Climate change and human responsibility

[Enoch Root]

GM makes lots of money on their $100,000 cars too (Corvette).

The problem is that the demand for $30K vehicles is many times higher than the demand for $100k vehicles. GM sells more than 10 million of them per year, and they make money.

Tesla is a long ways away from that. And they won't get there with $100k vehicles.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

No but Tesla's problem is people are buying the 60k car instead of the 100k one.

This was their entire plan which Musk repeated from day 1

[zamler]

GM went bankrupt I don't think they are good example. I wouldn't be surprised at all if GM went bankrupt again they are repeating many of the same mistakes.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This was their entire plan which Musk repeated from day 1

His plan was to use higher priced models to fund the cheaper model 3. That got him to the Model 3, but I don't think he anticipated Model S sales droppnig off as customers chose the cheaper model instead. His plan was probably to maintain Model S sales while adding Model 3 sales.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by zamler

GM went bankrupt I don't think they are good example. I wouldn't be surprised at all if GM went bankrupt again they are repeating many of the same mistakes.

Kinda irrelevant to this thread or the sentiment made, but GM went into bankruptcy to get rid of its employee pension liabilities, which have become insurmountable. Since then, it has become a stock market darling. Check its fundamentals, they look really solid.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

His plan was to use higher priced models to fund the cheaper model 3. That got him to the Model 3, but I don't think he anticipated Model S sales droppnig off as customers chose the cheaper model instead. His plan was probably to maintain Model S sales while adding Model 3 sales.

Isn't it quite common for sales of a model to wane near the end of that generation? The 3 is in its initial years, when sales are typically strongest. The model S is 7 years old now.

I would suspect a well done new generation of S would stimulate sales quite a bit.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Isn't it quite common for sales of a model to wane near the end of that generation? The 3 is in its initial years, when sales are typically strongest. The model S is 7 years old now.

I would suspect a well done new generation of S would stimulate sales quite a bit.

Ya, that's the other issue. People like shiny and new!

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by accord1999

You have exponential growth, until suddenly you don't. 2018 Solar PV new capacity additions barely changed from 2017, and wind peaked in 2015.






Not surprisingly, this has been heavily influenced by China, where wind peaked in 2015 at 34 GW new capacity and is trending towards 21 GW this year, and solar went from 17 GW (2015), 34 GW (2016), 53 GW (2017), 45 GW (2018) and only 11.4 GW in the first half of 2019. This trend is completely normal, years of boom then a bust such as that seen in Germany.







But Q3 2019 vs 2018 unit sales in the US have fallen significantly, and global units are almost exactly the same, even though Tesla has opened new markets. And China New Energy Vehicles sales have fallen dramatically, like everywhere else, as government subsidies were withdrawn earlier this year, with a 34% drop in sales for September 2019 compared to 2018.


https://www.ft.com/content/adeb6c18-...4-b25f11f42901

Until they realize that a kWh produced at one time period doesn't always have the same value as a kWh produced at another. And then you have to add in the cost of reliable generation, or storage to make up for the unreliability of wind and solar, and the economic disruption of brown outs and black outs.

And you see the consequence, staggeringly expensive electricity every where solar and/or wind have high penetration, Denmark, Germany, Australia, California.

Originally Posted by accord1999

You have exponential growth, until suddenly you don't. 2018 Solar PV new capacity additions barely changed from 2017, and wind peaked in 2015.






Not surprisingly, this has been heavily influenced by China, where wind peaked in 2015 at 34 GW new capacity and is trending towards 21 GW this year, and solar went from 17 GW (2015), 34 GW (2016), 53 GW (2017), 45 GW (2018) and only 11.4 GW in the first half of 2019. This trend is completely normal, years of boom then a bust such as that seen in Germany.

Net new additions in capacity was largely flat, but production increased over 30% for solar. I agree things increase exponentially until they don't, but it's not likely they've hit that point as process continue to decrease and storage solutions are only now beginning to enter the equation.

But Q3 2019 vs 2018 unit sales in the US have fallen significantly, and global units are almost exactly the same, even though Tesla has opened new markets. And China New Energy Vehicles sales have fallen dramatically, like everywhere else, as government subsidies were withdrawn earlier this year, with a 34% drop in sales for September 2019 compared to 2018.

You can't really cherry pick one quarter and one country to show a long term global trend though. Tesla took more orders than they could produce in q3 and expect the same in q4. Once production goes up...

https://www.ft.com/content/adeb6c18-...4-b25f11f42901

Until they realize that a kWh produced at one time period doesn't always have the same value as a kWh produced at another. And then you have to add in the cost of reliable generation, or storage to make up for the unreliability of wind and solar, and the economic disruption of brown outs and black outs.

And you see the consequence, staggeringly expensive electricity every where solar and/or wind have high penetration, Denmark, Germany, Australia, California.[/QUOTE]

This correlation, not causation. Changes in production to renewables do cause a one time increase in fixed costs for transmission and technology, so short term costs may go up. But really, production costs =\= consumer costs. In all those places the electricity market is a free market and costs are subject to supply and demand. Government mandates curbing traditional generation lead to gaps in production and process fluctuate. Coal plants close to hit mandates before there's proper production in place. None of that means the costs to produce have changed. As these technologies get deployed and storage solutions become more common, these fluctuations decrease.

