No, Ford will sell the Focus Active as well, so they're going form 6 car models to 2. Not that big of a retrenchment, especially given the US (and growing International) demand for compact SUVs and crossovers. Telsa's working on scaling production of a car - which is the dying segment of the US auto industry. Trucks, crossovers, SUVs - that's what people overwhelmingly buy today.
Then we take country A, and split it into 50 smaller countries, and... The reality is that the environment doesn't care about per capita pollution, it cares about total pollution. Who pollutes the most? Why, the country that is basically exempt from the goals. Because - fairness?
So what you're saying is that renewables get a pass for the cost of their storage right now, to make them viable (since there is backup power from fossil fuels)? Sorry - I don't buy that at all. If you don't have storage now, and you have to rely upon fossil fuels for backup - then the cost of renewables MUST include the cost of the backup. Because otherwise it's simply not a realistic or viable energy system.
It's like talking about how a diesel electric train is totally pure because it's an electric motor (we don't talk about the fact it's a diesel generator) and that a diesel train is terrible because it's a diesel motor. If the renewable grid requires fossil fuels for backup, then the cost of that fossil fuel MUST be included in the cost calculations.
And, since you typically need 80-90% capacity as fossil fuel as backup, that means renewables will ALWAYS be more expensive (at least now) than fossil fuel, because it's in-addition-to the entire fossil fuel power grid.
If you want to talk about how it's deployed costs and can be counted on, then we can of course completely discount any operational costs (sans fuel) for fossil fuel plants - because it's already deployed. And we CANNOT talk about externalities of fossil fuel plants without applying the same externalities to renewables that rely upon fossil fuel backup.
So it comes down to fossil fuels, or fossil fuels + renewables. No surprise which is more expensive, since one is more complex, has more capital and operating costs, and essentially requires as a base-load capacity the other option.
The problem is that costs of energy do NOT include the storage costs needed for renewables - and in many places (like California) hydro is not considered renewable. So factor in the battery costs and again - you'll find it doesn't match up to fossil fuels. Yet the costs for fossil fuels include not just the generation plant, but the cost of the fuel (which includes extraction and transportation of the fuel, baked into the cost) and of course all the "externalities" always put on. So how about renewables with full backup/storage for 24 hour periods?
Oh no, you don't get to do that... You're getting to ignore the costs of maintenance and operations of fossil fuel plants that way. That's why your analysis is wrong. If you did a renewable-based system, you'd have to have these backups - they are a required cost of doing business as a renewable. Flat out. Only by ignoring your required backup can you get to cheaper renewables.
Country A has 100,000 people in it, and they emit 200,000 units of pollution. Country B has 400,000 people in it, and they emit 400,000 units of polution.
Question: which country hurts the environment more?
Because it's true. NASA shows that solar output is steadily declining:
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
Local minimums tend to last 5 years but long term trends oscillate over the course of multiple decades to a century or two. NASA is showing the cooling trend coming, with the last 6 cycles showing the downward trend in solar output.
You were marked troll because people don't want to believe the facts if they run counter to their world-view of USA evil. China and the EU - in fact, pretty much the rest of the world - saw their emissions rise. China emits the most CO2 by a large margin. But somehow it's always twisted around to be the US' fault. Reminding people of the actual facts is now considered a near-hate-crime so you were modded troll.
Manipulating the market? You mean like Musk did, and why he's being charged with fraud by the SEC?
And how does placing a bet cause harm to a company? Does betting against a horse cause it to run slower? Does betting against one football team cause it to fumble more balls? Shorts betting against the company can do nothing - management leading a company can do everything.
Shorting a stock may cause the stock price to temporarily fall a bit, but unless the company is continuously selling shares to fund operation, the short-term price of the stock does zero harm to the company. If the company needs to sell shares to continue operations, then shorts only make money if the stock was significantly overvalued. The company is only hurt if their shares were overvalued to begin with and they needed to sell shares at those inflated prices to fund continuing operations.
Consider that Tesla was worth more than Ford, GM, or BMW, all who sell an order of magnitude or more vehicles, AND all of whom not just make a profit but pay a dividend. Tesla was - and in my opinion, still is - massively overvalued. Shorts are betting against Tesla in record numbers not because they hate Musk or Tesla or electric vehicles (on the contrary, other companies selling electric vehicles, including those who ship the most EVs, do not have much if any short action), but because the fundamentals said the company was massively overvalued and due for a tumble.
Tesla has about 4-5 months of capital left; they have major bond payments coming due in November and February. They are far from profitable. They have a very high stock price, and they are going to have to sell a lot more shares to continue funding operations for at least 2-3 years before any semblance of profitability can come about. A new share sale will be greeted skeptically, and the share price will most likely tumble quite a bit beyond just the dilution of the market from new share issuance (why are they selling more shares? To pay off debt so they can continue running at a loss? Not a big-time winner).
At the end of the day, shorts only hurt a company if it's quite overvalued to begin with (meaning lots of upside to shorting) AND that company is losing money and needs to issue more shares to continue operations. Basically only when the price of the share can negatively impact your operations. Ford's seen its stock price tumble 40% over the last 5 years and they've not had a single issue with deliveries, paying dividends, and such. The falling stock price has not hurt their operational ability - because they do not need to sell shares to keep operating.
