Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenLantern2814
Exxon, not Enron. There’s a difference.
Tesla, based on Fuzz’s admittedly rudimentary math, is projected to be worth 7x DaimlerBenz. That’s not realistic. They don’t do anything vastly different than any other company. Even if you want to argue their tech is better, it’s not so much better that it’s worth 7x DaimlerBenz - that’s an awful lot of Cybertrucks.
Ballard, as you correctly point out, is more utilized in commercial applications. Its share price is $19.12. It’s been a company since 1979, and Google says they have 630 employees.
None of which is meant to slag off Ballard- I love em. I wish them all the success in the world.
I’m glad you see the value in self driving features. More people should.
Would you buy a car that you couldn’t manually control yourself?
|
You simply can't use share price or profitability to decide whether a company is viable. Most startups lose money for years. Amazon is only now making a profit.
There are many examples of companies in the clean energy field that have been around for a long time and have little to show. Some technologies take a long time to develop which is why I don't get the focus on timeline and what people say.
Bill Gates is also overly ambitious about clean nuclear power and carbon capture, both technologies that are years away from mass implementation. Should we simply write it off, or spend another 50 years trying to develop it?
I would buy both types of cars. I see self driving as being a big plus in a commute, but there are definite scenarios where it may not work well or even be available.