It's a good thing they are expecting the margin to increase to 25%
Also, we are focused on achieving our target of 25% gross margin for Model 3 after our production stabilizes at 5,000 cars per week.
Wonder what the margins will be when they are at 10,000 per week?
As we shared previously, in order to incorporate our learnings and be capital efficient, we intend to start adding enough capacity to get to a 10,000 unit weekly rate for Model 3 once we have first hit the 5,000 per week milestone.
Thats funny you should think that because if you sort the list by total generation. You will see that China produced more renewable electricity than any other single country produced total electricity except China (obviously) and the US.
So why doesn't America get better businesses and government than Europe and China? (that even sounds funny typing it)
Could it be that the people in America just don't care enough?
You do know that people pollute and not cash right?
I walk to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I take the bus to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I drive a car to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I drive an American car a long way to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
1. They are replacing stop start busses, so much better for that reason.
2. They are also taking old heavily polluting busses of the streets.
3. Even if it wasn't a win for the total environment, it's still a win for the local environment where people have to live and breathe.
At least you mentioned one and didn't just throw out 'research shows this but I'm not going to tell you where why how or anything really'. Which was why i originally responded.
Mine was supposed to be just as meaningless as the parent, you did better than us both:)
I can type MORE EFFICIENT in all caps too, but you will notice I already told you 'more efficient' numerous times. Never said it was clean. So strawman #1.
Adding more coal plants that are more efficient, does not mean more coal. Even if the old dirty ones aren't closed (which they are) more efficient means more efficient. Either less coal or more power or both.
You are still confused about capacity. If I burn a thimble of coal it will produce x amount of CO2. If I tip that thimble of coal into a big bucket first (much higher capacity) and then burn it, guess what still x amount of CO2. But China is not even doing just that, the new bucket is new technology and is much more efficient.
And here we go with strawman #2. You said American nat gas plants are so many times cleaner than the best China has to offer. And now for some reason instead of backing up your claim, you are trying to compare US gas to China coal.
So you don't like EIA estimates, show some estimates from sources you do like. Instead of these madeupnumbers you are so fond of using.
China has been, is, and will move to EV faster than the US. Your assertion that EV's in China produce more than the cars/busses they replace is just not credible. Peak coal is years in the past and renewables are increasing faster and faster.
The standards for new Chinese coal is European levels (better than the US). So again your assertion is not credible.
Again you are confusing capacity with use. America is closing old plants, not to be environmentally friendly, just because they are too old. Capacity will go down. But use of the remaining plants will increase. Number of plants is meaningless. China will have more newer much higher efficiency plants and will use the old dirty ones less. Much much more capacity, but only slightly more use/and falling coal consumption.
OK looking at your map, did you not notice all the cancelled retired and shelved? Compare that to construction and the red is tiny. Announced and pre-permit may never be built.
Just comparing cancelled and construction there is clearly more green, zoom all the way out to make it more obvious.
Also obvious if you do that and look at permitted and construction, is that there are nowhere near 700 plants but only 319. Yet you still claim 700 in every post.
You are also clearly bullshitting about most being 1+GW. Constructed and permitted total capacity is about 142GW according to that site, but remember there are 319 plants so only 0.45 on average.
Again though, whats the point in mentioning the size or number when only the amount of coal burned is relevant.
It's clear Science and English are not your forte, but simple addition shouldn't be too hard. Is 1+1+1+1+1 small plants burning 5T worse than a huge plant burning 5T ? The first is FIVE NEW PLANTS !! but the second is HUGE !!! you must be so confused.
Just for reference, your site mentions 296GW were cancelled 2010-2017 and 425GW was shelved.
I thought you were a reader? Did you not get to the bottom of your own link? The one that says
The astounding numbers go against the trend that has been happening throughout the year in China, where dangerously high pollution levels have forced the closure of hundreds of coal mines and a curtailment of steel mill output. Examples of China's domestic aversion to coal include:
Two days ago Taiyuan, the capital of China’s northern province of Shanxi, which is known for its coal production, banned the sale, transport and use
I notice you walked back your lie from here about those trucks reducing your CO2, 2-5% per year. Still without admitting you completely made up those numbers.
No one credible believes China had 5% emissions increase in 2017. You own link mentions this
He added that it was too early to be confident about the precise figure for China, which may range between 0.7 and 5.4% emissions growth.
