Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 26, 2018 5:19 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Dec 25, 2015 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/25/top-1 ... ind-power/

Please pass this article along on your social media. Thanks.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 25, 2015 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Russ wrote:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/25/top-11-problems-plaguing-solar-and-wind-power/

Please pass this article along on your social media. Thanks.


Plenty of errors on this article. Probably intentional errors.

1 - Tesla PowerWall / PowerPack has a 10 year warranty (rated for daily cycling for at least 10 years). The article argues the battery only lasts 5 years.
2 - Saying that 3 day storage costs US$ 15k per American. The reality is a single day storage for every citizen of the Americas with some upgrades to the grid would be enough to have solar be at least 1/3 of total energy generation. Unlike crazy pro solar / anti nuclear people, I don't think solar can/will be THE solution, but it will be just as important a solution as nuclear (and more than wind once solar gets just a little bit cheaper)
3 - The example of batteries use is Ni Cd batteries, which suck compared to top of the line Li Ion.

Most costs ignore the FACT that solar, wind, and chemical battery storage costs are dropping continously. Solar photovoltaic has a reliable pattern of dropping an average 22% in cost every time installed base doubles. Lithium battery shows a continuous drop cost of 3-5% per year (actually in more significant jumps every few years). Tesla battery packs have significantly improved since the first generation Roadster reached the market.

NUCLEAR IS IMPORTANT. But bashing renewables with pessimistic data is STUPID !
It's NOT NUCLEAR or SOLAR+WIND+geothermal+efficiency. Its ALL OF THAT !
Please stop with this stupid strategy !

I want nuclear to succeed, but the fact is you can't experiment with nuclear like it can be done with solar/wind/batteries. You guys need to get some kind of leeway like was available in the 60s for nuclear research. Otherwise nuclear success if very iffy (at least in the USA and similarly nuclear ratcheted jurisdictions). Solve your problems instead of attacking other independent efforts.

Attack the US NRC. Attack the anti nuclear movement. Attack the Obama administration for not providing one penny of nuclear startups. That's the real problem. Solar isn't the nuclear problem.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 574
Location: Iowa, USA
macpacheco wrote:
Plenty of errors on this article. Probably intentional errors.


I disagree, it appears pretty well researched and agrees with other well researched articles I've read on the topic. I like how the article spells out the problems with wind and solar and links to data to back up its claims. I won't even pretend I clicked on all the links in the article as this is all things I've read before.

macpacheco wrote:
1 - Tesla PowerWall / PowerPack has a 10 year warranty (rated for daily cycling for at least 10 years). The article argues the battery only lasts 5 years.


The estimated payback period for the battery pack is 25 years, claiming that they will last for 10 years instead of five does not really improve the math. Battery storage is a loser on cost alone. Pumped hydro is the only viable storage method we have right now and that requires favorable geography, which is rare. River dams and tidal storage also have their own environmental issues. Digging up tons of heavy metals every day to build batteries also has a not insignificant environmental impact.

macpacheco wrote:
2 - Saying that 3 day storage costs US$ 15k per American. The reality is a single day storage for every citizen of the Americas with some upgrades to the grid would be enough to have solar be at least 1/3 of total energy generation. Unlike crazy pro solar / anti nuclear people, I don't think solar can/will be THE solution, but it will be just as important a solution as nuclear (and more than wind once solar gets just a little bit cheaper)


As of right now, after decades of government subsidies, solar is too expensive for grid power. Claiming we can get solar power to be cheaper than natural gas if only we throw another couple decades of government subsidies is an optimistic view I cannot bring myself to hold. I worked on a solar powered race car in college. We had to engineer this car with the knowledge of what we could get from the sun, convert to electric power, and store in a battery. We've gone about as far as we can go with solar power, we are hitting a thermodynamic wall here. Any advancements in solar thermal power, battery storage capacity, transmission line efficiency, and so forth can be applied directly to nuclear and fossil fuel sources. These technological advancements that are supposed to make solar power viable will actually work against it.

macpacheco wrote:
3 - The example of batteries use is Ni Cd batteries, which suck compared to top of the line Li Ion.


The same problems exist regardless of the battery technology used. Batteries are heavy, contain toxic materials, are difficult to recycle, and are quite poor energy storage devices when it comes down to it. We use them in things like wristwatches and automobiles because they are simple devices that scale down well. On a large scale other storage methods win out. Pumped hydro is the greatest example of large scale storage that is cheaper than batteries. I've seen great promise in hydrogen as an energy storage. Requiring every household to purchase a battery pack to make up for failures in the utility to provide constant power is a failure on so many levels.

macpacheco wrote:
Most costs ignore the FACT that solar, wind, and chemical battery storage costs are dropping continously. Solar photovoltaic has a reliable pattern of dropping an average 22% in cost every time installed base doubles. Lithium battery shows a continuous drop cost of 3-5% per year (actually in more significant jumps every few years). Tesla battery packs have significantly improved since the first generation Roadster reached the market.


