SpaceX didn't have insurance. Satellite was insured but it isn't clear if it applies to real launches or to testing too, and if it covers additional consequential losses.
Heavy long range battery cars are worse than ICE on PM. "Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic." http://www.sciencedirect.com/s... That is average, but if you take performance cars with excessive acceleration capability and soft tires, PM emissions are increasing drastically due to acceleration. It may get worse than some "clean diesel" economy car.
A flood of "idiot" customers to support/service typically means that there was one more idiot in another place - the one who designed human interface of the product. Assuming somebody bothered about human interface at all.
Electric motors just outsource conversion from thermal to electric energy (aka burning) to some other place, where you can't see it immediately. As some dumb people can't see it, they pretend it doesn't exist and imagine electric grid can ran whole winter from that ice covered PV on personal roof. In reality the energy path doesn't change so much whatever motor you use.
Nobody bashes self-driving technology. People bash swindlers who sell adoptive cruise control as cutting edge "self-driving", so that they would be able to sell new stock for billions each year. There is nothing "self driving" in it, but some brainwashed fanboys still imagine that they are getting close to "self driving" with this technology and play Russian roulette with people lives around, that is the whole problem.
What a nonsense, how can you prevent insurance company from going to court. They paid for damages and they can sue for themselves. Even if such clause would be legal and enforceable, insurances company can always refuse to write policy for anything that has word "Tesla" on it, and good luck selling cars with such smart ass contracts then.
Are serious? What is he can sue for? $500 deductible? He is not even injured, insurance company pays for his car. It is insurance company who decides sue or not sue. As is a bit expensive, it may decided to sue. It is not millions in some fatal accident like the one in FL, but still some money. Maybe not enough to warrant lawsuit with legal expenses when outcome is not clear, but still possible. Tesla has marketed autopilot as mostly "autonomous" and Tesla salesmen demonstrated hands free driving, so some legal agreement checkboxes and formal disclaimers may be not enough to dodge responsibility.
Did you read at least this wikipedia page you quote? I.e.: "AEE points out that the average power purchase agreement (PPA) for wind power was already at $24/MWh in 2013.". How can it come to 6.6-8.2 cnt/kWh when it was 2.4 cnt/kWh in 2013? This "projected for 2020" report is hopelessly out of date. Check energy.gov for more current data: http://energy.gov/eere/article... In particular this report lists 2.35 cnt/kWh average PPA in 2014 (page 56): http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...
How dumb it can go? Nobody generates electricity from diesel in mainland US, only in few islands. Natural gas cost defines low electricity prices in the US and isn't related to oil price. Natural gas cost has nowhere to go but up, as bottom is supported by natural gas liquidification and export terminals that are going into production now. Natural gas is much more expensive in the rest of the world.
Offshore wind may be still too expensive, but onshore wind PPAs in mid US are 2-2.5 cnt/kWh and it is BELOW wholesale electricity price. What more self-sufficiency do you want?
There still is 2.3 cnt/kWh subsidy for grid connected wind power, but it ONLY applies if you do not take 30% tax subsidy when building it. Both are going to expire in few years. Even if resulting cost will go up to 4-5 cnt/kWh, it would still be typical wholesale PPA price. More likely it would not raise that much, as cost of wind turbines is going down in recent years.
People who replicate this "abandoned wind turbines" nonsense are morons from the woods with IQ of a monkey.
I don't know your location, but $40,000 for ## kW system that generates 18,000 kWh/year sounds waaaay too much. Either you are in North, or need to look for better contractors, or wait until installation cost in your location will come to more sensible, just like it did in Australia. I don't know if netmetering and per kWh only residential rates (aka "free backup" from grid) will survive until then though.
Panel cost may be smaller part of the whole system cost. There is mounting hardware, inverters, labor, engineering and so on. Cheaper per W panel doesn't necessary mean cheaper per W system as you may need more hardware, labor, optimizers/miniinverters with less powerful panels.