Energy experts attributed the rise in China’s emissions to a revival of carbon intensive industries as the country’s economy grew faster than expected, but added they expected the growth to be “transient”.
The US is expected to see slower decline in its carbon emissions, from an annual 1.2% drop over the past 10 years to a decrease of 0.4% this year, with a return to growth in coal use, as president Donald Trump promised to rescue the coal industry.
US transportation CO2 has risen every year for the last 5 years. So much that it is now a higher emitter than electricity generation. And it is predicted to keep rising, even with electric vehicles.
China's coal consumption has already peaked, even if it rose a tiny bit in 2017.
According to the NEA, in the first three quarters of 2017, coal consumption in China reached 2.81 billion metric tons, an increase of less than 1 percent from 2016. A similar estimation of 2.82 billion to 2.83 billion tons is corroborated by the Energy Research Institute of the NDRC.
We support the conclusion that coal consumption is likely to have experienced a rebound of around 1 percent in 2017. Total consumption would be 3.82 billion metric tons – 150 million tons less than that of 2015, or 420 million tons less than the 2013 level. Even if coal consumption increased by 3 percent to 3.90 billion tons in 2017 as the Global Carbon Project report said, it is still far less than the 4 billion tons in 2015, let alone challenging the 4.24 billion tons peak in 2013.
Have you seen all those craters on the moon? Tracks won't last forever.
Satellites won't stay up for millions of years, and bacteria evolved to eat plastic in less than 50 years. So no, plastics won't last millions of years either.
Slashdot Mirror
So it's bullshit.
It's very weak and probably something else.
But you completely agree with it!
Glad you now agree that it's just a matter of time.
But now it's On the Internet.
It's LITERALLY the most ridiculous hyperbole EVER!
Except Apple still dropped to 5th place in China.
18 year old's have a lot more time left to pay the loan off.
I hope you also put it in airplane mode, took out the sim and put epoxy in all the ports.
Also, we are focused on achieving our target of 25% gross margin for Model 3 after our production stabilizes at 5,000 cars per week.
Wonder what the margins will be when they are at 10,000 per week?
As we shared previously, in order to incorporate our learnings and be capital efficient, we intend to start adding enough capacity to get to a 10,000 unit weekly rate for Model 3 once we have first hit the 5,000 per week milestone.
So you don't like learning then, suit yourself.
If you did, you could go through that post and tell which were which.
Since you won't, I'll just point out this little bit mentioned in that post.
But the Model 3 will have a much lower margin, perhaps only 10%
Now in the same way that zero is less than 10.
10 is also greater than zero.
You're = you are ...not your...
What if like these Fords they were broken before you got them out the parking lot?
And Ford tried the 'your holding it wrong' excuse.
Fixed costs and variable costs. Have fun learning.
Only until the volume ramps up. But you knew that already didn't you.
The US also wins the prize for dirty energy too. 3,525GW for 325 Million, per person 10.8 vs China 4183GW for 1384 Million, per person 3.0.
So America is also more than 3 times higher for dirty energy per capita too.
Thats funny you should think that because if you sort the list by total generation. You will see that China produced more renewable electricity than any other single country produced total electricity except China (obviously) and the US.
More renewable than those countries total.
Businesses and Gov are the real deciders.
So why doesn't America get better businesses and government than Europe and China? (that even sounds funny typing it)
Could it be that the people in America just don't care enough?
You do know that people pollute and not cash right?
I walk to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I take the bus to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I drive a car to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
I drive an American car a long way to work, how much CO2 and how much does it cost?
1. They are replacing stop start busses, so much better for that reason.
2. They are also taking old heavily polluting busses of the streets.
3. Even if it wasn't a win for the total environment, it's still a win for the local environment where people have to live and breathe.
At least you mentioned one and didn't just throw out 'research shows this but I'm not going to tell you where why how or anything really'. Which was why i originally responded. :)
Mine was supposed to be just as meaningless as the parent, you did better than us both
I can type MORE EFFICIENT in all caps too, but you will notice I already told you 'more efficient' numerous times. Never said it was clean. So strawman #1.
Adding more coal plants that are more efficient, does not mean more coal. Even if the old dirty ones aren't closed (which they are) more efficient means more efficient. Either less coal or more power or both.
