbonization band wagon Tesla will fail at decarbonizing the world fast enough to prevent the end. However, if all sectors get as serious as Tesla, then we might win.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 05, 2018, 12:56:34 PM »
I am sure all posters her would agree with you that strong government action (preferrably with international cooperation) is preferred to Tesla action. And that Tesla action to date is a tiny drop in the bucket of human emissions and overxpnsumption of resources.
But - and this is a very big but - strong government action is sorely lacking. On the contrary, we have just seen how the US government is rolling back some minimum MPG requirements.
So while this is happening, Tesla is providing people with an alternative action. Yes, on a smaller scale. Yes, with sleek marketing. Yes, headed by a billionaire with a trigger-happy twitter account. But it's something that bypasses the governments bought by entrenched economic interests, and allows people to vote for climate action.
Every time I drive my ICE car on another 15 minute drive I think of the emissions. I would love to avoid them on a personal level, while humanity is collectively dragging its feet, at least I van show a way forward to my neighbors and friends.
And I am sure that governments will take notice of this at some point.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 03, 2018, 03:43:06 AM »
It's the same old Green BAU argument. Elon Musk/Tesla is developing technology for today's economy. Humanity should have been stepping away from that economy, but humanity (at the moment and IMHO for the foreseeable near future) isn't. I think blaming Elon for humanity's failures is a bit much. He may be developing products for Green BAU but in the meantime he is raising much awareness to humanity's challenges and to the planet's limits. I honestly don't think anybody was thinking "this is a grave problem" and then started thinking "great, Tesla solved it, no need to do anything else".
So you may hate the Green BAU message implicit in Tesla, but the problem is with the BAU system itself, and criticizing Tesla's approach of making improvements within the system is like shooting the messenger.
In this regard, I think his greatest achievement is making EVs into a desirable and fashionable product, not just as a (partial) solution to a problem, thus enabling much faster uptake of the solution by general people and not just die-hard environmentalists. Will this save humanity - very probably not. But it's still an impressive achievement.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 02, 2018, 09:33:22 PM »
grandstanding, sure.  They needed to include something with mass.  This was fun and perhaps lighted up some human imagination; it got some headlines and put Tesla (and SpaceX) on the map for the first time for some.  For a (partial) reference: Mashable

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 02, 2018, 08:44:23 PM »
An EV is now among the top 10 best-selling cars in the U.S.

July 2018 YTD U.S. Passenger Car Sales Rankings – Best-Selling Cars In America
Our Take On The Passenger Car Numbers

July was not a good month for passenger cars, with a day less selling time in this year’s seventh month than last compounding woes.

Sharing the second-place spot for the month, the Toyota Camry and Honda Civic sold an identical amount of vehicles. Supply issues are hampering the compact Civic’s progress at this point in the year.

Making a surprise appearace in July’s top 10 is the Tesla Model 3. With Elon Musk’s company having doubled its output compared in Q2 compared with the same period in 2017, its foray into the entry-level luxury EV market has given the segment somewhat of a shock.

For comparison, in July BMW sold 3185 3-Series’, while Mercedes-Benz sold 3841 examples of the C-Class. In the same period, Tesla sold in the region of 14,000 Model 3s.

Image:  LY = Last Year

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 02, 2018, 02:07:58 PM »
Nah you can discuss matters with me. In fact I welcome any criticism to keep my skepticism healthy. The problem is that I don't judge people for how much money they have, I judge them for their actions and impacts on the world.  What negative impacts on the world can you attribute to Elon Musk? What positive impacts can be attributed to him?  From what I know his positive impacts are very significant. What negative impacts can you attribute to Musk? I can't see very many.

Knowing how committed these guys are I'm sure he will be back under another ID soon enough.

Now that he is found and has been given notice he will probably be careful and ineffective. Daylight scare trolls away.

Read his 'apology' on Seeking Alpha - I don't think scared is the word that comes to mind. If anything I think he's actively plotting against his next victim.