The ONLY reason a short can hurt a company is when management needs a high price for the company to survive - like Tesla. That's a management failure, not a short issue.
We won't know what the Court makes of the word "secured" until the Court makes various rulings, and that's if there isn't some sort of settlement that prevents it from ever being ruled on. But it sounds a lot worse without context than it does if you have the context.
Secured has a very specific legal meaning, and it is not "I had a talk and we may have a path to funding". No guaranteed pledge/contract? It's not secured.
The shorts did nothing; Musk did everything. Thus the charges, and thus the ~12% drop (as of right now) in stock price, from yesterday. There is exactly one guilty party here, and his name starts with Elon and ends with Musk.
And that report shows an SG&A of $2.5 billion. So revenue minus COGM gives a profit; but add in the costs to actually get that revenue (sales, general and administration) and you're at a loss. That's like claiming you own a restaurant and because you sold $500 worth of ingredients for $800, you made a profit - never mind that staff alone cost you another $500...
Revenue rises at a steeper slope than operational costs, and at some point they cross over - that would be what is referred to as "cash-flow positive". The question is when that crossover happens.
Ideally, yes. The problem is that non-capex operational costs (SG&A) have maintained a pretty consistent 20% of revenue for the last 5 years - including last quarter. So that crossover really never comes about - operational costs are scaling right along with revenue. That's what so many continue to ignore. Right now, the growth curve of revenue and SG&A show the crossover will never happen - and that's not including capex, R&D, or even interest on debt.
The SEC does not need to remove your financial holdings in a company to bar you from serving in a managerial or directorial role. They can ban Musk from being an officer of any public company - regardless of how much stock he may hold.
Some Tesla history. Tesla was founded by two men, and only after an internal fight, lawsuit, and resolution were the series A investors (of which Musk was the lead) added as "co-founders". The company had been around for a year and self-funded up to that point. So Musk was anointed a co-founder by a lawsuit he started to have such a title, even though the company existed well before he was even involved and even had a prototype before his involvement.
Slashdot Mirror
No, Ford will sell the Focus Active as well, so they're going form 6 car models to 2. Not that big of a retrenchment, especially given the US (and growing International) demand for compact SUVs and crossovers. Telsa's working on scaling production of a car - which is the dying segment of the US auto industry. Trucks, crossovers, SUVs - that's what people overwhelmingly buy today.
Amazon had funds to do that, and grow. Tesla has about 5 months of cash left in the bank - and then they are bankrupt.
The one with the higher population? Especially if we correlate GDP and quality of life with emissions (which is generally true) per capita.
You mean facts like every other country over the last decade has had a much higher reduction rate than the US?
[Citation needed]
Then we take country A, and split it into 50 smaller countries, and... The reality is that the environment doesn't care about per capita pollution, it cares about total pollution. Who pollutes the most? Why, the country that is basically exempt from the goals. Because - fairness?
The US is reducing its emissions; China is not. Yet somehow the US is the bad guy...
So what you're saying is that renewables get a pass for the cost of their storage right now, to make them viable (since there is backup power from fossil fuels)? Sorry - I don't buy that at all. If you don't have storage now, and you have to rely upon fossil fuels for backup - then the cost of renewables MUST include the cost of the backup. Because otherwise it's simply not a realistic or viable energy system.
It's like talking about how a diesel electric train is totally pure because it's an electric motor (we don't talk about the fact it's a diesel generator) and that a diesel train is terrible because it's a diesel motor. If the renewable grid requires fossil fuels for backup, then the cost of that fossil fuel MUST be included in the cost calculations.
And, since you typically need 80-90% capacity as fossil fuel as backup, that means renewables will ALWAYS be more expensive (at least now) than fossil fuel, because it's in-addition-to the entire fossil fuel power grid.
If you want to talk about how it's deployed costs and can be counted on, then we can of course completely discount any operational costs (sans fuel) for fossil fuel plants - because it's already deployed. And we CANNOT talk about externalities of fossil fuel plants without applying the same externalities to renewables that rely upon fossil fuel backup.
So it comes down to fossil fuels, or fossil fuels + renewables. No surprise which is more expensive, since one is more complex, has more capital and operating costs, and essentially requires as a base-load capacity the other option.
The problem is that costs of energy do NOT include the storage costs needed for renewables - and in many places (like California) hydro is not considered renewable. So factor in the battery costs and again - you'll find it doesn't match up to fossil fuels. Yet the costs for fossil fuels include not just the generation plant, but the cost of the fuel (which includes extraction and transportation of the fuel, baked into the cost) and of course all the "externalities" always put on. So how about renewables with full backup/storage for 24 hour periods?
Oh no, you don't get to do that... You're getting to ignore the costs of maintenance and operations of fossil fuel plants that way. That's why your analysis is wrong. If you did a renewable-based system, you'd have to have these backups - they are a required cost of doing business as a renewable. Flat out. Only by ignoring your required backup can you get to cheaper renewables.
How many were deported by President Obama or President Bush?
