Seems to be OK given they have the highest GDP per capita in the Caribbean. Of course, recovery from the hurricane has been slow and terrible, but just like in the US that is more a State/territory issue - the Federal Government is limited in what it can do, and even then it must happen only with the express request and permission of the Governors.
Permanent magnet motors - which Tesla and many others either use or are moving to - use gobs of neodymium and dysprosium. Typically 2-3 kg of neo magnets per motor.
No, I'd rather just run the nuclear as needed to maintain the base/constant use, and then use peakers (natural gas) to fill in the peaks that wind and solar can't provide when they are not available.
So you'd rather have a source where NO ONE can decide when it can provide the power... There's a reason that - as renewable sources increase, the cost of electricity increases. You still need that base capacity to provide 100% of power needs, to cover when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Or is your position we should just not have electricity at that time?
Hmmm... So what's the duty cycle of renewables? They're typically rated at 20% to 30%. So you'd still need something there. Or do you propose TW-level batteries?
The reality is you basically need to ELIMINATE SG&A to turn a profit. R&D and interest on debt nearly equals SG&A. What combination of cuts would you use to actually start turning a profit? Remember - for just about every dollar in gross profit they make, they lose 2. So You need to slash costs at least in half... Even if they could get SG&A down to the percentage level of Ford, GM, or Nissan, they still lose money.
Yeah, it's going to take a major, MAJOR breakthrough in battery storage (nearly a magnitude increase over LiPo) to become viable. Otherwise you can use batteries for small commuters, but that exacerbates the issue with not enough capacity at airports. Bump up the number of flights by even a factor of 2 - let alone 5 or 10 - and essentially all airports are gridlocked. We need to figure out how to fully replace jet fuel in terms of energy per kW and liter, and then electric planes become viable for mass transit use.
And yet they still lose money - even before you count spending on R&D... Or paying the interest on their debt (let alone actually paying down the debt). Or a host of other things....
Sophistries and boundful words. And nothing value is gained. You state nothing, because you say nothing. What were those subsidies? Why do you ignore the power output? What do you mean "no one regrets"? Why is there a strong correlation between increasing percent of renewable electric generation and price of electricity?
Other than 2.5X the power than all renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) combined, and at a lower cost. Not to mention it's basically 100% uptime. But yeah, other than massive amounts of highly reliable, affordable power, nuclear has done nothing!
It is the end of a business if you lose money on each item you sell trying to meet all that demand. More sales means more losses... And before the Tesla fans come in and say I'm wrong - check the Tesla financials. You'll see they lose money before you even bring in things like R&D and interest payments. Just sales of items and Selling, General and Administration puts them into the red.
Looking at this list, the P100D with the full Ludicrous+ mode, is second only to the Porsche 918 from 0 to 60. But in the 1/4 mile, it's well down the pack... And in terms of top speed, there are a few production vehicles available today that exceed 250 MPH.
Not exactly... Heat in an induction motor increases the resistance of the windings, meaning you get less force (less current) for an applied voltage. Eddy currents are another parasitic which scale linearly with applied current in the windings, and also negatively affect efficiency.
However, permanent magnet motors are not a panacea. They still have eddy currents (any electrically conductive material will support eddy currents - and all forms of magnets are electrically conductive), and they have heat issues. Specifically the high energy neodymium magnets. Excessive heating (which happens with permanent magnets as well - you are putting a lot of current through the stator) means the magnets will discharge at a lower induced field, often as low as 80 deg C.
So sustained track performance, unless you add significant amounts of cooling (such as liquid cooling) into the stator, becomes an issue after a lap or two. Heat starts to build up, magnets start to run the risk of being demagnetized, and you have to scale back on the current delivered (and thus the force in the motor) to keep from ruining the magnets.
NUMMI built about 7,000 cars and trucks per week; Tesla isn't even to that level yet. And Tesla loves to talk about how much simpler EVs are to build than ICEs, so perhaps Tesla simply isn't as space efficient at GM or Toyota - needing the same space to build half the number of vehicles?
