What matters is actual output, and in India that is around 15-19%. So installing 100 GW of "capacity" really means installing around 15-19 GW of actual generation, or about 2% of their actual electrical need.
You shouldn't publish at that point. If you cannot share your data, then you cannot - legitimately - make a scientific claim any stronger than "trust me". Not all research needs to be published, and that would be a perfect solution for data that needs to be kept private. However, if a researcher wants to publish then they should expect to share everything - otherwise how can anyone trust their research?
If a researcher will not share their data and their methods, it doesn't matter WHERE it was published it should be highly suspect if not outright discounted. Back when I was in university (mid 80s) you had to show your work, show your data, show your experiment setup, and show the link between all of it or you'd get zero credit. Even if your experiment failed, you'd still get credit because you showed what you did and what data you collected.
More and more it's simply "we used a process like this, and we had this result, but we cannot share the data and actual process because it's proprietary and worth money but trust us - it's good!" Nope. Science is a process and requires disclosure of data and process so that your experiment can be done, exactly, by others. Science is skeptical by nature - NO ONE should accept the result of a study or paper unless there is sufficient data and process shared that would allow you to replicate if you so choose. The scientist should, on hearing any claim, think "OK, that's interesting - now what data is there and can I replicate their results?" - if not, it's not science.
Just read section 5 of TaxCloud's terms of service. The merchant assumes 100% liability for any errors or omissions on TaxCloud's part. So if TaxCloud gets it wrong - the merchant, not TaxCloud, is on the hook with the State. They may charge you for it and make it easier, but you still end up taking it in the shorts if they screw up.
And then think of the windfall to California! California requires a minimum $800 for the right to sell within the State. Even if you have zero sales, and are an inactive (but not closed) entity, you MUST pay at least $800 per year. Now, suddenly every business shipping anything to the State of California will need to pay California that minimum amount. With around 28 million small businesses in the US, if just 10% of them have out-of-State sales, then California can expect to make around $2.4 billion per year, minimum...
Back in those days (the 1950s - when we last had a real surplus and paid down the national debt), the Federal Government collected, per capita and adjusted for inflation, about half what it does today. As Government spending has exploded, taxation has actually increased too - but we're getting a lot less for it (well, other than debt, that's mounting up at record paces!).
No, they know how to figure out and properly pay taxes as defined a week or so ago. The scope just exploded, and it's going to take, time, resources, and focus to now respond to this change in scope.
Yep, and those rules will - once again - squeeze out the middle class. If you cannot afford the solar panels or battery, then you will pay more for power. If you're really poor, then California will give you subsidies. But they will - inevitably - raise taxes on power to pay for those subsidies, and those taxes will come on the back, once again, of the middle class.
Cutting their relationship with Home Depot, which "generated about half of its sales" is a 50% cut in revenue, though... Combining the two, it's probably closer to a 60% retrenchment of position in the market.
They are actually focusing on both, putting large nuclear plants near big cities, and coal plants near up-and-coming smaller cities. Shanghai is essentially all nuclear powered, but go to Xi'an or even Shengzhou and it's mainly coal. China has a really poor power grid, and so distributing reliable power plants is common. China's building out the rest of it's new 23 GW of capacity planned to deploy in 2020, and will have another 30 GW in production at that point (probably completed by 2022 or so).
Now, for solar, China has about 125 GW installed right now, but that's at a typical 17% capacity factor, so it's closer 21 GW if they're lucky. They are planning more nuclear than solar for a very simple reason - to keep their economy moving along, they MUST have reliable power. Nuclear does that - solar does not. And due to their poor grid, they cannot transmit power really long distances, meaning power plants must be located closer to the big cities in the East. A 1 GW solar plant needs about 4,000 acres of land; a 1 GW nuclear plant (like the 1.2 GW plant on Hainan Island) takes about 150 acres of land. Big difference, in a country where land near the big cities is at a premium...