More likely than not it's the reasonable and rational people that get hounded off the web. Ever wonder what a shit job it must be to try and keep the Wikipedia science pages from being vandalized every freaking day... Go ask William Connolley, former Wikipedia science editor.

Neven must have a thick skin of pure Vibranium after running this blog for well over a decade.

“Spotted: @NetZeroMN's striped Tesla, inspired by @ed_hawkins' stunning climate visualization.“

Now I know I hit the big time, I’ve been posted to the Arctic Sea Ice forum  :)

I wish, instead of stenciling on the CO2 graphs I had used the historical temperature graphs.
Great conversation starter though!

Wow, so beautiful, eye-catching — and so meaningful!  I can’t think of a better way to entice people to engage in a discussion about climate change.  Thank you for your efforts!

Science / Re: NOAA ESRL Global CO2 Increase Accelerating
« on: June 06, 2018, 09:38:37 PM »
Atmospheric CO2 continues its climb. (See Chart) Meanwhile, despite all of the happy talk on this blog about renewables and our switch to low emission natural gas, CO2 emissions continue to climb after the Paris agreement.

You seem to have missed some of the key takeaways from the article you linked:

Rising Chinese demand for electricity in 2017—which boosted power plants’ appetite for coal and sent emissions from Asia’s largest economy soaring—was the result of a brutally hot summer, said Dan Klein, head of global coal research at S&P Global Platts Analytics.

“I think [if it weren’t for] the increase in overall demand, the biggest story would have been the increase in renewables,” Klein said, noting Chinese wind and solar output were up 21 percent and 38 percent, respectively, year over year. “If you have a slowdown in power demand growth, especially if the weather is more normal, these trends will have a much bigger impact in 2018.”

Indeed, the world’s emissions story might have been significantly worse if not for renewables’ strong year. Renewables boasted the highest increase of any energy source, with the United States and China accounting for half of the sector’s growth, IEA reported.

And to answer your snark about posters who focus on solutions to the problem rather than wallowing in despair, I'll post an inspirational quote from Hellen Keller:

Optimism is the faith that leads to achievement. Nothing can be done without hope and confidence.

Tell you what, zizek, you pursue your solution.  I can't see how it can hurt.  If some people lighten their footprint then that just makes the job of replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy easier.

But I can sure as hell guarantee you that you aren't going to change Bubba.  He's not towing his bass boat to the lake behind a bicycle.  And he's not going to quit fishing even if it's the right thing to do.

You know who I see disrupting solidarity towards progress?  The same wet behind the ears idealists that I saw joining up with the SDS and supporting candidates who were too far to the left to wind back in the 1960s.

Been there.  Been through that.  Have low expectations of the most extreme moving society in any meaningful way.

He's gone out to reinvent the wheel, and tailor it for wealthy people.

You are shooting before clearing leather.  Get on top of the facts.

Elon just announced that the first LA tunnel has been completed.  Once the pod system is installed riding the system will cost less than a bus ticket.

Earlier he said that passengers would take precedence over private cars.

People are going to have to do make significant lifestyle changes if we are going to realistically combat climate change and other environmental issues.

No.  Lifestyles will not need to change.  If that were true then we would totally be screwed.  Many of us have worked for 50 years or more to get people to change their lifestyle and live lighter on the planet.  It hasn't worked, only a small percentage are willing to adopt a different lifestyle.

What we must do is to give people ways to continue to live in approximately the same way they live today.  But take away the CO2 (and other GHGs).

People can continue to drive cars.  Build them using renewable energy.  Build them out of sustainable materials.  "Fuel" them with renewable energy.

People can continue to live in individual houses.  Make the houses more energy efficient and heat/cool/light them with renewable energy.

The route to avoiding extreme climate change is to find acceptable, affordable replacements for carbon fuels. 

We are extremely fortunate.  We've figured out how to generate low carbon electricity.  We've figured out how to build battery powered vehicles.  We've figured out the "acceptable" part.  And it looks fairly certain that low carbon electricity will be cheaper than high carbon electricity and battery powered vehicles will be cheaper to purchase and cheaper to operate than the ICEVs they replace.

Pages: [1]