If you have large AC needs, first thing you need to do is to do duct leak pressure test and seal it completely. Second, but only after the first is done, is to add lots and lots insulation to on ductwork and to attic. Then you may replace windows to energy efficient ones if you windows are not adequate. Then you can think about upgrading your AC or heat pump, but only after the above is done. If you live in humid climate like Florida, proper AC sizing is critical, as only AC working most of the time can remove humidity efficiently. Double-sized AC that "rule of the thumb" HVAC people put in to protect themselves from "not cool enough" calls in summer is not good idea for you as a customer - they overload smaller ducts and you need to keep temperature way lower than needed to reduce humidity. You need to do Manual J calculation on by yourself with actual construction data - there is one site online that still allows it for free. You better get variable speed blower and at least 2 speed compressor for the same reason. Then you may replace bulbs to LEDs if you didn't done so yet. Then you may check for energy efficient appliances if you have some old ones.
And at the VERY END OF THE LIST, once you have reduced you energy consumption by half and at FRACTION of the solar energy cost and know your new reduced consumption numbers, you may think about PV system. That is if you are sure net metering is not going away for you personally and insurance company or proper tax appraiser will not slap extra fees on you for it, and your roof under the system will not need replacement for 20-30 years.
But South faced panels are perfect if you want to exploit legacy residential electricity rate structure when you have fixed per kWh rate around the clock and little monthly charges. Now if you would get typical rate structures for commercial customers with spot prices or some $40/kW/month demand charges and lower per kWh rate, even West facing panels would not make as much sense.
More accurate would be to look at solar insolation map, it isn't just about latitude. Yes, it would work anywhere as long as somebody pays for it, I'm not claiming that it would not. But it is more like milking of other ratepayers, not self sustainable project. What is use of electricity generator that provides power half of the year only?
And it is not necessary to burn hydrogen in inefficient gas turbines. Fuel cells have better efficiency, are advancing rapidly, and some pilot fuel cell plants using industry byproduct hydrogen already exist.
Nobody disputes that offshore wind is more expensive than onshore when you ignore price of land. But it should be obvious that densely populated areas don't have free land, and don't have many cheaper alternatives. Look at the map on page 36: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f... Onshore wind resources are good in interior US. They are not as good in East and West.
It isn't significant problem in the US with only 5% wind and less than 1% solar electricity. It becomes significant in Germany that has higher share of wind/solar. They starting power-to-gas pilot plants, and scaling of power-to-gas is unlimited, and it can use existing natural gas infrastructure with minor changes. Of course it costs extra and for now it is expensive as everything at pilot stage. But you don't need to store all generated energy, just some of it.
Trump also has a right not to run for President it he doesn't want to be a public person. He can just go and hide somewhere in the woods and nobody will bother his privacy. Now he attempts to get into public position.
The obvious reason not to release returns is that they will show how lousy he was as a businessman and reduce his chances to be elected. Audit is just an excuse, it doesn't prevent release.
And what do you think happens with SG&A that includes sales and service centers that you own yourself when you sell millions of cars? It looks like fake gross margin, it doesn't include everything it should include.
It just shows that you didn't checked details how Tesla calculates gross margin. Simple, it doesn't include all expenses that depend on amount of cars sold, like service and sales centers. So you may see some fantastic gross margins and CEO may claim them, but in reality they are much less. Just look at abnormally high SG&A numbers, over 20% of revenue!
Accounting for dummies: You still need to sell at a price that is more than manufacturing costs and any costs per plane/car for this to work. In case of Tesla they sell at less. Multiplying negative number by whatever big positive number just increase your losses. Just don't start on Tesla gross margins, they are artificially inflated and not comparable with other automaker accounting.
Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX didn't have insurance. Satellite was insured but it isn't clear if it applies to real launches or to testing too, and if it covers additional consequential losses.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Heavy long range battery cars are worse than ICE on PM.
