Mazda's engines are dual mode; they scan switch between HCCI and simple spark ignition. This also lets them overcome the problem that HCCI have trouble scaling to higher powers, as they need to operate on lean fuel mixtures. The downside is that the transition between burn modes causes a lot of knock.
They could be but they won't; Look how expensive electric cars are now!
I am looking. And what I'm seeing is you getting vastly more for your money now then you did several years ago, and nothing obvious slowing down this trend in the future. Batteries still cost far more than their raw materials. Scaleup will keep pushing the difference between battery costs and raw materials costs down. And this is with raw materials costs highly inflated due to the rapid demand scaleup outpacing the rate in which new mines have been built / old mines retrofitted with more tailings recovery / etc; eventually production curves will catch up to demand curves (if demand curves ever slow down then that only helps, as you start getting more meaningful battery recycling feedstocks in addition to the scaling-up virgin material feedstocks), and raw materials prices should drop.
Not good value for money unless you look at it over a couple of decades.
Nonsense. A Model 3 SR has the same performance as a BMW 330i, more standard features, costs $5k less (*without* subsidies), and costs ~$1k less (US)/~$2k less (EU) per year in energy costs, as well as having a simpler powertrain.
yet an ICE can still drive as much as 8 times the distance on a tank
We're talking proper EVs, not golf carts. A Model 3 LR actually goes slightly further than a BMW 340i (its performance equivalent) on a single "tank" in city driving (the BMW still wins of course in highway driving).
until they figure out a way of storing and supplying power to it that can match the size, weight and energy capacity of a fuel tank
Model 3 SR is pretty much the same weight as the BMW 330i. LR is only slightly heavier than the 340i.
And if Mazda can really make a 56% efficient engine, they will be matching or beating a lot of fossil fuel power stations for efficiency
Peak efficiency, not average efficiency. A non-hybrid generally runs at around 60% of its peak efficiency on average - if the same applies here, then that's ~34% average efficiency. Hybrids can get closer to (not equal) the peak efficiency, but as you hybridize, you're increasing your vehicle's weight, complexity, and cost - on top of an already more complex, expensive engine. Also, see elsewhere in this thread for issues with these types of engines.
Yes, let's all pretend that the topic of EV impact on the environment hasn't been studied ad nauseum in the peer-reviewed literature, and let's also pretend that the result is precisely the opposite of what it's been determined to be.
Let's also pretend that coal isn't disappearing rapidly from western grids, and let's furthermore pretend that the CO2 impact from manufacture is comparable to or larger than the CO2 released from the vehicle's operation (with the typical ICE car burning approximately its own weight in fuel every year, with an average vehicle age of ~10 years, equating to an average life expectancy of ~20 years, followed by the majority of the vehicle being recycled). Let's also pretend that that hasn't also been studied ad nauseum.
Historically, sure (battery mass, not so much motor mass). But that's been disappearing. Model 3 SR, for example, matches the BMW 330i for performance and is basically the same weight. Model 3 LR matches the 340i and is only slightly heavier. Once they launch the performance package, I'd wager that it will beat most of its performance-matched class competitors on weight, since electric drive units are lighter than engines per unit power.
It's also worth noting that the country in the world with the highest EV adoption rate - over half of all new cars being EVs - is Norway. And in second place? Iceland. The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly. We here where the weather is cold like how easy EVs are to preheat, and they tend to handle very well in snowy/icy weather. And while power is reduced (and regen sometimes disabled) at low temperatures until the pack warms up, they always "start". Furthermore, you don't have to stand outside at periodic intervals in the cold to pump gas.
So you're claiming that a 2wd Yaris is better than a AWD S on slippery mountain roads? Interesting claim there.