Here are Tesla's financials. Check the Quarterly link. You'll see they had a gross profit of $456MM. Now, let's look at expenditure. SG&A is $686MM itself. So even before R&D or capex, we're already negative. R&D is another $367MM. Interest is $150MM. Heck, R&D and interest alone wipe out all (and then some!) of their gross margin. They lose money on each car they make, just with the cost of the vehicle and SG&A (which is kind of required to sell cars - you need a sales system, administration, and transportation to actually, you know, SELL vehicles).
Maybe that means EVs aren't ready for prime time. If the demand is there only for vehicles made below cost, then the demand is not supported by the market. But when you have Government forcing you to make some EVs (for example, want to sell in California? You have to offer EVs) then you take a loss on as few vehicles as you can - and let those old, evil ICEs actually fund your company and the EVs themselves.
It's not nonsense and you know it. You keep trying to claim gross profit is all-important. Guess what - it's not! Sure, Tesla likes to CLAIM high gross profit, but they LOSE money on each car (and you know it - the financials state as much). Other makes may have lower gross margin - but they TURN a profit. Gross margin without profit doesn't mean a whole lot - it means you're quite inefficient.
Oh, and as I've shown you MANY times, they LOSE money even before R&D and capital expenditures. SG&A alone makes them money-losers. Then add in interest costs. Tesla could completely cut R&D, engineering, capex - and still lose money.
SG&A somewhat scales with vehicle output, it's not completely linear, but if you look at the last, say. 20 quarters - you'll see it does increase with gross revenue.
Are these downtimes for scaling or reworking? We've heard of several of the last stoppages being because of new robotics, etc. Are they trying to scale, or are they trying to iron the kinks out? Having done more than my share of factory work, once you get a line up and going and working smoothly at the planned rate, you leave it going - and you replicate that line to increase volume. Production needs to happen, you don't risk it by tearing down and redoing...
Those old, slow dinosaur automakers actually make a decent profit. Tesla loses money on each car they sell. Maybe being "nimble" and Silicon Valley savvy isn't all it's cracked up to be?
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to be OK given they have the highest GDP per capita in the Caribbean. Of course, recovery from the hurricane has been slow and terrible, but just like in the US that is more a State/territory issue - the Federal Government is limited in what it can do, and even then it must happen only with the express request and permission of the Governors.
Permanent magnet motors - which Tesla and many others either use or are moving to - use gobs of neodymium and dysprosium. Typically 2-3 kg of neo magnets per motor.
Great! Where's the repository so we can download your code?
Demand is irrelevant if you cannot meet it, or you lose money by meeting it.
No, I'd rather just run the nuclear as needed to maintain the base/constant use, and then use peakers (natural gas) to fill in the peaks that wind and solar can't provide when they are not available.
So you'd rather have a source where NO ONE can decide when it can provide the power... There's a reason that - as renewable sources increase, the cost of electricity increases. You still need that base capacity to provide 100% of power needs, to cover when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine. Or is your position we should just not have electricity at that time?
Hmmm... So what's the duty cycle of renewables? They're typically rated at 20% to 30%. So you'd still need something there. Or do you propose TW-level batteries?
The reality is you basically need to ELIMINATE SG&A to turn a profit. R&D and interest on debt nearly equals SG&A. What combination of cuts would you use to actually start turning a profit? Remember - for just about every dollar in gross profit they make, they lose 2. So You need to slash costs at least in half... Even if they could get SG&A down to the percentage level of Ford, GM, or Nissan, they still lose money.
Yeah, it's going to take a major, MAJOR breakthrough in battery storage (nearly a magnitude increase over LiPo) to become viable. Otherwise you can use batteries for small commuters, but that exacerbates the issue with not enough capacity at airports. Bump up the number of flights by even a factor of 2 - let alone 5 or 10 - and essentially all airports are gridlocked. We need to figure out how to fully replace jet fuel in terms of energy per kW and liter, and then electric planes become viable for mass transit use.
And yet they still lose money - even before you count spending on R&D... Or paying the interest on their debt (let alone actually paying down the debt). Or a host of other things....
Sophistries and boundful words. And nothing value is gained. You state nothing, because you say nothing. What were those subsidies? Why do you ignore the power output? What do you mean "no one regrets"? Why is there a strong correlation between increasing percent of renewable electric generation and price of electricity?
Well, it's not from the levelized cost of energy, as nuclear is better than most renewables, and the always-available nature is highly attractive. But it is extremely expensive, especially because of activist intervention delaying development for 5 to 10 years, or more...