You are still confused about capacity. If I burn a thimble of coal it will produce x amount of CO2. If I tip that thimble of coal into a big bucket first (much higher capacity) and then burn it, guess what still x amount of CO2. But China is not even doing just that, the new bucket is new technology and is much more efficient.
And here we go with strawman #2. You said American nat gas plants are so many times cleaner than the best China has to offer. And now for some reason instead of backing up your claim, you are trying to compare US gas to China coal.
So you don't like EIA estimates, show some estimates from sources you do like. Instead of these made up numbers you are so fond of using.
China has been, is, and will move to EV faster than the US. Your assertion that EV's in China produce more than the cars/busses they replace is just not credible. Peak coal is years in the past and renewables are increasing faster and faster.
The standards for new Chinese coal is European levels (better than the US). So again your assertion is not credible.
Again you are confusing capacity with use. America is closing old plants, not to be environmentally friendly, just because they are too old. Capacity will go down. But use of the remaining plants will increase. Number of plants is meaningless. China will have more newer much higher efficiency plants and will use the old dirty ones less. Much much more capacity, but only slightly more use/and falling coal consumption.
OK looking at your map, did you not notice all the cancelled retired and shelved? Compare that to construction and the red is tiny. Announced and pre-permit may never be built.
Just comparing cancelled and construction there is clearly more green, zoom all the way out to make it more obvious.
Also obvious if you do that and look at permitted and construction, is that there are nowhere near 700 plants but only 319. Yet you still claim 700 in every post.
You are also clearly bullshitting about most being 1+GW. Constructed and permitted total capacity is about 142GW according to that site, but remember there are 319 plants so only 0.45 on average.
Again though, whats the point in mentioning the size or number when only the amount of coal burned is relevant.
It's clear Science and English are not your forte, but simple addition shouldn't be too hard. Is 1+1+1+1+1 small plants burning 5T worse than a huge plant burning 5T ? The first is FIVE NEW PLANTS !! but the second is HUGE !!! you must be so confused.
Just for reference, your site mentions 296GW were cancelled 2010-2017 and 425GW was shelved.
I thought you were a reader? Did you not get to the bottom of your own link? The one that says
The astounding numbers go against the trend that has been happening throughout the year in China, where dangerously high pollution levels have forced the closure of hundreds of coal mines and a curtailment of steel mill output. Examples of China's domestic aversion to coal include:
Two days ago Taiyuan, the capital of China’s northern province of Shanxi, which is known for its coal production, banned the sale, transport and use
I notice you walked back your lie from here about those trucks reducing your CO2, 2-5% per year. Still without admitting you completely made up those numbers.
No one credible believes China had 5% emissions increase in 2017. You own link mentions this
He added that it was too early to be confident about the precise figure for China, which may range between 0.7 and 5.4% emissions growth.
Energy experts attributed the rise in China’s emissions to a revival of carbon intensive industries as the country’s economy grew faster than expected, but added they expected the growth to be “transient”.
The US is expected to see slower decline in its carbon emissions, from an annual 1.2% drop over the past 10 years to a decrease of 0.4% this year, with a return to growth in coal use, as president Donald Trump promised to rescue the coal industry.
US transportation CO2 has risen every year for the last 5 years. So much that it is now a higher emitter than electricity generation. And it is predicted to keep rising, even with electric vehicles.
China's coal consumption has already peaked, even if it rose a tiny bit in 2017.
According to the NEA, in the first three quarters of 2017, coal consumption in China reached 2.81 billion metric tons, an increase of less than 1 percent from 2016. A similar estimation of 2.82 billion to 2.83 billion tons is corroborated by the Energy Research Institute of the NDRC. We support the conclusion that coal consumption is likely to have experienced a rebound of around 1 percent in 2017. Total consumption would be 3.82 billion metric tons – 150 million tons less than that of 2015, or 420 million tons less than the 2013 level. Even if coal consumption increased by 3 percent to 3.90 billion tons in 2017 as the Global Carbon Project report said, it is still far less than the 4 billion tons in 2015, let alone challenging the 4.24 billion tons peak in 2013.
You had best not argue with him. According to you there is a 50% chance he's God.
According to other research, they won't.
Have you seen all those craters on the moon? Tracks won't last forever. Satellites won't stay up for millions of years, and bacteria evolved to eat plastic in less than 50 years. So no, plastics won't last millions of years either.