BTW, Model 3 SR is pretty much the same weight as a BMW 330i (its performance equivalent), and LR only slightly heavier than a 340i (its performance equivalent). It's be really interesting when the performance package comes out, as performance on EVs doesn't add much mass versus how much accel it adds.
and it only cost me £2000
Seriously, we're comparing the price on new luxury cars to old used Yarises now? Hey, how's the automatic emergency braking in your Yaris? How's its remote-controlled cabin climate conditioning doing for you? How are you enjoying its streaming media? I mean, come on. Of course old used cars are cheaper than new ones, and particularly when comparing an old econobox with a new luxury sports sedan. You can pick up old Nissan Leafs that still have most of their bars for dirt cheap too, you know, and they won't cost you ~£1000 a year in fuel.
Compare new with new, old with old, and feature/performance class with feature/performance class. Anything else is silly.
Indeed. Nuclear has always been far more popular on K-Street than Wall Street. K-Street's often very active support has sometimes gotten Wall Street to buy in, but they almost always end up burned. Nuclear reactors tend to be money pits. And it generally has nothing to do with NIMBY oppoisition.
HCCI is usually pretty good with NOx. On the other hand, it tends to have high CO and VOC emissions. As for noise, it's not too bad in normal operation, although there's a lot of noise switching between HCCI and spark modes (this is in comparison to current spark ignition vehicles). Sound damping is important.
Also note that you'll never see 56% efficiency in the real world, even if that's the engine's peak efficiency (assuming that they even achieve that). A typical car gasoline engine historically has run at about 35% peak efficiency and 20% average efficiency (although that's been improving on both accounts, the ratio has remained relatively fixed). Peak efficiency is only available in a relatively narrow power band; gearing doesn't change what power band you're in, only the ratio of torque and RPM within that power band. The only way to significantly improve the ratio between peak and average efficiency is to go full hybrid.
HCCI might make for an interesting range extender. One of its problems is that it doesn't scale well to higher powers; Mazda has to (awkwardly) switch to conventional spark ignition when power demands rise above "typical highway cruising". But with a range extender there's no need, as the engine only has to meet the long-term average demand. Even with a conventional hybrid it'd reduce how often it has to go into spark ignition mode; the hybrid's engine has to meet only short-term average demand - so fine for passing, but spark ignition might be needed for e.z. going up a long hill.
It's not as great as it sounds regardless, even if they can achieve that, and in a way that can meet emissions regulations**, and in a way that's not absurdly heavy and expensive**. That would be 56% peak efficiency. The only way you can get a car's engine to operate on average even close to its peak is to go full hybrid. But then you have both a battery/motor system and a ICE/fuel/pollution controls system in the same car. And even still you wouldn't average the peak; you just wouldn't be as vastly lower than the peak as you would be if you went with a non-hybrid.
** 1) HCCI engines tend to have high CO and VOC emissions; 2) HCCI engines of a given size tend to be more power limited because they're restricted to burning very lean fuel mixtures; they also tend to be heavy because they operate at high compressions. And all of this together tends to spell "expensive". Mazda, for their part, tries to deal with the latter by switching to spark ignition when more power is needed, which is a reasonable solution, although it adds to the part count and design complexity; additional the downside is that the transition between the modes comes with loud knock. As for the former issue, Mazda clearly feels that they can comply, at least on the Skyactiv-X, with current regulations. Hopefully it's not "compliance" in quotation marks akin to Volkswagen's diesel approach; the fact that they have multiple, entirely different ignition mechanisms makes much easier for them to excuse away transitions (aka, "No, we don't have a chip detecting when we're being driven on a test protocol; our transition timings just happen to be good for our testing score")
I don't see anything in your post that contradicts the above in any way, shape, or form. Nowhere did Tesla say "A 35k Model 3 in January". Ever. The plan has always been to start out with delivering versions with the long range battery and premium upgrades first, and only moving to the non-premium versions as they worked their way down the waiting list.
Model 3's pricing is highly competitive with the 3-Series, A4 and C-Class. The Model 3 LR for example is as fast as a 340i, but costs $5k less without accounting for tax credits or energy savings. The premium upgrades package is $5k, but some of things that are standard on the Model 3 are premium upgrades on the BMW, let alone what you get with PUP on the Model 3.
The expected lifespan of a Powerpack is 15 years on grid duty.