Other than 2.5X the power than all renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, tidal) combined, and at a lower cost. Not to mention it's basically 100% uptime. But yeah, other than massive amounts of highly reliable, affordable power, nuclear has done nothing!
High on Cocaine...
HT: Jerry Garcia
Cut SG&A by 9% - they still have a loss. Look, they have a LONG way to go before they turn over a $700MM quarterly loss. A VERY long way...
It is the end of a business if you lose money on each item you sell trying to meet all that demand. More sales means more losses... And before the Tesla fans come in and say I'm wrong - check the Tesla financials. You'll see they lose money before you even bring in things like R&D and interest payments. Just sales of items and Selling, General and Administration puts them into the red.
Looking at this list, the P100D with the full Ludicrous+ mode, is second only to the Porsche 918 from 0 to 60. But in the 1/4 mile, it's well down the pack... And in terms of top speed, there are a few production vehicles available today that exceed 250 MPH.
Not exactly... Heat in an induction motor increases the resistance of the windings, meaning you get less force (less current) for an applied voltage. Eddy currents are another parasitic which scale linearly with applied current in the windings, and also negatively affect efficiency.
However, permanent magnet motors are not a panacea. They still have eddy currents (any electrically conductive material will support eddy currents - and all forms of magnets are electrically conductive), and they have heat issues. Specifically the high energy neodymium magnets. Excessive heating (which happens with permanent magnets as well - you are putting a lot of current through the stator) means the magnets will discharge at a lower induced field, often as low as 80 deg C.
So sustained track performance, unless you add significant amounts of cooling (such as liquid cooling) into the stator, becomes an issue after a lap or two. Heat starts to build up, magnets start to run the risk of being demagnetized, and you have to scale back on the current delivered (and thus the force in the motor) to keep from ruining the magnets.
NUMMI built about 7,000 cars and trucks per week; Tesla isn't even to that level yet. And Tesla loves to talk about how much simpler EVs are to build than ICEs, so perhaps Tesla simply isn't as space efficient at GM or Toyota - needing the same space to build half the number of vehicles?
I usually ignore ACs, but you're special...:)
Here are Tesla's financials. Check the Quarterly link. You'll see they had a gross profit of $456MM. Now, let's look at expenditure. SG&A is $686MM itself. So even before R&D or capex, we're already negative. R&D is another $367MM. Interest is $150MM. Heck, R&D and interest alone wipe out all (and then some!) of their gross margin. They lose money on each car they make, just with the cost of the vehicle and SG&A (which is kind of required to sell cars - you need a sales system, administration, and transportation to actually, you know, SELL vehicles).
Maybe that means EVs aren't ready for prime time. If the demand is there only for vehicles made below cost, then the demand is not supported by the market. But when you have Government forcing you to make some EVs (for example, want to sell in California? You have to offer EVs) then you take a loss on as few vehicles as you can - and let those old, evil ICEs actually fund your company and the EVs themselves.
It's not nonsense and you know it. You keep trying to claim gross profit is all-important. Guess what - it's not! Sure, Tesla likes to CLAIM high gross profit, but they LOSE money on each car (and you know it - the financials state as much). Other makes may have lower gross margin - but they TURN a profit. Gross margin without profit doesn't mean a whole lot - it means you're quite inefficient.
Oh, and as I've shown you MANY times, they LOSE money even before R&D and capital expenditures. SG&A alone makes them money-losers. Then add in interest costs. Tesla could completely cut R&D, engineering, capex - and still lose money.
SG&A somewhat scales with vehicle output, it's not completely linear, but if you look at the last, say. 20 quarters - you'll see it does increase with gross revenue.
Are these downtimes for scaling or reworking? We've heard of several of the last stoppages being because of new robotics, etc. Are they trying to scale, or are they trying to iron the kinks out? Having done more than my share of factory work, once you get a line up and going and working smoothly at the planned rate, you leave it going - and you replicate that line to increase volume. Production needs to happen, you don't risk it by tearing down and redoing...
Those old, slow dinosaur automakers actually make a decent profit. Tesla loses money on each car they sell. Maybe being "nimble" and Silicon Valley savvy isn't all it's cracked up to be?