Well, it's not uncommon to have clouds over a large (20%) chunk of the country. Or still air over just as much. I guess you can overbuild quite a bit everywhere, and upsize all the long-distance power lines... China is planning to double it's nuclear power capacity in the next 2 years. In 2017, China did about 246 TWh of nuclear power generation, more than solar and wind combined.
Fully agree! Unfortunately, many assign "external" costs for bad power use in China and such against power generation industries and consumers here. Reliable power is one of the best ways to increase the standard of living of any country.
And, unsurprisingly, when standards of living increase, people start to worry much more about their environment, their food, the work conditions of their friends and families, etc. I've spent about half of the last 20 years living in 2nd and 3rd world countries, working in factories, and I've seen the quality of conditions - environmental, social, and work - increase dramatically as incomes increase.
I would argue the best thing we could do would be to push loads of reliable, clean power - nuclear - and watch what happens. There's a reason the environment in Shanghai is so much better than in Xi'an or Chengdu - much more nuclear power is available, much less coal is used. And unfortunately, that "reliable" thing really makes renewables (other than hydro) an iffy proposition. A few days of still air, or of low sunlight, and your reliability goes out the window. It's why countries that tend to have the highest share of renewables for electricity also tend to have the highest prices for electricity. You have to provide essentially 100% backup for when the renewables cannot provide what you need. So you "double pay" for generation sources. Go straight to nuclear and call it done, then spend the excess cash on cleaning up water, improved sanitation, etc.
Tesla spends about $686MM on SG&A, and has 109 stores. They have essentially zero marketing as well. Ford spends $11,557MM on SG&A, has 3100 dealerships, and spends a lot on advertising. Let's assume that the SG&A costs are basically all in the sales channel. The cost per dealership - including the cost of advertisement to support them, is around $6.3MM for Tesla versus $3.7MM for Ford. Essentially, Ford is getting dealerships for a lot less money.
Now, Tesla benefits from selling vehicles at MSRP - the dealer does not take a cut like it does for Ford. That's why Tesla's gross margin appears so good compared to Ford (or other manufacturers). However, total cost for delivery of vehicles is in favor of Ford. They still turn a healthy profit from COGS while Tesla runs a loss at that point. Ford makes that profit, even though they share some of the gross revenue with their dealers. Their cost of customer acquisition is effectively lower - because they do not carry the full (or probably even the dominant) load of sales channel expenses.
Ahh, operator assist and party-line phones. I remember them well (for instance, picking up, waiting for the operator, then saying "Sunset 2 3443" to call my friend about 7 blocks over. I wonder if they could make a comeback, it could be an analog analogue of Tumblr... I sense - Startup opportunity!
I have. I also know that your product has to have a chance to be profitable as well. Right now, COGS (COGM + sales cost) loses them $300+MM a quarter. That is before general administration, R&D, capital expenses, interest costs, etc. I know Tesla hates the dealer model, but there's a reason most companies use it - they can push the end cost of sales to another person, and thus cut their own costs. Tesla just isn't structured right now to make a profit, even with 10X production.
It's like the old Pets.com or Webvan approach. Yes, you would be profitable if you owned 90% of the market. But to get to that Microsoft-level of market dominance in those markets (or in the car market) is essentially impossible, or will at least take decades. And that means losing money on every transaction for decades...
Voice is so 2000. Pushbuttons are so 70s. REAL phones, for quality POTS use, need a rotary dial. Unless you hear the clicks and feel the spin, you're really not experiencing real phone calls...
Most tend to be induction motors, because cooling is pretty easy when you're not space or weight constrained like in a car, and it can be cheaper and handle much higher temperatures (like you get with turbines).
Slashdot Mirror
What matters is actual output, and in India that is around 15-19%. So installing 100 GW of "capacity" really means installing around 15-19 GW of actual generation, or about 2% of their actual electrical need.