As someone who's currently pricing electricity for a large project, it's easy to see how timeshifting of power can make a big difference. Our local utilities offer power as cheap as 2,5kr/kWh where the utility can cut off the supply at any time (kr ~= 1 cent), or ~3,5kr/kWh at the cheapest un-cut time-of-use rates, while the most expensive time-of-use rates are 15kr/kWh. That's a huge spread on power costs. And that's here where our power is essentially all baseload (over 99% hydro + geothermal). Places with more intermittent power should be expected to have a wider spread.
TTAC called, they'd like you to write a column for their Tesla Deathwach 7 years ago.;) The "Tesla is going to run out of money" nonsense that shorts at Seeking Alpha love is tiring (but hey, if you buy into it, by all means short them!). It's premised on the concept of no additional cash streams (Semi and Roadster reservations are basically no-interest several-year loans), no improvements in the Tesla Energy division orders (which by all measures seem to be taking off after the success of the Australia battery), no revenue from the solar gigafactory (which is now starting deliveries), and they pretend that there's no revenue from Model 3, despite the fact that they're now up to 1k per week, reporting (as of today) to be on track to 2,5k by the end of Q1 and 5k by the end of Q2, and that Model 3 purchase prices / margins are frontended by delivering only the premium versions first.
The shorts' math is laughably bad. Which is why they keep losing money over and over on TSLA. They first really started hyping that argument in early November, when the stock was down to ~$300. It's at $343 right now. Care to lose your money like they have?
I remember quite distinctly you arguing nonstop for hours about how the Model 3 production schedule was going to be on track by December waay back in October.
I searched my posts and don't see anything, ever about Tesla becoming "on track" with the original (aka, accelerated) "5k per week by December" timeline.
When the production schedule was months behind in December you argued that there was a new production schedule, they were only one month behind, and the old promises didn't matter anymore anyway
Has there been another person posting with my name: Here's literally all of my posts about the Model 3 schedule between November and my first post in January:
Noticing something: I reported on the VIN tracking (and compare those numbers to the current ones - over 6000 spotted in the wild and over 10000 registered - and talked about how they were ~3 months behind schedule, not 1, never once saying that they were going to "catch up" with the original schedule. Quite to the opposite, I repeatedly pointed out that Tesla is always late, which would make for quite a contradictory argument if I was also - in your mind - claiming that they were going to "catch up" to the original schedule.
So please, if I have a doppelganger on Slashdot, please point me to them. Otherwise, you can cut it with the straw men.
This is an extremely misinformed and misleading article. To be absolutely clear, we are on track with the previous projections for achieving increased Model 3 production rates that we provided earlier this month. As has been well documented, until we reach full production, by definition some elements of the production process will be more manual. This is something Elon and JB discussed extensively on our Q3 earnings call, and it has no impact on the quality or safety of the batteries we’re producing. As noted in our Q4 deliveries release, during the fourth quarter, “we made major progress addressing Model 3 production bottlenecks, with our production rate increasing significantly towards the end of the quarter.”
Furthermore, as is often the case in manufacturing, some parts of the production process require the expertise of employees with engineering or manufacturing experience, and others don’t. We’ve created thousands of new high-quality jobs in Nevada in recent years. As we continue to expand Gigafactory 1 and ramp Model 3 production, we’ve been able to teach new skills to thousands of new employees, many of whom had no manufacturing experience prior to joining Tesla. New hires on the module line receive extensive training, including safety training, and learn about the importance of proper cell-to-cell spacing so they can identify such issues in the production process. More broadly, battery production – and the module line in particular – is overseen by our top engineering talent, and many of Tesla’s most senior leadership.
Finally, the implication that Tesla would ever deliver a car with a hazardous battery is absolutely inaccurate, contrary to all evidence, and detached from reality. It is irresponsible to suggest as much based on unnamed, anonymous sources who have provided no such evidence and who obviously do not have a complete understanding of the extensive testing that all batteries in Tesla vehicles are subjected to. As with Model S and Model X, which have well demonstrated safety records, we maintain a rigorous approach to quality and process control for the Model 3 battery. Even more importantly, to our knowledge, there has not been a single safety concern in the field related to Model 3 batteries at any point over the six months of Model 3 production.
