Can someone help me with understanding the optimistic scenario for Tesla?
I believe electric cars are the future one way or another. Even if we can't make them more efficient the governments will get their act together one day and start heavily penalizing city pollution making gas cars too expensive. It's a life quality issue. Pollution is a source of all kind of health and life quality problems. The awareness of that fact will only grow over time.
Let's assume it's all electric going forward. I still don't see how Tesla profits enough throughout the years if that happens. There will be other players. Some of them much better at quality manufacturing than Tesla is. I mean I don't see how Tesla is worth the valuation even if all world governments collectively decide you can only sell electric vehicles from 2030 onward (and that obviously won't happen as some countries' grid won't be ready long after that).

Is it about self-driving? Then it's a hard sell that Tesla beats NVidia, Google and others on that front.
Is it about battery tech? Anything specific others can't replicate?
Anything else? I try to convince myself it's not a pure pump as it seems Elon Musk is coming up with yet another hype every time the reality starts setting in.

This is simply a false statement. If we're not carbon neutral by 2050 the world will look no different to today. Even the worst IPCC projects don't have even mildly bad effects until after 2080. You've been sold pure idiotic hysteria. Looking back through history, every single age had one.

Dear God.

Massive outgassing happens all the time. It's a billion year old natural phenomenon. Increased exploration finds more outgassing. I remember losers (not you, scientists) hyperventilatiung about this nonsense 15 years ago. They'll be hyperventilating about it in 20 years too.

To see this rampant loser hysteria all laid out, a UK scientist maintains a partial list of all the things that global warming is said to be causing (with links to the articles). It's completely hilarious:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm



lol? We literally have the model and the results of those models. They've majorly overestimated everything from sea level rise to loss of snow to extinctions. Go back and read some 2000-2005 era predictions by eminent scientists for fun:

- "In 10 years our children (in Britain) aren't going to know what snow is"
- "The arctic will be ice free by 2013"

This is nonsense. For one, there are dozens of ways to mitigate warming at the geoengineering level should a crisis happen: Algal blooms, atmospheric aerosols, etc. We can do them all right now, especially the latter. There is an absolutely ZERO chance of catastrophic warming given that we can control temperature by aerosols at will.
I'm laughing at about 5 things in this paragraph. Dear God.

Agreed on your general comment that tech takes time, more time than most think. But we're also entering a robotics and new materials age in 10-20 years, which will change the world and technology forever. You want to slow this down (by shifting to far more expensive, less reliable energy, and hurting the poor and economy). I want to keep it going.

You appear to have absolutely no clue about the enormous negative environmental effects of batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. The metal in Tesla batteries takes so much oil and coking coal to produce and refine that it takes 5 years of driving for Tesla to catch up with a gas guzzler car. It's actually quite ridiculous.

I'm sorry, but how does gasoline hurt ecosystems (per unit of power produced) on anywhere near the scale as batteries and wind turbines do?? Increased CO2 has been incredible for ecosystems - CO2 is plant food and helps them cope with water stress - which is why we're seeing an enormous global greening for the first time since man started building civilization. Forests and crops grow better and support more life. Part of the human food stability and surplus over the past 15 years has been due to CO2.

You won't read about that in your scary headlines, but that's the reality. Also, the notion that 2 degrees of warming is going to wipe out ecosystems that survived through the 1930s heat waves and the 1700s cooling and that have survived summer winter cycles 20x larger than the warming for 100 million years is freaking hilarious. The perturbation isn't large enough.

Look, I don't blame you for having idiotic views - global warming hysteria has become close to a religion, and there's a hysteria in every age that experts opine on: witches, barbarians, catastrophic global warming (1920/30s heat waves/warm period), catastrophic global cooling (1970s cold period) that most of the population buys into. But honestly, open your eyes a little. There's zero risk to world from global warming, it's been a massive net positive so far for human health and happiness and the eradication of poverty, it's a been a massive net positive for the environment. The catastrophe scenarios just aren't credible, even the "somewhat bad" scenarios aren't credible given current and future technologies.

And wind, solar and batteries will never be a solution to global warming for obvious reasons, so the fact that these are what's being touted as a solution is hilarious.