It just documents and confirms the record - German emissions (and EU emissions) as a whole are up; US emissions are down.
Let me try rephrasing this for you:
Country A has 100,000 people in it, and they emit 200,000 units of pollution. Country B has 400,000 people in it, and they emit 400,000 units of polution.
Question: which country hurts the environment more?
“We see a cooling trend,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. “High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy. If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”
That's at least what NASA sees happening...
Local minimums tend to last 5 years but long term trends oscillate over the course of multiple decades to a century or two. NASA is showing the cooling trend coming, with the last 6 cycles showing the downward trend in solar output.
Renewables are only cost-competitive if you do not factor in the cost of alternative backup generation - like gas and coal.
Germany is being fined 2 billion euros because it missed it's CO2 commitment by 3%. But that's just cherry-picking again, right?
And so Chinese emissions only do 1/4 the damage as US emissions?
You were marked troll because people don't want to believe the facts if they run counter to their world-view of USA evil. China and the EU - in fact, pretty much the rest of the world - saw their emissions rise. China emits the most CO2 by a large margin. But somehow it's always twisted around to be the US' fault. Reminding people of the actual facts is now considered a near-hate-crime so you were modded troll.
Manipulating the market? You mean like Musk did, and why he's being charged with fraud by the SEC?
And how does placing a bet cause harm to a company? Does betting against a horse cause it to run slower? Does betting against one football team cause it to fumble more balls? Shorts betting against the company can do nothing - management leading a company can do everything.
Shorting a stock may cause the stock price to temporarily fall a bit, but unless the company is continuously selling shares to fund operation, the short-term price of the stock does zero harm to the company. If the company needs to sell shares to continue operations, then shorts only make money if the stock was significantly overvalued. The company is only hurt if their shares were overvalued to begin with and they needed to sell shares at those inflated prices to fund continuing operations.
Consider that Tesla was worth more than Ford, GM, or BMW, all who sell an order of magnitude or more vehicles, AND all of whom not just make a profit but pay a dividend. Tesla was - and in my opinion, still is - massively overvalued. Shorts are betting against Tesla in record numbers not because they hate Musk or Tesla or electric vehicles (on the contrary, other companies selling electric vehicles, including those who ship the most EVs, do not have much if any short action), but because the fundamentals said the company was massively overvalued and due for a tumble.
Tesla has about 4-5 months of capital left; they have major bond payments coming due in November and February. They are far from profitable. They have a very high stock price, and they are going to have to sell a lot more shares to continue funding operations for at least 2-3 years before any semblance of profitability can come about. A new share sale will be greeted skeptically, and the share price will most likely tumble quite a bit beyond just the dilution of the market from new share issuance (why are they selling more shares? To pay off debt so they can continue running at a loss? Not a big-time winner).
At the end of the day, shorts only hurt a company if it's quite overvalued to begin with (meaning lots of upside to shorting) AND that company is losing money and needs to issue more shares to continue operations. Basically only when the price of the share can negatively impact your operations. Ford's seen its stock price tumble 40% over the last 5 years and they've not had a single issue with deliveries, paying dividends, and such. The falling stock price has not hurt their operational ability - because they do not need to sell shares to keep operating.
The ONLY reason a short can hurt a company is when management needs a high price for the company to survive - like Tesla. That's a management failure, not a short issue.
We won't know what the Court makes of the word "secured" until the Court makes various rulings, and that's if there isn't some sort of settlement that prevents it from ever being ruled on. But it sounds a lot worse without context than it does if you have the context.
Secured has a very specific legal meaning, and it is not "I had a talk and we may have a path to funding". No guaranteed pledge/contract? It's not secured.
The shorts did nothing; Musk did everything. Thus the charges, and thus the ~12% drop (as of right now) in stock price, from yesterday. There is exactly one guilty party here, and his name starts with Elon and ends with Musk.
And that report shows an SG&A of $2.5 billion. So revenue minus COGM gives a profit; but add in the costs to actually get that revenue (sales, general and administration) and you're at a loss. That's like claiming you own a restaurant and because you sold $500 worth of ingredients for $800, you made a profit - never mind that staff alone cost you another $500...
Revenue rises at a steeper slope than operational costs, and at some point they cross over - that would be what is referred to as "cash-flow positive". The question is when that crossover happens.
Ideally, yes. The problem is that non-capex operational costs (SG&A) have maintained a pretty consistent 20% of revenue for the last 5 years - including last quarter. So that crossover really never comes about - operational costs are scaling right along with revenue. That's what so many continue to ignore. Right now, the growth curve of revenue and SG&A show the crossover will never happen - and that's not including capex, R&D, or even interest on debt.
The SEC does not need to remove your financial holdings in a company to bar you from serving in a managerial or directorial role. They can ban Musk from being an officer of any public company - regardless of how much stock he may hold.
Some Tesla history. Tesla was founded by two men, and only after an internal fight, lawsuit, and resolution were the series A investors (of which Musk was the lead) added as "co-founders". The company had been around for a year and self-funded up to that point. So Musk was anointed a co-founder by a lawsuit he started to have such a title, even though the company existed well before he was even involved and even had a prototype before his involvement.