As for the assertion about cells touching in Model 3 batteries, this is extremely misleading and displays a complete lack of basic knowledge about how our batteries work. Every battery in a Tesla vehicle has thousands of cells, the vast majority of which are at the same voltage potential as neighboring cells. Hypothetically, even if two cells of the same voltage potential were touching, there would be absolutely zero impact, safety or otherwise – it would be as if two neutral pieces of metal touched. Despite this fact, all Model 3 battery modules’ cell positions are measured twice in manufacturing to verify process control and quality of outgoing parts. Conversely, if at any point in the production process cells are touching at different voltage potentials, they cannot be electrically interconnected. Over the course of the production process, we conduct three different tests to ensure the right number of cells are electrically connected in Model 3 modules. Additionally, the long term reliability of cell position is something validated through testing, including shock and vibration, and high temperature and humidity testing, as well as thermal cycling endurance testing throughout design and via sampling in production. All of this testing is designed to prevent touching cells from being installed in any of our vehicles, including Model 3. Finally, the safety aspects of our module design would continue to function even in the presence of touching cells, so the concerns raised are further unfounded.
"Tesla fan" is going to take on new connotations if it becomes trendy for them to carry around flamethrowers as a sign of support for Musk's companies.
Maybe it'll end up that Tesla fans start getting hired to run security, in the way that Hell's Angels used to be. Then we'll end up waking up one day reading about how 7 people were charred to death during a ruckus at a Radiohead concert...
I'm not a climate scientist, but it doesn't make a lot of sense that the climate would "try to catch up"
Think "I'm lying down at home, and every several minutes I put another blanket over me" vs. "I suddenly put a whole bunch of blankets at once ". Do you really think you'll warm up at the same rate when you've just added a whole bunch of blankets at once as you would have when you added them incrementally? Of course not, and then all of the sudden you rapidly warm up to nearly the temperature you'd have been had you put them on incrementally.
The driver of Earth's climate - sunlight reacts effectively instantly to changes in the atmosphere. Earth's primary greenhouse gas - water vapor - adjusts to changes in longer-term forcing factors (such as methane, CO2, Milankovitch cycles, etc) in a matter of days to weeks. The only thing making said change not catch up almost instantly is the thermal inertia of Earth's surface (land, ocean). The land's thermal inertia won't last long; it doesn't convect, and the upper layers insulate the lower layers, so any moderating impact it has rapidly decreases over time (e.g. you may note how the land may melt the first snowfall or two of the winter, but then cools down to the point where it can't anymore; its ability to affect surface temperature changes is limited). The real question is the ocean. You need proper models to represent it - hence the reason for this study. I suspect that the reason that they got the results that they did is that the timescales involved aren't sufficient for significant movement of heat to the deep ocean.
Intuitively,
Science doesn't work based on "hunches". You make models and you test them, then submit your results for peer review. Like they did.
The "block the sun" proposals to prevent warming have always sounded counterintuitive. Ignoring the acid rain risks, if you're reducing sunlight, you're reducing photosynthesis; this is not a good thing. You're also doing nothing to stop ocean acidification - if anything, you might make it worse. And of course, it's just hiding the problem - sweeping dirt under the rug.
The only geoengineering proposal that's ever sounded particularly interesting to me is iron seeding of the oceans. 1) It's actually removing CO2, not just hiding it (experiments differ on how much you sequester, from "little" to "vast amounts", but it definitely has effects), 2) It's quite affordable, and 3) It has the side effect of restoring and enhancing fisheries. When the Haida Gwaii did it (without permission, and were shut down), the results were amazing; salmon catches went up 400% and all indications were that other marine life populations were booming as well. The vast majority of Earth's oceans are like deserts, with very low densities of life because there's insufficient iron to allow for growth of autotrophs. Add the iron and life takes off; it doesn't require much.