It's anything you want it to be.

Musk bullshits and lies all year long and the fanboys like him more for it.

Not taking sides in any of these questions (yet) but am looking for clarification on a couple points...


What you say above Pokerhero kind of misses his point said here below...

Separately TS please address the below.

Don't read in to it any gotchas as I am just looking for clarification. Given your typical skepticism about the value of 'Experts' I find it strange that you think the world could literally be at CRISiS levels, meaning immediate, decisive and the correct actions must be taken quickly, and you have full faith that not only will the experts do the right thing but they will determine the exact amount of algae blooms or aerosols such that they we do not have unintended consequences that exasperate the problems and make the crisis worse.


Where does your confidence in this regard come from?

(and again, as a note, I would be happy if you pointed me to studies, literature or other that shows we have this science down and the competence to get it right)

So to explain: the right aerosols (S02 molecules for example) sprayed into the stratosphere can cool the planet to any level we'd like, and persist for about 18 months before they have to be renewed. We have that ability right now; to do so would cost a few billion dollars. These particles reflect sunlight and change the energy balance of the earth. To give you an idea of how little is required: the "forcing" of CO2 is estimated to be 1.6 watts per square meter; the average forcing of the sun is 1000 W/m2 during the day. So if we reflect back 0.16% of the sun's light into space via a stratospheric aerosol, global warming disappears overnight.

This has happened many times, including for extended periods. The cooling period of the "Little Ice Age", where temperatures dropped about 2 degrees below normal (normal being what they were recently before CO2 mattered),was driven by increased global vulcanism, which spew exactly the same cheap, abundant SO2 into the atmosphere that this geoengineering would. Krakatoa's small amount of SO2 alone, which injected into the stratosphere, cooled the world for several years.

The truth is that global warming and the hysteria around it is truly sick-in-the-head, completely demented religion, where normal people are told the world and human race is literally ending if we don't act NOW and spend trillions of dollars "breaking windows" by making power more expensive and less reliable (see: Texas right now losing power as the wind turbines freeze in the coldest weather ever) for negligible gain in emissions or otherwise. It's the dumbest thing I've ever seen and a very sad delusion. Kids are afraid for their future. People see psychologists over it. There's a deluge of negativity and urgency taking up people's mental and emotional time. Yet there is zero threat of anything bad happening, given that we can cool the world at will using natural processes that have happened a million times, for about 1/100th of the money we currently spend every year unsuccessfully trying to "mitigate" a non-existent problem in the dumbest way possible.

Antialias is a reasonable guy; how does he have it so wrong about from being fed an endless stream of pure bullshit from the media and "experts"? Civilization and the human race ending for something we can fix easily and in the worst case makes New York weather a tiny bit more like Florida? Just incredible how people's heads get so ****ed up by misinformation.

Meanwhile, the experts completely **** up and miss real existential threats that actually kill people en masse (covid) or could end free civilization (China's recent rise, Hitler's rise, initial nuclear weapon proliferation when a hard line - "we'll nuke your cities if you test a single nuke" - could have kept nukes for American only, and so on). The experts are worthless morons on both sides of the coin - both hyping nonexistent threats and missing/downplaying/comically mishandling real ones. It beggars belief really.

Anyway, here's one of many links.

We Could Spray Cheap Chemicals in the Air to Slow Climate Change
Ignore all the caveats, they're bullshit. For $5 billion we could have double the cooling and we could get it organized in no time. You can keep pumping aerosols into the stratosphere to achieve any level of cooling you want; volcanos have done it easily and to a much greater effect than we need (see: the Little Ice Age from 1300-1800), and the effect required is truly tiny (0.16% of sunlight reflected back into space to halt global warming). The main way in which a nuclear war would end civilization is the same effect: a nuclear winter driven by particles injected into the stratosphere from the fires caused moreso than radiation or direct damage; it's the global crop failures from the lost warmth and sunlight that would do the most damage.

Here's the study for that which is a good read and puts the "end of civilization if we don't get to zero by 2050" pure insane hysteria into perspective: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...26/aae98d/meta

Well it seems by antialias that rare earths are not critical to renewable energy. I will address your point anyways.

