That was exactly my thoughts when they announced the interconnection. I read somewhere that the UK is going to be a net exporter of energy and have multiple connections for reliability with other Scandinavian countries
A mature manufacturer does well by using just in time sourcing for all their parts to keep overhead low vs a newcomer who needs the security of their own supply chain to avoid being priced out of the market. Tesla integrated vertically not because Musk is a genius, but because there's no way to compete for parts with the big boys
JIT screwed them over when they canceled all their orders and were put on the end of the line when they realized there might be a bigger demand for their product than they anticipated and had to reorder.
Tesla was also able to reprogram chips that are more commonly available to work for their vehicles. EVs also tend to use more chips than a ICE vehicle.
I get that when you are considered 'mature', these things will create issues with the supply chain being a mess, but Tesla is just gaining a bigger lead each quarter while Ford, GM and others keep bumbling around trying to secure parts.
No matter how many '$10 billion investments' they announce, it all means jack if they can't actually build some vehicles.
Last edited by Azure; 10-05-2021 at 11:35 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
If I'm Elon Musk, I don't care about Tesla, the Boring company etc. long term. I'm more interested in SpaceX and the Hypertube etc.
Exit strategy wise, I'd sell Tesla and a bunch of these companies to the US automakers at a premium in the coming few years and offer them a olive branch to deal with Chinese pressures, but also an forward solution that also deletes a major competitor to them. Tesla can continue to grow and Musk can pocket some serious coin by selling Tesla at a premium to have funds for his vanity projects (a la Zip2 and Paypal).
Tesla is pumped full of funny accounting and the government subsidy stuff will end sooner or later. He's going to laugh all the way to the bank and wash his hands of this stuff. US automakers will still be profitable even with some of this stuff built in, but just not as profitable as one might believe vs the actual selling price of Tesla.
I'm not sure where you are getting this from? Their margins have been getting better each quarter. At some point the carbon credit offset stupidity that they benefit from will not really mean anything in the overall scheme of things.
I agree though that Tesla is not his long play in terms of building cars to make money. SpaceX will be MUCH more profitable, plus the benefit of being private.
And you are right, it does help that Tesla can raise capital really easily without diluting their share price.
Is it just more a numbers game than anything else? I'm sure Telsa uses chips just like Ford and GM. Easier to get them in small quantities than huge quantities.
From what I've read the lead times on chips is much longer, and a lot of the big players canceled their orders in 2020. That puts you on the end of the line when you reorder.
The chip industry is pretty fascinating. Given the automation involved, I'm not sure why there isn't more manufacturing done in North America to ensure stable supply.
Musk also talked about finding ways to work with what was available where other car manufacturers aren't able to adapt. What he didn't say is that its probably easier to do if you only sell 3 types of vehicles.
Either way, Tesla has benefitted to some degree. Car lots are sitting empty in many areas.
JIT screwed them over when they canceled all their orders and were put on the end of the line when they realized there might be a bigger demand for their product than they realized and had to reorder.
Tesla was also able to reprogram chips that are more commonly available to work for their vehicles. EVs also tend to use more chips than a ICE vehicle.
I get that when you are considered 'mature', these things will create issues with the supply chain being a mess, but Tesla is just gaining a bigger lead each quarter while Ford, GM and others keep bumbling around trying to secure parts.
No matter how many '$10 billion investments' they announce, it all means jack if they can't actually build some vehicles.
Totally agree. When your life cycle has seen you be able to change the market to suit you (the essence of JIT supply), it's a shock to the system when it doesn't respond to your every whim. Tesla has had to adapt simply due to being the new guy and not having the ability to change their suppliers to suit them.
The real crunch will still be batteries. Tesla has looked out a decade or more and has even done some work all the way up the chain to mining and working with mining companies. Ford and GM both announced new battery research facilities starting in 2022/23. While GM has some agreements with LG Chem, their ability to build future vehicles will 100% be reliant on these few specific suppliers to be able to sell any EVs. It's going to be a tough go. Stellantis isn't even close to Ford or GM. They're done for
The interesting (and scary) part about battery manufacturing is the sheer logistics involved in sending the raw materials all over the world in order to get a battery.
Being ahead of the pack should allow Tesla to start minimizing the logistical headache, and localize more of the production. This isn't really because they are 'better' at battery manufacturing than anyone else, but more than likely because they have been doing it longer.
They are also the first in reducing cobalt usage, North America lithium mining, small adaptive manufacturing lines that have been pretty successful, and real time battery usage & the subsequent research which gives them more data to work with. I believe even their recycling is more advanced.
Each quarter they will keep getting ahead of the other guys. At this point the lead will start becoming exponential unless the other manufacturers can get this ##### together.
I'm not sure where you are getting this from? Their margins have been getting better each quarter. At some point the carbon credit offset stupidity that they benefit from will not really mean anything in the overall scheme of things.
I agree though that Tesla is not his long play in terms of building cars to make money. SpaceX will be MUCH more profitable, plus the benefit of being private.
And you are right, it does help that Tesla can raise capital really easily without diluting their share price.
Lots of companies are adding Bitcoin to their balance sheet. To me it seems like a smart play considering how the US dollar has been losing its value the past 30 years.
I thought you meant in terms of the carbon offsets and ability to raise credit like crazy.
Lots of companies are adding Bitcoin to their balance sheet. To me it seems like a smart play considering how the US dollar has been losing its value the past 30 years.
I thought you meant in terms of the carbon offsets and ability to raise credit like crazy.
Huh? I wasn't trying to imply it's a bad play. I'm just not convinced that Bitcoin will keep rocketing up past $51K USD, and that government funds to Tesla will dry up but I could be wrong. Those assets/revenue streams won't always be as lucrative and valuable as they are now.