You of course have to be careful - not to have too high of a density (out of risk of oxygen depletion), to consider downstream mineral concentrations (aka, how it affects minerals you're not supplementing), how the overall food chain balance is, etc. I always find the latter issue however overblown given how much we've drastically altered the oceans' food chains already with overfishing the top species, and this presents a chance to let them restore their numbers by increasing primary productivity needed for their numerous fry to reach adulthood - but that's neither here nor there. You do have to be careful; the process requires extensive study. And of course you need to be sure that it's actually working, that enough carbon from organic detritus is getting buried on the seabed to make a difference. But the main point is that it's not a band-aid; it's about taking carbon from the atmosphere, not trying to hide its effects.
Slashdot Mirror
Mazda's engines are dual mode; they scan switch between HCCI and simple spark ignition. This also lets them overcome the problem that HCCI have trouble scaling to higher powers, as they need to operate on lean fuel mixtures. The downside is that the transition between burn modes causes a lot of knock.
I am looking. And what I'm seeing is you getting vastly more for your money now then you did several years ago, and nothing obvious slowing down this trend in the future. Batteries still cost far more than their raw materials. Scaleup will keep pushing the difference between battery costs and raw materials costs down. And this is with raw materials costs highly inflated due to the rapid demand scaleup outpacing the rate in which new mines have been built / old mines retrofitted with more tailings recovery / etc; eventually production curves will catch up to demand curves (if demand curves ever slow down then that only helps, as you start getting more meaningful battery recycling feedstocks in addition to the scaling-up virgin material feedstocks), and raw materials prices should drop.
Nonsense. A Model 3 SR has the same performance as a BMW 330i, more standard features, costs $5k less (*without* subsidies), and costs ~$1k less (US)/~$2k less (EU) per year in energy costs, as well as having a simpler powertrain.
We're talking proper EVs, not golf carts. A Model 3 LR actually goes slightly further than a BMW 340i (its performance equivalent) on a single "tank" in city driving (the BMW still wins of course in highway driving).
Model 3 SR is pretty much the same weight as the BMW 330i. LR is only slightly heavier than the 340i.
Peak efficiency, not average efficiency. A non-hybrid generally runs at around 60% of its peak efficiency on average - if the same applies here, then that's ~34% average efficiency. Hybrids can get closer to (not equal) the peak efficiency, but as you hybridize, you're increasing your vehicle's weight, complexity, and cost - on top of an already more complex, expensive engine. Also, see elsewhere in this thread for issues with these types of engines.
Yes, let's all pretend that the topic of EV impact on the environment hasn't been studied ad nauseum in the peer-reviewed literature, and let's also pretend that the result is precisely the opposite of what it's been determined to be.
Let's also pretend that coal isn't disappearing rapidly from western grids, and let's furthermore pretend that the CO2 impact from manufacture is comparable to or larger than the CO2 released from the vehicle's operation (with the typical ICE car burning approximately its own weight in fuel every year, with an average vehicle age of ~10 years, equating to an average life expectancy of ~20 years, followed by the majority of the vehicle being recycled). Let's also pretend that that hasn't also been studied ad nauseum.
You have to wash the coal first, though.
Historically, sure (battery mass, not so much motor mass). But that's been disappearing. Model 3 SR, for example, matches the BMW 330i for performance and is basically the same weight. Model 3 LR matches the 340i and is only slightly heavier. Once they launch the performance package, I'd wager that it will beat most of its performance-matched class competitors on weight, since electric drive units are lighter than engines per unit power.
It's also worth noting that the country in the world with the highest EV adoption rate - over half of all new cars being EVs - is Norway. And in second place? Iceland. The whole "EVs can't handle extreme climates or places with low population density" thing is just plain silly. We here where the weather is cold like how easy EVs are to preheat, and they tend to handle very well in snowy/icy weather. And while power is reduced (and regen sometimes disabled) at low temperatures until the pack warms up, they always "start". Furthermore, you don't have to stand outside at periodic intervals in the cold to pump gas.