You shouldn't publish at that point. If you cannot share your data, then you cannot - legitimately - make a scientific claim any stronger than "trust me". Not all research needs to be published, and that would be a perfect solution for data that needs to be kept private. However, if a researcher wants to publish then they should expect to share everything - otherwise how can anyone trust their research?
If a researcher will not share their data and their methods, it doesn't matter WHERE it was published it should be highly suspect if not outright discounted. Back when I was in university (mid 80s) you had to show your work, show your data, show your experiment setup, and show the link between all of it or you'd get zero credit. Even if your experiment failed, you'd still get credit because you showed what you did and what data you collected.
More and more it's simply "we used a process like this, and we had this result, but we cannot share the data and actual process because it's proprietary and worth money but trust us - it's good!" Nope. Science is a process and requires disclosure of data and process so that your experiment can be done, exactly, by others. Science is skeptical by nature - NO ONE should accept the result of a study or paper unless there is sufficient data and process shared that would allow you to replicate if you so choose. The scientist should, on hearing any claim, think "OK, that's interesting - now what data is there and can I replicate their results?" - if not, it's not science.
They lose money before capex and R&D. Cut those costs to zero - and you still lose money.
Just read section 5 of TaxCloud's terms of service. The merchant assumes 100% liability for any errors or omissions on TaxCloud's part. So if TaxCloud gets it wrong - the merchant, not TaxCloud, is on the hook with the State. They may charge you for it and make it easier, but you still end up taking it in the shorts if they screw up.
And then think of the windfall to California! California requires a minimum $800 for the right to sell within the State. Even if you have zero sales, and are an inactive (but not closed) entity, you MUST pay at least $800 per year. Now, suddenly every business shipping anything to the State of California will need to pay California that minimum amount. With around 28 million small businesses in the US, if just 10% of them have out-of-State sales, then California can expect to make around $2.4 billion per year, minimum...
Back in those days (the 1950s - when we last had a real surplus and paid down the national debt), the Federal Government collected, per capita and adjusted for inflation, about half what it does today. As Government spending has exploded, taxation has actually increased too - but we're getting a lot less for it (well, other than debt, that's mounting up at record paces!).
No, they know how to figure out and properly pay taxes as defined a week or so ago. The scope just exploded, and it's going to take, time, resources, and focus to now respond to this change in scope.
No, they exist in seawater but just in really dilute concentrations.
You are 100% correct
What is bigger news is that SolarCity severed ties with Home Depot, which represented 50% of their revenues...
Yep, and those rules will - once again - squeeze out the middle class. If you cannot afford the solar panels or battery, then you will pay more for power. If you're really poor, then California will give you subsidies. But they will - inevitably - raise taxes on power to pay for those subsidies, and those taxes will come on the back, once again, of the middle class.
Huh... The top 1% make 20% of all income but pay 40% of all income taxes. Somehow I think they ARE paying income tax. At least, that's what the IRS says...
How about 100% of revenue with negative profit?
So what you're saying is they made a gross profit on selling product but are losing it on SG&A?
Cutting their relationship with Home Depot, which "generated about half of its sales" is a 50% cut in revenue, though... Combining the two, it's probably closer to a 60% retrenchment of position in the market.
They are actually focusing on both, putting large nuclear plants near big cities, and coal plants near up-and-coming smaller cities. Shanghai is essentially all nuclear powered, but go to Xi'an or even Shengzhou and it's mainly coal. China has a really poor power grid, and so distributing reliable power plants is common. China's building out the rest of it's new 23 GW of capacity planned to deploy in 2020, and will have another 30 GW in production at that point (probably completed by 2022 or so).
Now, for solar, China has about 125 GW installed right now, but that's at a typical 17% capacity factor, so it's closer 21 GW if they're lucky. They are planning more nuclear than solar for a very simple reason - to keep their economy moving along, they MUST have reliable power. Nuclear does that - solar does not. And due to their poor grid, they cannot transmit power really long distances, meaning power plants must be located closer to the big cities in the East. A 1 GW solar plant needs about 4,000 acres of land; a 1 GW nuclear plant (like the 1.2 GW plant on Hainan Island) takes about 150 acres of land. Big difference, in a country where land near the big cities is at a premium...