"Non-exhaust sources account for 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 from traffic."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
That is average, but if you take performance cars with excessive acceleration capability and soft tires, PM emissions are increasing drastically due to acceleration. It may get worse than some "clean diesel" economy car.
A flood of "idiot" customers to support/service typically means that there was one more idiot in another place - the one who designed human interface of the product. Assuming somebody bothered about human interface at all.
Electric motors just outsource conversion from thermal to electric energy (aka burning) to some other place, where you can't see it immediately. As some dumb people can't see it, they pretend it doesn't exist and imagine electric grid can ran whole winter from that ice covered PV on personal roof. In reality the energy path doesn't change so much whatever motor you use.
Nobody bashes self-driving technology. People bash swindlers who sell adoptive cruise control as cutting edge "self-driving", so that they would be able to sell new stock for billions each year. There is nothing "self driving" in it, but some brainwashed fanboys still imagine that they are getting close to "self driving" with this technology and play Russian roulette with people lives around, that is the whole problem.
What a nonsense, how can you prevent insurance company from going to court. They paid for damages and they can sue for themselves. Even if such clause would be legal and enforceable, insurances company can always refuse to write policy for anything that has word "Tesla" on it, and good luck selling cars with such smart ass contracts then.
Are serious? What is he can sue for? $500 deductible? He is not even injured, insurance company pays for his car.
It is insurance company who decides sue or not sue. As is a bit expensive, it may decided to sue. It is not millions in some fatal accident like the one in FL, but still some money. Maybe not enough to warrant lawsuit with legal expenses when outcome is not clear, but still possible. Tesla has marketed autopilot as mostly "autonomous" and Tesla salesmen demonstrated hands free driving, so some legal agreement checkboxes and formal disclaimers may be not enough to dodge responsibility.
Did you read at least this wikipedia page you quote? I.e.:
"AEE points out that the average power purchase agreement (PPA) for wind power was already at $24/MWh in 2013.".
How can it come to 6.6-8.2 cnt/kWh when it was 2.4 cnt/kWh in 2013? This "projected for 2020" report is hopelessly out of date.
Check energy.gov for more current data:
http://energy.gov/eere/article...
In particular this report lists 2.35 cnt/kWh average PPA in 2014 (page 56):
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...
How dumb it can go? Nobody generates electricity from diesel in mainland US, only in few islands.
Natural gas cost defines low electricity prices in the US and isn't related to oil price. Natural gas cost has nowhere to go but up, as bottom is supported by natural gas liquidification and export terminals that are going into production now. Natural gas is much more expensive in the rest of the world.
Offshore wind may be still too expensive, but onshore wind PPAs in mid US are 2-2.5 cnt/kWh and it is BELOW wholesale electricity price. What more self-sufficiency do you want?
There still is 2.3 cnt/kWh subsidy for grid connected wind power, but it ONLY applies if you do not take 30% tax subsidy when building it. Both are going to expire in few years. Even if resulting cost will go up to 4-5 cnt/kWh, it would still be typical wholesale PPA price. More likely it would not raise that much, as cost of wind turbines is going down in recent years.
People who replicate this "abandoned wind turbines" nonsense are morons from the woods with IQ of a monkey.
I don't know your location, but $40,000 for ## kW system that generates 18,000 kWh/year sounds waaaay too much. Either you are in North, or need to look for better contractors, or wait until installation cost in your location will come to more sensible, just like it did in Australia. I don't know if netmetering and per kWh only residential rates (aka "free backup" from grid) will survive until then though.
Panel cost may be smaller part of the whole system cost. There is mounting hardware, inverters, labor, engineering and so on. Cheaper per W panel doesn't necessary mean cheaper per W system as you may need more hardware, labor, optimizers/miniinverters with less powerful panels.
If you have large AC needs, first thing you need to do is to do duct leak pressure test and seal it completely.
Second, but only after the first is done, is to add lots and lots insulation to on ductwork and to attic.
Then you may replace windows to energy efficient ones if you windows are not adequate.