Yeah! Who wants the ability to have your car be nice and toasty and all the ice melted off when you get in? I want to scrape ice, dammit!
Damn millenials... get off my lawn!
If you ignore all of the peer-reviewed studies that have been done on the subject and come to precisely the opposite conclusion, absolutely!
So you're claiming that a 2wd Yaris is better than a AWD S on slippery mountain roads? Interesting claim there.
BTW, Model 3 SR is pretty much the same weight as a BMW 330i (its performance equivalent), and LR only slightly heavier than a 340i (its performance equivalent). It's be really interesting when the performance package comes out, as performance on EVs doesn't add much mass versus how much accel it adds.
Seriously, we're comparing the price on new luxury cars to old used Yarises now? Hey, how's the automatic emergency braking in your Yaris? How's its remote-controlled cabin climate conditioning doing for you? How are you enjoying its streaming media? I mean, come on. Of course old used cars are cheaper than new ones, and particularly when comparing an old econobox with a new luxury sports sedan. You can pick up old Nissan Leafs that still have most of their bars for dirt cheap too, you know, and they won't cost you ~£1000 a year in fuel.
Compare new with new, old with old, and feature/performance class with feature/performance class. Anything else is silly.
Indeed. Nuclear has always been far more popular on K-Street than Wall Street. K-Street's often very active support has sometimes gotten Wall Street to buy in, but they almost always end up burned. Nuclear reactors tend to be money pits. And it generally has nothing to do with NIMBY oppoisition.
HCCI is usually pretty good with NOx. On the other hand, it tends to have high CO and VOC emissions. As for noise, it's not too bad in normal operation, although there's a lot of noise switching between HCCI and spark modes (this is in comparison to current spark ignition vehicles). Sound damping is important.
Also note that you'll never see 56% efficiency in the real world, even if that's the engine's peak efficiency (assuming that they even achieve that). A typical car gasoline engine historically has run at about 35% peak efficiency and 20% average efficiency (although that's been improving on both accounts, the ratio has remained relatively fixed). Peak efficiency is only available in a relatively narrow power band; gearing doesn't change what power band you're in, only the ratio of torque and RPM within that power band. The only way to significantly improve the ratio between peak and average efficiency is to go full hybrid.
HCCI might make for an interesting range extender. One of its problems is that it doesn't scale well to higher powers; Mazda has to (awkwardly) switch to conventional spark ignition when power demands rise above "typical highway cruising". But with a range extender there's no need, as the engine only has to meet the long-term average demand. Even with a conventional hybrid it'd reduce how often it has to go into spark ignition mode; the hybrid's engine has to meet only short-term average demand - so fine for passing, but spark ignition might be needed for e.z. going up a long hill.
It's not as great as it sounds regardless, even if they can achieve that, and in a way that can meet emissions regulations**, and in a way that's not absurdly heavy and expensive**. That would be 56% peak efficiency. The only way you can get a car's engine to operate on average even close to its peak is to go full hybrid. But then you have both a battery/motor system and a ICE/fuel/pollution controls system in the same car. And even still you wouldn't average the peak; you just wouldn't be as vastly lower than the peak as you would be if you went with a non-hybrid.
** 1) HCCI engines tend to have high CO and VOC emissions; 2) HCCI engines of a given size tend to be more power limited because they're restricted to burning very lean fuel mixtures; they also tend to be heavy because they operate at high compressions. And all of this together tends to spell "expensive". Mazda, for their part, tries to deal with the latter by switching to spark ignition when more power is needed, which is a reasonable solution, although it adds to the part count and design complexity; additional the downside is that the transition between the modes comes with loud knock. As for the former issue, Mazda clearly feels that they can comply, at least on the Skyactiv-X, with current regulations. Hopefully it's not "compliance" in quotation marks akin to Volkswagen's diesel approach; the fact that they have multiple, entirely different ignition mechanisms makes much easier for them to excuse away transitions (aka, "No, we don't have a chip detecting when we're being driven on a test protocol; our transition timings just happen to be good for our testing score")
While see great things for TSLA, I'd never buy their bonds. The stock has all the upsides; the bonds have all the risk.