Well, it's not uncommon to have clouds over a large (20%) chunk of the country. Or still air over just as much. I guess you can overbuild quite a bit everywhere, and upsize all the long-distance power lines... China is planning to double it's nuclear power capacity in the next 2 years. In 2017, China did about 246 TWh of nuclear power generation, more than solar and wind combined.
You were the weird kid who ate paste and could whistle 300 baud carriers, right?
Fully agree! Unfortunately, many assign "external" costs for bad power use in China and such against power generation industries and consumers here. Reliable power is one of the best ways to increase the standard of living of any country.
And, unsurprisingly, when standards of living increase, people start to worry much more about their environment, their food, the work conditions of their friends and families, etc. I've spent about half of the last 20 years living in 2nd and 3rd world countries, working in factories, and I've seen the quality of conditions - environmental, social, and work - increase dramatically as incomes increase.
I would argue the best thing we could do would be to push loads of reliable, clean power - nuclear - and watch what happens. There's a reason the environment in Shanghai is so much better than in Xi'an or Chengdu - much more nuclear power is available, much less coal is used. And unfortunately, that "reliable" thing really makes renewables (other than hydro) an iffy proposition. A few days of still air, or of low sunlight, and your reliability goes out the window. It's why countries that tend to have the highest share of renewables for electricity also tend to have the highest prices for electricity. You have to provide essentially 100% backup for when the renewables cannot provide what you need. So you "double pay" for generation sources. Go straight to nuclear and call it done, then spend the excess cash on cleaning up water, improved sanitation, etc.
Just to follow up on my other reply..
Tesla spends about $686MM on SG&A, and has 109 stores. They have essentially zero marketing as well. Ford spends $11,557MM on SG&A, has 3100 dealerships, and spends a lot on advertising. Let's assume that the SG&A costs are basically all in the sales channel. The cost per dealership - including the cost of advertisement to support them, is around $6.3MM for Tesla versus $3.7MM for Ford. Essentially, Ford is getting dealerships for a lot less money.
Now, Tesla benefits from selling vehicles at MSRP - the dealer does not take a cut like it does for Ford. That's why Tesla's gross margin appears so good compared to Ford (or other manufacturers). However, total cost for delivery of vehicles is in favor of Ford. They still turn a healthy profit from COGS while Tesla runs a loss at that point. Ford makes that profit, even though they share some of the gross revenue with their dealers. Their cost of customer acquisition is effectively lower - because they do not carry the full (or probably even the dominant) load of sales channel expenses.
Ahh, operator assist and party-line phones. I remember them well (for instance, picking up, waiting for the operator, then saying "Sunset 2 3443" to call my friend about 7 blocks over. I wonder if they could make a comeback, it could be an analog analogue of Tumblr... I sense - Startup opportunity!
I have. I also know that your product has to have a chance to be profitable as well. Right now, COGS (COGM + sales cost) loses them $300+MM a quarter. That is before general administration, R&D, capital expenses, interest costs, etc. I know Tesla hates the dealer model, but there's a reason most companies use it - they can push the end cost of sales to another person, and thus cut their own costs. Tesla just isn't structured right now to make a profit, even with 10X production.
It's like the old Pets.com or Webvan approach. Yes, you would be profitable if you owned 90% of the market. But to get to that Microsoft-level of market dominance in those markets (or in the car market) is essentially impossible, or will at least take decades. And that means losing money on every transaction for decades...
No, the word you're looking for is:
COURAGE.
Voice is so 2000. Pushbuttons are so 70s. REAL phones, for quality POTS use, need a rotary dial. Unless you hear the clicks and feel the spin, you're really not experiencing real phone calls...
Most tend to be induction motors, because cooling is pretty easy when you're not space or weight constrained like in a car, and it can be cheaper and handle much higher temperatures (like you get with turbines).