But that won't matter, because the rest of Tesla will still basically print money. That's what I meant.
Huh? I wasn't trying to imply it's a bad play. I'm just not convinced that Bitcoin will keep rocketing up past $51K USD, and that government funds to Tesla will dry up but I could be wrong. Those assets/revenue streams won't always be as lucrative and valuable as they are now.
But that won't matter, because the rest of Tesla will still basically print money. That's what I meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Fair enough. I just misunderstood what you meant.
I think we're on the same page.
Dammit I thought you guys were going to fight for the same thing.
__________________ It's only game. Why you heff to be mad?
I'm always skeptical with carbon capture. First it was "clean coal" which was just coal plants with carbon capture except only one was ever built because it was costly. I'm skeptical it'll actually be used because there won't be an incentive to do so unless someone holds some feet to the fire. None of this stuff is actually in use and it tends to be the way fossil infrastructure gets built with subsidies only to see the CCUS never materialize
Couldn't be more wrong. CCS is happening, it is. Go check out Entropy (subsidiary of Advantage), or Pathways project which is a combined effort from major oilsands players. I personally am also working on a project like that right now too that's distinct. Every midstreamer in Canada is very actively working on new projects for CO2 reduction initiatives, exploring hydrogen, looking into emission reduction strategies at their facilities, looking for ways to make wellsites cleaner. You have some companies like Modern (prior to TOU takeover) that had solar panels at their wellsites for remote monitoring / automation. This is happening literally at just about every company in Canada's oil and gas sector right now because it's the easiest way to attract new capital. Look at Topaz's recent deal with WCP, literally to boast they have a royalty stream from a net negative carbon sink oil producing unit in Weyburn Saskatchewan (and WCP has been pumping that story for years now too, even though it is really just a tertiary flooding scheme to get more oil and has been going on for a long, long time but whatever, okay if the marketing works the marketing works and the absolute fact of the matter is, that the production of that oil is net negative and a carbon sink). Wolf Midstream's carbon trunk line in central Alberta is literally brand new and designed to deliver CO2 to injection schemes wherever. The fact that now a CO2 specific pipeline exists is actually pretty huge. They also were looking at all kind of expansion opportunities, NEBC, in throughout the Montney, North River- similar efforts. AltaGas, similar efforts. Pembina, similar efforts. Keyera... and none of this includes the huge producers that are walking the walk. ARX, TOU, CNQ, SU etc etc etc.
Reality is that carbon priced at $40/$50/tonne doesn't incentivize CCS very much, but as soon as you start to hit that $100/tonne it'll explode. That isn't set to happen for a few years though, but when it does, watch. Every gas plant / major facility with a turbine is going to be chasing those carbon initiatives. And it's already started to be honest because even around these prices you're truly starting to get marginal on the economics. I believe Entropy was claiming they needed around $50-$70/tonne or so.
So I really resent and dismiss the notion that CCS "isn't happening" or the pessimistic cynical views about Canada's oil and gas sector and the (huge) efforts they are making. They really are trying, because it's where the money is going to be. I watched a National Bank presentation from a very well known presenter, an energy expert. He stated that INTERNAL energy transition capital funding (so, money from within these companies themselves and not driven by subsidies or whatever cynical BS people throw out there) for projects is currently estimated to be $175BILLION over the next 10 years, expected to pour into various kinds of energy transition projects in Canada. The expected carbon footprint reductions are estimated to be 40-45%. That is insane. That is an absolutely enormous amount of capital to be risked into sketchy technology. So yes, CCS will be a HUGE part of that.
As an aside, I like how the EU today moved the goalposts and was looking to vote on including natural gas as a "green" energy source. Meanwhile the IEA also revised its' forecasts to suggest that Petroleum and Natural Gas will actually still be material energy sources (still greater % of energy mix than renewables) out to 2050. This was a revision to outstrip renewables from a previous estimate. Not good, but clear as to what drives energy efficiency.
Meanwhile 80% of India's power comes from coal and China is slapping up coal powered power plants and just generally driving coal demand like crazy but yeah, let's make sure those LNG projects take >20 years to build in Canada because we can't have a natural gas pipeline built that when it leaks (if it leaks), it dissipates natural gas safely into the air in the middle of nowhere and literally is one of the safest things around. Canada keeps crushing it. And I mean literally, trying to crush industry whenever it can. In fact what industry has accomplished, in the face of how this country has treated it, is a ####ing miracle.
Last edited by Mr.Coffee; 10-06-2021 at 09:36 PM.
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
A first-of-its-kind study into rooftop solar energy identifies 'hot-spots' where investment could have the greatest benefits for climate change.
The first detailed global assessment of the electricity generation potential of rooftop solar panels has revealed that the total global potential for electricity produced in this way exceeds all the energy used worldwide in 2018.
Far as I'm concerned energy generation is solved going forward the challenge is storing it.
Germany's SPD, Greens, FDP agree on coal exit by 2030
Quote:
Germany's centre-left Social Democrats, the Greens and the liberal Free Democrats agreed on major points in their efforts to form a coalition government including the exit from coal-fired power stations by 2030, according to a draft document seen by Reuters on Friday.
Spiking natural gas prices have hardened Europe’s resolve to embrace wind and solar power as a path to energy independence, much as the U.S. took to fracking
More and more I'm starting to think these high energy prices will make countries think harder about energy independence and every supply less linked to commodity price risks. It's a different equation for fossil fuel producing areas of course, but Europe for sure will want off the roller coaster.
Those in the O&G field would probably know better, but I wonder what happens to these plans once the inevitable oversupply happens. If the best cure for for high energy prices is high energy prices, then surely a supply glut of in the forecast. Europe made strong climate goals when energy costs were low, and are now looking at even stronger goals when process go higher. Could that change if prices go low again?