I don't see anything in your post that contradicts the above in any way, shape, or form. Nowhere did Tesla say "A 35k Model 3 in January". Ever. The plan has always been to start out with delivering versions with the long range battery and premium upgrades first, and only moving to the non-premium versions as they worked their way down the waiting list.
Model 3's pricing is highly competitive with the 3-Series, A4 and C-Class. The Model 3 LR for example is as fast as a 340i, but costs $5k less without accounting for tax credits or energy savings. The premium upgrades package is $5k, but some of things that are standard on the Model 3 are premium upgrades on the BMW, let alone what you get with PUP on the Model 3.
For the Australia battery, quite small = ~45 minutes from full to empty or vice versa.
The expected lifespan of a Powerpack is 15 years on grid duty.
As someone who's currently pricing electricity for a large project, it's easy to see how timeshifting of power can make a big difference. Our local utilities offer power as cheap as 2,5kr/kWh where the utility can cut off the supply at any time (kr ~= 1 cent), or ~3,5kr/kWh at the cheapest un-cut time-of-use rates, while the most expensive time-of-use rates are 15kr/kWh. That's a huge spread on power costs. And that's here where our power is essentially all baseload (over 99% hydro + geothermal). Places with more intermittent power should be expected to have a wider spread.
Which I was saying in the linked post is something that was never promised by Tesla.
It's no extrapolation. You really think that nobody is tracking deliveries but Tesla?
TTAC called, they'd like you to write a column for their Tesla Deathwach 7 years ago. ;) The "Tesla is going to run out of money" nonsense that shorts at Seeking Alpha love is tiring (but hey, if you buy into it, by all means short them!). It's premised on the concept of no additional cash streams (Semi and Roadster reservations are basically no-interest several-year loans), no improvements in the Tesla Energy division orders (which by all measures seem to be taking off after the success of the Australia battery), no revenue from the solar gigafactory (which is now starting deliveries), and they pretend that there's no revenue from Model 3, despite the fact that they're now up to 1k per week, reporting (as of today) to be on track to 2,5k by the end of Q1 and 5k by the end of Q2, and that Model 3 purchase prices / margins are frontended by delivering only the premium versions first.
The shorts' math is laughably bad. Which is why they keep losing money over and over on TSLA. They first really started hyping that argument in early November, when the stock was down to ~$300. It's at $343 right now. Care to lose your money like they have?
I searched my posts and don't see anything, ever about Tesla becoming "on track" with the original (aka, accelerated) "5k per week by December" timeline.
Has there been another person posting with my name: Here's literally all of my posts about the Model 3 schedule between November and my first post in January:
17 nov:
"if you're asking how production is going: spyshots and VIN tracking currently suggests that they're up to about 100 per week."
Model 3 has been launched since July. They're about 3 months behind schedule, with about 1k produced so far.
Funny, could you boldface for me where he promises in that statement a $35k Model 3 in 2017? ... (Re: "No you will not see a single $35,000 model manufactured by January.") So to you, "a couple months" means "under 1 1/2 months". Interesting.
Tesla always delivers. Almost always somewhat late**, but they do deliver. ** - Model 3 actually broke this trend by launching on time (on a schedule that they had accelerated, at that) - but their scaleup hit a number of snags and ended up 3 months behind, so, Tesla is still clearly Tesla ;)
25 nov:
Model 3 is about 3 months behind schedule. Oooh, stop the presses
First off, the original plan for the Model 3 was for production to begin at "some point" in 2017; it was moved forward to July. Secondly: we were not discussing schedules. Tesla is frequently late; Model 3 being 3 months behind schedule should surprise nobody.
2 dec:
The production curve lagged a few months, but now it's following the S curve nicely (over twice as many produced in November as October). Highest VIN spotted in the wild so far (just today) is over 1900.
4 jan:
The fact alone that they're now up to over 1000 Model 3s per week is in and of itself ~$8m per day in extra revenue.
