Musk isn't Tesla's founder. He was a first round investor who became chair a year after the company incorporated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesl...4-10?r=US&IR=T

Musk's cousins founded SolarCity.

In other news Tesla has sold only 123 Model X in NL/NO/SP so far this quarter. Compared to 189 at this point last quarter and 687 at this point in Q2 2018.

Hearing its going to be their second best quarter ever.

despacito is owning himself so hard he must just be trolling

This is all the bulls are going to see and it's going to keep the price elevated.



I'm hoping for death of bull narrative, deliveries staying strong in those countries aren't helping.

Hopefully we don't see the end of quarter jump up this time.

Of course there will be an end of quarter surge. That is why I've been telling you for the last 6 weeks that it really doesn't matter if they are 10% up or 20% down at this point.

Q2 sucked in Europe. M3 deliveries couldn't even match Q1- the first quarter it was available- and overall between S/X/3 they were flat (down less than 100 cars.)

Q2 record delivery number was built entirely on US and Canada.

It really doesn't matter if they sell 18k or 25k in Europe. The possibilities there are range bound.

Tesla may narrowly beat Q4 2018 deliveries for "second best quarter ever" (because I think if they can get close they will do everything they can to push over that line) but revenue will be down YoY, the net loss will be even worse than last quarter, and they will finally have to amend their 360k-400k guidance for full year 2019.

yik was referring to solar city founder

What's your estimate for full year 2019 deliveries?

I wish you were right about this (honestly). Unfortunately, whilst research can lead to leap change improvements, usually it yields nothing, and even if it shows promise that is meaningless unless and until someone executes on it.

95% of R&D comes from the private sector.

The transition to electric transport and renewable energy is rate limited by finance, and the number of people and organizations who are willing and able to get it done.

Paying taxes and rent seeking are not mutually exclusive but who cares this is OT.

As for subsidies, the fossil fuel industry has received enormous government subsidies for the longest time. Much larger than renewable energy companies. It's not even close. Recommend reading The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power by Daniel Yergin.

If anything, governments should be subsidizing renewable energy and electric transport MUCH more than they are currently. Not only does it make economic and environmental sense in the long-run, it yields strategic advantages too.

If this were true, the private sector would be rushing to fund it.

It is. The private sector is rapidly divesting fossil fuel assets and entering renewables.

But I'm referring to strategic (ie. national/military) objectives.

$15 billion spent on sports cars for rich people vs $15 billion spent on fundamental research? The latter would crush on advancements. The budget for all of DARPA is $3.3 billion. A fusion research experiment halted in Italy? Europe pauses funding for €500 million fusion research reactor

Tesla does no worthwhile R&D.

See this is one your core delusions, although this I'm not going to fault you for being an idiot about this one because a lot of people are.

Technology items that rely on a substrate (like transistor count or battery minituarization/cost per kWh or screen pixels) follow a time curve, not a money curve. I don't truly understand why, but its true for nearly all substrates. Money doesn't help much if at all. I think it has to do with the fact that multiple technologies are required at once - for example, circuit miniaturization requires improved lithography which requires breakthroughs in quantum chemistry which requires improved microscopes which requires...etc and so on. Technology that relies on a substrate moves along with all of society. Although basic research can lead to breakthroughs sometimes.

The thing is, Musk doesn't even make a dent in global battery demand and does nothing for battery research. And all that matters for electric cars is the battery energy density and cost. On that front Toyota are doing WAY more than Tesla and should therefore be given all of Tesla's subsidies? The drive unit is trivial, everything in Teslas are trivial...they don't advance technology one bit. Meanwhile companies like Toyota have solid state lithium ion going into production soon.

This is mostly a myth driven by green losers and green scammers who want more taxpayer money.
Subsidizing renewable energy has been an environmental disaster. Why do you think emissions are soaring more than the worst projections? Partly because of renewable energy subsidies.

And it makes ZERO sense to subsidize electric cars right now - it is in fact environmentally harmful and economically wasteful. Once the battery technology is sufficiently advanced - and that's a $100 billion industry unrelated to cars in which Tesla makes a dent - then electric cars make economic and environmental sense and will naturally explode in sales - but at that point subsidies won't even be needed.

I don't expect you to understand the pearls of wisdom herein but that's ok.