If you want to grow an industry like solar or batteries you need more materials. Recycling does not produce more materials, it only keeps you at best the same level.

Also, recycling is never 100% efficient. To sustain an industry you will either need more 1st gen materials or better performamce from recycled materials.

So you are stuck aquiring strategic resources from an adversary nation.

This has been in the doldrums for awhile considering the bull rages on. One of the biggest bulls and cult like figure Gary Black sold all his holdings the day after Elon announced they purchased bitcoin and as you can imagine the Twitter army has been on full on attack mode against poor Gary.

I am certainly not a TSLA bull but know enough and basically this is what they claim

1) on the vehicle side, once FSD is achieved it will be a massive bottom line boost as all FSD revenue deferred to this point can be booked.
2)they have revolutionary battery tech and will show itself once the next gen battery is released
3)they will decimate the traditional trucking industry with the TSLA semi
4)they will disrupt the insurance industry with their own insurance offerings on TSLA vehicles
5)they will disrupt battery storage industry with powerwall
6)they will disrupt the residential solar industry due to point 5

I think all are nuts except for possibly point 1. Anyways I have been wrong all along and said friends are now mainly retired in their early 40's after rolling over LEAPS every month.

On point 1 - Haven't they already been booked a big chunk of that deferred revenue?

That is not the question I am asking Tooth.

I understand we have the technology to do it.

What makes you so confident in the 'experts'?

This would be something we have never done before and that if you get even slightly wrong, might have devastating deleterious effects. Can you simply correct an over spray and vacuum out or dissolve the aerosol if you over spray and the world is now rapidly tipping towards an ice age.

This reeks of another 'All In' strategy with no Plan B (like 'Let it Rip') where if the experts get any calculations wrong we may be doomed, literally. And it is premised by an All in bet on experts figuring out all the unknowns.


(Again, I am not raising this to simply be conflicting of YOUR point. I would ask this of anyone who put this forth as such a 'given' or fait accompli assumption and casual dismissal of 'oh this is easy, nothing to see here, we already have an easy solution for this')

This has been fully answered if your turn up your reading comprehension:
I was directly answering your question in full when I wrote this paragraph. SO2 in the stratosphere is a natural phenomenon - volcanoes do it all the time, including recently over long time periods, and have thousands of times for hundreds of millions of years. It's simply not possible to screw it up as SO2 in the atmosphere it's a natural self limiting phenomenon using the simplest molecule possible where the effects can be immediately measured and it clears itself out in a matter of 18 months. There are no unknowns - this is natural, safe and fully effective with fully known consequences.

By itself - ignoring the dozens of other potential mitigations and solid reasons why this doomsday scenario of civilization ending won't come to pass - it's a 100% rock solid refutation of the mainstream left wing batshit crazy claim that civilization/the human race will end if we don't get emissions to zero by 2050 that antialias was parroting after hearing it in the mainstream left wing media. What else are they lying to you about or spinning or making hysterical claims about if they're irresponsibly or ignorantly pushing an absolutely crazy line on something so easily refuted?

Tooth,

You need to identify for me WHO, VERY SPECIFICALLY are the experts you expect to nail this the first time and get it exactly right as to not cause any devastating deleterious effects. Not by name but by grouping if you prefer.

Would it be Biden's NOA or a UN lead group? I am sure you agree we have to cede the authority for someone (group) to deploy this and we cannot simultaneously have every nation or group acting without coordination.

Would you bring back Trump and have him assemble a team such as he had under this Pandemic. No hyperbole intended there either. I am seriously trying to figure out who will lead this effort.


You, Tooth, are suggesting this is 'all figured out already and easy' but you as you know, you need, experts to determine the calculations and apply them.


Is your faith so strong in the experts having no ability to get this wrong Tooth, that you would say this is not even something we need to worry about and 'as soon as we are experiencing catastrophic impacts of global warming the experts will step in and fix them instantly as if it is just throwing a light switch'?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Just incredible how dumb Tooth is about everything.