Noticing something: I reported on the VIN tracking (and compare those numbers to the current ones - over 6000 spotted in the wild and over 10000 registered - and talked about how they were ~3 months behind schedule, not 1, never once saying that they were going to "catch up" with the original schedule. Quite to the opposite, I repeatedly pointed out that Tesla is always late, which would make for quite a contradictory argument if I was also - in your mind - claiming that they were going to "catch up" to the original schedule.
So please, if I have a doppelganger on Slashdot, please point me to them. Otherwise, you can cut it with the straw men.
To reiterate: rates provided earlier this month (the Q4 call). Not rates projected 1 1/2 years ago.
Rather...
"Tesla fan" is going to take on new connotations if it becomes trendy for them to carry around flamethrowers as a sign of support for Musk's companies.
Maybe it'll end up that Tesla fans start getting hired to run security, in the way that Hell's Angels used to be. Then we'll end up waking up one day reading about how 7 people were charred to death during a ruckus at a Radiohead concert...
Wear your flamethrower around? Are you auditioning for the next Mad Max or something?
What is the "mission" for a flamethrower? ;)
Think "I'm lying down at home, and every several minutes I put another blanket over me" vs. "I suddenly put a whole bunch of blankets at once ". Do you really think you'll warm up at the same rate when you've just added a whole bunch of blankets at once as you would have when you added them incrementally? Of course not, and then all of the sudden you rapidly warm up to nearly the temperature you'd have been had you put them on incrementally.
The driver of Earth's climate - sunlight reacts effectively instantly to changes in the atmosphere. Earth's primary greenhouse gas - water vapor - adjusts to changes in longer-term forcing factors (such as methane, CO2, Milankovitch cycles, etc) in a matter of days to weeks. The only thing making said change not catch up almost instantly is the thermal inertia of Earth's surface (land, ocean). The land's thermal inertia won't last long; it doesn't convect, and the upper layers insulate the lower layers, so any moderating impact it has rapidly decreases over time (e.g. you may note how the land may melt the first snowfall or two of the winter, but then cools down to the point where it can't anymore; its ability to affect surface temperature changes is limited). The real question is the ocean. You need proper models to represent it - hence the reason for this study. I suspect that the reason that they got the results that they did is that the timescales involved aren't sufficient for significant movement of heat to the deep ocean.
Science doesn't work based on "hunches". You make models and you test them, then submit your results for peer review. Like they did.
The "block the sun" proposals to prevent warming have always sounded counterintuitive. Ignoring the acid rain risks, if you're reducing sunlight, you're reducing photosynthesis; this is not a good thing. You're also doing nothing to stop ocean acidification - if anything, you might make it worse. And of course, it's just hiding the problem - sweeping dirt under the rug.
The only geoengineering proposal that's ever sounded particularly interesting to me is iron seeding of the oceans. 1) It's actually removing CO2, not just hiding it (experiments differ on how much you sequester, from "little" to "vast amounts", but it definitely has effects), 2) It's quite affordable, and 3) It has the side effect of restoring and enhancing fisheries. When the Haida Gwaii did it (without permission, and were shut down), the results were amazing; salmon catches went up 400% and all indications were that other marine life populations were booming as well. The vast majority of Earth's oceans are like deserts, with very low densities of life because there's insufficient iron to allow for growth of autotrophs. Add the iron and life takes off; it doesn't require much.
You of course have to be careful - not to have too high of a density (out of risk of oxygen depletion), to consider downstream mineral concentrations (aka, how it affects minerals you're not supplementing), how the overall food chain balance is, etc. I always find the latter issue however overblown given how much we've drastically altered the oceans' food chains already with overfishing the top species, and this presents a chance to let them restore their numbers by increasing primary productivity needed for their numerous fry to reach adulthood - but that's neither here nor there. You do have to be careful; the process requires extensive study. And of course you need to be sure that it's actually working, that enough carbon from organic detritus is getting buried on the seabed to make a difference. But the main point is that it's not a band-aid; it's about taking carbon from the atmosphere, not trying to hide its effects.