No they aren't. Stop reading green loser websites and listening to green loser journalists. Renewables make no sense on any scale. It's pure wasted money.

Germany wasted $160 billion euros trying to get large scale solar and wind. The result? A spectacular failure. Energy prices have soared and the poor are struggling with costs as they have the most expensive power in Europe even after the massive government subsidies. And they're one of the few countries who missed their 2020 emissions target and are now burning more coal than ever. Because the dumb cucks wanted to go "renewable" rather than have clean (non-renewable) nuclear power like France and it all went belly up.

Renewable power is unreliable, expensive and pointless.
How is electrification of the civilian fleet good for national security? American is a net energy exporter thanks to fracking, and has emissions coming down nicely (also thanks to fracking).

Holy crap, it's like reading a fossil fuels post from 10 years ago.

Dude, I don't expect you to give any credence whatsoever to what I'm saying, that's not how this board works and it doesn't seem to be your style. But that's just way, way off. It's not even in the realm of true.

Merkel has a physics background and is orders of magnitude more intelligent than you. It's unbecoming that you denigrate people who are vastly superior to you.

I have first hand knowledge of Germany and am not relying on "loser websites". You're wrong. Not only has it been successful, it has been modelled successfully in other countries, too. You don't know what you're talking about.

New PV and wind in Germany have lower LCOE than fossil fuel plants.

As for reliability, batteries, solar thermal storage, and backup capacity.

As for strategic factors, ask the Pentagon. Many factors but energy security and modularity (no reliance on grid, which might be vulnerable), are significant.

This just hit my inbox ...

There you go parroting your fraud hero ago (please look up 'orders of magnitude' - you're implying she's at least 100 times more intelligent than me, which is a nonsensical claim)

By the way, I have a physics background too. She has a quantum chemistry background I believe. Neither of which prevents her from making embarrassingly idiotic decisions, of which she has made many.

WTF? It's widely known that Germany's renewable push has been an enormous failure.

Spiegel.de (highly respected German newspaper): German Failure on the Road to a Renewable Future

It's not even debatable that has been a huge failure on every level.
MIT Technology Review: Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables
It is exactly what I say - a total failure. I'm not sure whether you just make **** up or there's something legitimately wrong with your cognitive abilities or you're just young and extremely naive and ill-read, but managing to be wrong about nearly everything from every single angle (philosophically, practically, morally, factually) is quite a feat; I'm impressed. You should consider doing a Costanza.

Sure, I'll agree with you on decentralized power being a good thing for security. Consider the expense though - many trillions of dollars for something which can be gotten far cheaper another way. And nothing to do with electric cars. The grid being vulnerable as you say makes electric cars bad for national security. Good luck finding a charging station in the apocalypse. Diesel cars on the other hand can run on homemade diesel.

What I said is not even controversial among competent people. Renewables have been a disaster for the environment and the cost of energy and have not solved the emissions problem in any way whatsoever and in fact strongly contributed to soaring emissions (they are soaring way more than expected despite trillions now having been thrown at renewables).

Ah yes, the great green future...in 2030! I'm going to have $100 billion in 2030 as well. That's also when China has first promised to start thinking about limiting its emissions which are dwarfing the rest of the world.

Here's what world emissions look like:



Western left wing "green" policies (implemented thanks to people like you and despacito) have caused the greatest environmental destruction of any policies ever implemented. By enacting "green" policies that increased the cost of energy and made future energy pricing uncertain, vast swathes of heavy manufacturing moved to China, which is 4x less efficient per unit of output. Thus the US and Europe have declined (slightly) as their enormous manufacturing base moved to a far less efficient China, but that's offset massively by China's soaring emissions from that same far less efficient manufacturing base. China were building two new coal fired power stations every single week while the West was shaving a fraction off emissions and costing their citizens a fortune with "green" initiatives. In addition, the US decline (and upcoming decline) is due in large part to fracking, which the "green" assclowns also opposed.

It's an open and shut case. I don't expect the likes of you and despacito to understand the difference between intention and outcome, however. If you did you wouldn't be disagreeing with me.

Being green is a religion with its own group norms and sacred truths ("global warming in real!") and expressions of virtue ("I believe in global warming!" "we must act now!") and holy cows ("renewables will save us!") and demons ("those bad fossil fuel companies and corporate greed are killing us!") and a whole swathe of religious anti-rational thought (the rational thing to do about global warning is nothing even if especially if you think it's going to be catastrophic).