Cuepee,
Yes I'd trust almost anyone 100% to be able to deliver SO2 to the stratosphere and have no bad side effects given that it's physical delivery of a simple widespread substance leveraging a straightforward physical process which is an exact copy of a natural self limiting process that's happened hundreds of times. This is one of your dumbest troll attempts yet.

tgiggity,
Which part is incorrect? Are you denying the consensus science that SO2 delivery to the stratosphere is an extremely cheap and effective way of taking care of global warming should things actually get bad?

I am not trying to troll Tooth.

Did you not think that under Trump, and by no fault of his, the 'experts' horrendously bungled the Pandemic response when it should have been far more straight forward?

Am I now wrong that was your position?

And now you are saying a Biden or UN lead NOA simply could not get this wrong at all. NY could be become Florida with a flip of the switch and no error is even 1% possible. You have full and unyielding faith in Biden or the UN leading this.


I am not trying to troll you one ounce. I am simply trying to reconcile how you can go from such utter trashing of experts and their ability to deploy even with good information to unyielding faith in them, so easily???

You have, in my opinion, almost a child like view of topics. You read something that makes sense to YOU, and then adopt a position that 'because I think it is right, it has to be right' and then you will accept no deviation. Not even a 1% chance you could be wrong.

That lack of comprehension you have in your ability to reconcile that leads you into all sorts of traps where your own logic is the best counter of your prior position or your position now.

Again you won't believe this post is not some type of gotcha as it is not intended that way.

You still have not reconciled why you think Biden and his assembled NOA team is infallible and why you, Tooth, would put a 100% chance of them getting it right such that even if Global Warming is in active critical catastrophic phase, that they can simply rush out, spray aerosol, and fix it instantly and if they want throw in the bonus of tweaking it geographically such that NYS becomes more like Florida, weather wise.

this is perfectly illustrative as to what I am saying with Tooth's near child like assessment.


Yes we can all accept 'the science that SO2 delivery to the stratosphere is an extremely cheap and effective way of mitigating or countering the effects of global warming'.

We can all read the literature.

What you will not find that in that literature is a jumped to CONCLUSION that it is easy, has zero chance of unintended consequences and that man understands the application and science to the extent that we can proclaim it an infallible solution and thus there is simply no need to worry about Global warming as we have this light switch solution in our pocket.

Tooth reads the science and then jumps to his conclusions and because, in his mind those connections make sense, he assumes that his conclusions are infallible. Why? Because the initial science was correct.


He then jumps to pure fallacy arguing 'the science is accurate and thereby ...my conclusions from it must also be accurate. Thus to question my conclusion is to question the underlying science'.

Pretty much all of it. And since when do you care what the "cuck experts" say?

Cuepee,
The bolded is exactly what the consensus science has said, that it's a solution that no one can find a flaw with and it's very cheap and effective. It's not preferred - and rarely talked about - because it doesn't fit with the "we're going to die if we don't act NOW" nonsense, but the science is straightforward and solid and not in doubt given how incredibly simple it is and that it's a natural process that has been done thousands of times by volcanoes.

I'm not sure you realize how dumb you're coming across to everyone right now. It's just sad, like watching a trainwreck.

Cuepee,
It seems tgiggity is indeed the science denier you claim he isn't. Although he's too cowardly to be drawn on specifics

I think we broke Tooth lmfao

Tooth the consensus science does not say 'no experts chosen can bungle this' and if it does please quote this.

You are creating an 'experts with perfect information are infallible' fallacy.

But anyway this discussion does not belong here. I have created this thread

Global Economic Impact of Global Warming, a threat or not?

I will instead quote this post by you that 'experts are infallible' and challenge you to show where the consensus science states that.

Cuepee,
I have no interest in discussing this in any more detail with a half trolling halfwit.

What % of cooling from volcanic eruptions was caused by SO2, and particulate matter reflecting light away from Earth's surface?

I assume particulate matter eventually settles on the surface, but at those altitudes I'm guessing it take months to settle.

I'm not doubting SO2 has a cooling effect, I just don't know how much.

Of course we have the EU response, which was, eh, not quite as good.

Tesla has made ~$700,000,000 from purchasing #Bitcoin. If they sell, they will make more profit than they have from any year of selling cars.