Then you can think about upgrading your AC or heat pump, but only after the above is done.
If you live in humid climate like Florida, proper AC sizing is critical, as only AC working most of the time can remove humidity efficiently. Double-sized AC that "rule of the thumb" HVAC people put in to protect themselves from "not cool enough" calls in summer is not good idea for you as a customer - they overload smaller ducts and you need to keep temperature way lower than needed to reduce humidity. You need to do Manual J calculation on by yourself with actual construction data - there is one site online that still allows it for free. You better get variable speed blower and at least 2 speed compressor for the same reason.
Then you may replace bulbs to LEDs if you didn't done so yet.
Then you may check for energy efficient appliances if you have some old ones.
And at the VERY END OF THE LIST, once you have reduced you energy consumption by half and at FRACTION of the solar energy cost and know your new reduced consumption numbers, you may think about PV system. That is if you are sure net metering is not going away for you personally and insurance company or proper tax appraiser will not slap extra fees on you for it, and your roof under the system will not need replacement for 20-30 years.
But South faced panels are perfect if you want to exploit legacy residential electricity rate structure when you have fixed per kWh rate around the clock and little monthly charges. Now if you would get typical rate structures for commercial customers with spot prices or some $40/kW/month demand charges and lower per kWh rate, even West facing panels would not make as much sense.
More accurate would be to look at solar insolation map, it isn't just about latitude. Yes, it would work anywhere as long as somebody pays for it, I'm not claiming that it would not. But it is more like milking of other ratepayers, not self sustainable project. What is use of electricity generator that provides power half of the year only?
I doubt rooftop solar make any sense as far North as NY. Other than some subsidy/electric utility rate gaming system.
Where did you get that 15%? It is far from true.
http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content...
"enabling large-scale electricity storage with a round-trip efficiency exceeding 70% and an estimated storage cost around 3 kW1 h1"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And it is not necessary to burn hydrogen in inefficient gas turbines. Fuel cells have better efficiency, are advancing rapidly, and some pilot fuel cell plants using industry byproduct hydrogen already exist.
Nobody disputes that offshore wind is more expensive than onshore when you ignore price of land.
But it should be obvious that densely populated areas don't have free land, and don't have many cheaper alternatives.
Look at the map on page 36:
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/f...
Onshore wind resources are good in interior US. They are not as good in East and West.
Land is cheap in the middle of the US where strongest winds are blowing. Mid US doesn't even need as high turbines as Europe.
It isn't significant problem in the US with only 5% wind and less than 1% solar electricity.
It becomes significant in Germany that has higher share of wind/solar. They starting power-to-gas pilot plants, and scaling of power-to-gas is unlimited, and it can use existing natural gas infrastructure with minor changes. Of course it costs extra and for now it is expensive as everything at pilot stage. But you don't need to store all generated energy, just some of it.
Check out how well peace with aggressor worked in 1938.
Trump also has a right not to run for President it he doesn't want to be a public person. He can just go and hide somewhere in the woods and nobody will bother his privacy. Now he attempts to get into public position.
The obvious reason not to release returns is that they will show how lousy he was as a businessman and reduce his chances to be elected. Audit is just an excuse, it doesn't prevent release.
And what do you think happens with SG&A that includes sales and service centers that you own yourself when you sell millions of cars? It looks like fake gross margin, it doesn't include everything it should include.
It just shows that you didn't checked details how Tesla calculates gross margin. Simple, it doesn't include all expenses that depend on amount of cars sold, like service and sales centers. So you may see some fantastic gross margins and CEO may claim them, but in reality they are much less. Just look at abnormally high SG&A numbers, over 20% of revenue!
Accounting for dummies: You still need to sell at a price that is more than manufacturing costs and any costs per plane/car for this to work. In case of Tesla they sell at less. Multiplying negative number by whatever big positive number just increase your losses. Just don't start on Tesla gross margins, they are artificially inflated and not comparable with other automaker accounting.