[zamler]

The X and S sell well and comparable to other cars at the same price points. It initially sold in much greater numbers due to pent up demand for a legit electric vehicle. If you don't believe me look up S Class sales.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

GM makes lots of money on their $100,000 cars too (Corvette).

The problem is that the demand for $30K vehicles is many times higher than the demand for $100k vehicles. GM sells more than 10 million of them per year, and they make money.

Tesla is a long ways away from that. And they won't get there with $100k vehicles.

As an aside, how long until we see calls for the banning of "pleasure" vehicle models? In light of man made climate change, and an ever increasing public sentiment of "you dont need that/it feeds your narcissism/impotence ect" why dont we just ban for example all 2 door cars? Essentially banning sport cars. No one needs them. Plus when they look exactly like race cars, why would anyone want them on our streets?
For example, why would anyone need a 240z? To channel their inner John Morton? Looks identical, who cares about how it functions ect, it's not practical or efficient for transport.

[zamler]

There will legislation that says you can own the pleasuremobile but only if you buy carbon credits. Auto companies currently buy credits from Tesla so they can continue to make gas guzzlers this is ridiculous.

[2Stonedbirds]

Which is interesting considering the sentiment today around class mobility. For example, the Liberals campaigning on strengthening the middle class, while travelling around in two campaign jets. The argument being, that it's ok so long as you can afford to do so.
Not sure this will help much with people seeking to move up, or with the zealots who argue in favor of shutting in ALL O&G production and development today.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

As an aside, how long until we see calls for the banning of "pleasure" vehicle models? In light of man made climate change, and an ever increasing public sentiment of "you dont need that/it feeds your narcissism/impotence ect" why dont we just ban for example all 2 door cars? Essentially banning sport cars. No one needs them. Plus when they look exactly like race cars, why would anyone want them on our streets?
For example, why would anyone need a 240z? To channel their inner John Morton? Looks identical, who cares about how it functions ect, it's not practical or efficient for transport.

I fully expect that at some point we will phase out manually-driven cars and the auto enthusiasts will sound a lot like gun enthusiasts today. And people with faster, more dangerous cars already pay more insurance and gas tax for the privilege.

[Wormius]

The PHEV lineups are probably the best compromise for the daily commuter, weekend long drive situations. The Rav4 looks like a good contender with about 30k range. Charge at home, then. at office. You might not need to go to the gas station for a while.

[Fuzz]

Ya, I've thought that as well. The drawbacks are you still have to do regular oil changes, risk of fuel going bad, and dragging around an ICE when you don't need it. But in the short term I think it is a good way to go. 500km range batteries are expensive, and there simply isn't the current capacity to put them in all new vehicles. But if every new vehicle had a small one for around town driving? That's doable.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by accord1999

You have exponential growth, until suddenly you don't. 2018 Solar PV new capacity additions barely changed from 2017, and wind peaked in 2015.

Wouldn't have anything to do with the 30% tariff Trump placed on solar panels from China, causing prices to soar and projects to get shelved? Killed billions in projects.

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-panel-imports

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-t...-idUSKCN1J30CT

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

As an aside, how long until we see calls for the banning of "pleasure" vehicle models? In light of man made climate change, and an ever increasing public sentiment of "you dont need that/it feeds your narcissism/impotence ect" why dont we just ban for example all 2 door cars? Essentially banning sport cars. No one needs them. Plus when they look exactly like race cars, why would anyone want them on our streets?
For example, why would anyone need a 240z? To channel their inner John Morton? Looks identical, who cares about how it functions ect, it's not practical or efficient for transport.

Not worth it - we'd end up seeing more Honda Fits with aftermarket spoilers. That's just not good for society.


The Liberal's luxury tax on stuff over $100k might be a step in the right direction on this sort of thing, though in reality I think it's just symbolic and won't significantly influence consumer behaviour or generate much revenue. Coupes are probably a much smaller part of the problem than white collar guys driving F350s so they can pull a boat twice a year.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Ya, I've thought that as well. The drawbacks are you still have to do regular oil changes, risk of fuel going bad, and dragging around an ICE when you don't need it. But in the short term I think it is a good way to go. 500km range batteries are expensive, and there simply isn't the current capacity to put them in all new vehicles. But if every new vehicle had a small one for around town driving? That's doable.

I have a plug in hybrid van as there isn't a full electric family Vehicle big enough for us. We're at 9000km and have spent about $200ish in gas and $180 in electricity.

I think all plug in hybrids regularly cycle the engine on to move fuel and gas around to avoid that issue. Depending on the model, oil changes are pretty rare. Our warranty says we have to do it at 16000km, when oil change indicator says (350 hours) or 1 year


A 500km range is not necessary for 95+% of owners. Most of the time you're charging at home and almost all newer EVs charge at 100 kW or more, meaning quick top ups. I feel like 350km would be the sweet spot for our family and we travel to Alberta regularly. The trouble for now is there's almost zero charging infrastructure in northern Alberta

[Street Pharmacist]

Double post

[81MC]

The day the pleasure use automobile becomes banned, we’re all ####ed. It’ll happen I’m sure, because it’s an easy target. Everyone will keep on buying garbage they don’t need from halfway around the world, and eating miraculously constantly in-season produce, while the hobby auto enthusiast is vilified.