People like Musk have done a great job of tapping into that religious fervor to get taxpayer money to do ridiculous things like make highly environmentally destructive sports cars for rich people.

LOL.

There's a bow. It is long. And you have drawn it.

Also WTF are you pulling "being green" from?

I am not a greenie or a leftie etc.

Something we probably agree on: there's an emissions problem that must be solved at the lowest possible (economic and environmental) cost, ASAP. We simply differ over how that should be done, but you're painting me as some kind of eco terrorist.

China has been an unmitigated disaster for emissions and air quality but they have been ramping up low emissions capacity in recent years.

Well let's make it simpler. What has happened to world emissions after spending trillions on green energy and vast amounts of human mental and emotional energy on the "climate change" issue? The answer is:

a) They've continued to soar unabated

Bjorn Lomborg predicted this with very careful reasoning and analysis in 2002 to widespread scorn (that all the trillions that would be spent on emissions reductions over the next two decades would have zero effect on global emissions and might even be counterproductive). He was right.
We completely disagree on this. The best thing to do by far about the emissions problem , from any level of analysis (environmental, cost/benefit) is absolutely nothing. Anyone who disagrees is a science denier. The science has been done. The analysis comes out to a result so incredibly tilted toward "it's by far the best to do nothing at all" that it's a pretty huge indictment of human reason and politics that that's not the chosen path.

Humans have a real problem accepting doing absolute nothing even when it's clearly best course of action, especially when there's a major irrational fear campaign about inaction. It's a major flaw we have. We need a solution even if there isn't one. Unfortunately this flaw has resulting in trillions in misallocated capital toward renewables.

I'm well aware of what it means and I still think it's generous in your favor.

Renewables rose as a % of electricity generating capacity from 3% to 36%.

I would not call that a failure.

It is also an ongoing commitment, with political, financial, and technical clout. They are aiming for something like 60% by 2030. Germany can overcome the challenges. Their engineers are amongst the best in the world and many companies and research institutes are working relentlessly to overcome the constraints posed by renewables. I applaud their leadership and effort.

Do you think the MIT Tech Review is a good source generally? In this case the article is written by the author of Coal Wars: The Future of Energy and the Fate of the Planet. Are you signaling support for his views?

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Yes, the problem is getting WORSE, but that is in spite of renewables, not because of them.

Bjorn is not a scientist. He (and you) are wrong.

Lomberg's "think tank" is funded by the fossil fuel industry. I assume you know this and don't care about credibility. But if not, check it out. In general, economists are not good authorities on this issue, but specifically quoting Lomberg is absurd.

This TED Talk was brought to you by big coal.

At least I don't feel the need to engage further.

Right, because you're religious on this issue rather than rational.

If emissions rose during that time, that's absolutely a failure. I could cover the entire US in solar panels and renewables would rise to 99% of energy generating capacity. And not one coal plant could shut down and emissions would barely go down. What matters is outcomes, not capacity. So if you have an IQ above a slug (you clearly don't), you ask the following questions:

- How much have emissions dropped as a result of installing all this renewable energy? Answer: nothing at all.
- How much has it cost the country and the poor for this non-result? Answer: a fortune.

That's a terrible failure.

The most technically capable country in the world with a genius engineering population can't meet modest emissions drop targets that other countries have met, while spending $160 billion on renewables. You have made my point brilliantly about how worthless and terrible renewables are. I don't think there's anything else to say.

It's not bad, but I care about ideas and facts, not people.

Also, here's where renewable Germany stands vs nuclear France:



8 years, 160 billion euro spent on renewables, soaring prices for consumers (the most expensive in Europe), less reliable power infrastructure with more blackouts, no meaningful difference to emissions, and as you say all of this failure while having the most competent engineers in the world. This is proof of complete failure of renewables and makes my point perfectly.

Forbes covers the problem well: Why Aren't Renewables Decreasing Germany's Carbon Emissions?

Terrible citizens like you and El Sapo who can't think rationally yet hold strong opinions are what make these farces happen. 160 billion euros would completely solve global malnutrition and immunization needs for several years. Could possibly make fusion work if poured into basic research. And a lot of other things. It is pure pointless waste, and it's because of people like you and El Sapo who have a strong opinion without having any clue what you're talking about.