I will concede that technology in wind, solar, and battery technologies are improving. What is also happening is we are finding ever more efficient ways to harvest, store, transport, and consume fossil fuels. Same for nuclear power. While wind and solar are getting cheaper so is natural gas. It's not like wind and solar have to meet some stationary goal in price/performance, the goal posts are moving out faster than wind and solar can keep up.

macpacheco wrote:
NUCLEAR IS IMPORTANT. But bashing renewables with pessimistic data is STUPID !
It's NOT NUCLEAR or SOLAR+WIND+geothermal+efficiency. Its ALL OF THAT !
Please stop with this stupid strategy !


This is not "pessimistic" data. It is real data based on actual products available on the market today. What you seem to want is people to look at past gains, extrapolate out to some non-specific future date, and conclude that wind and solar will win in the end. We've had piles of government subsidies put into wind and solar for something like a half a century and all we have to show for it is barely 5% of grid power from it. That is my taxes spent on this. I don't want my money thrown in this money pit any more. If you want to put your money on it then that is your choice. I don't want to be a part of it any more. I want nuclear power because it works, and it works today. Wind and solar might work tomorrow, if that happens then I'll put my money on it too.

macpacheco wrote:
I want nuclear to succeed, but the fact is you can't experiment with nuclear like it can be done with solar/wind/batteries. You guys need to get some kind of leeway like was available in the 60s for nuclear research. Otherwise nuclear success if very iffy (at least in the USA and similarly nuclear ratcheted jurisdictions). Solve your problems instead of attacking other independent efforts.


I don't see this as an "attack" on wind and solar. I see this as a reasoned analysis of the progress we've made in wind and solar technology. We've gone a long way in a relatively short amount of time. The problem is that we're running into the limits of physics. We just cannot squeeze much out of this technology any more. We cannot extrapolate out on past gains to the future, it doesn't work that way. This isn't a linear function of money in to energy out, it's asymptotic. We hit a point of diminishing returns decades ago.

macpacheco wrote:
Attack the US NRC. Attack the anti nuclear movement. Attack the Obama administration for not providing one penny of nuclear startups. That's the real problem. Solar isn't the nuclear problem.


There's something we can agree upon.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 2:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
Tesla energy prices will drop, substantially. The Gigafactory is still 2 years from decent self production of Li Ion cells. Again you show you don't know (or want to acknowledge) a think about how solar WILL be just a few years from now.
Batteries cost 25 years to break even ? Then why are electrical utilities lining up to buy Tesla PowerPacks ? That depends on many assumptions, and I'm sure yours and the article's are the most biased against them.


Li Ion batteries have toxic materials ? Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel and Aluminium. Which are toxic ?
You're again thinking Ni Cd (off course Cd is toxic).
If you can't even recognize Lithium batteries than you're forfeiting the discussion, just shows your prejudice.


Many types of solar panels do have toxic materials, but there are plenty of ways to make them, Perovskite cells are still in lab, but are already producing on par with economic solar PV (20+% efficiency). It seems Perovskite cells will be the final breakthrough that will make solar ultra cheap.


Finally Solar PV doesn't need to be cheap at the wholesale level. It needs to be cheaper than retail electricity, which it is. By 2020 it will be cheaper than retail considering storage costs. I have explained this before. And by many other articles on the web at large. Oh, and how about we remove 100% of all subsidies from fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables and make a trully fair comparison ? If you're pro nuclear you should be against ALL explicit and implicit subsidies for fossil fuels.

So I'll say it again, this article is misleading, intentionally misrepresent the facts about solar.

Of course solar is intermittent. But for about half of the globe's population is an excellent electricity source (between 30N and 30S parallels or equatorial+tropical+hotter temperate land). Places where solar produces at least 40% as much on the worst winter week vs the best summer week. More electricity is used in the summer anyways.

Very cold places tend to have lots of big hydro (Canada, Scandinavia have for instance).
Solar is excellent for all of Central America, Caribean and South America, Africa, India, Middle East, Oceania.


You still sustain there's some magical cost wall renewables will hit soon and never move forward. That's bunk and you know it.


Currently economical solar panels are in the 15-22% efficiency range. 30% efficiency is possible in a few years, with the same cost per footage of panel (30% cheaper). By 2030 we'll have 40% efficient solar panels (600 Watts per panel) with the same prices as a 300 Watt panel costs today. Then we might be at the limits of physics.

Wind will evolve towards tethered airborne wind turbines at altitudes where the wind always blow fast enough, altitude will vary to achieve minimum fast enough speeds.

I've been watching and cheering and defending MSRs and Thorium vigorously for 3 years. And so far we have no design ready for certification for demonstration. And existing PWR/BWR projects are almost dead in North America and West Europe. We need solutions. Again nuclear problems have nothing to do with solar.

I'm always fighting with the anti nuclear idiots that say renewables are the magical answers, that we don't need nuclear. It's not. We need lots of nuclear too. But renewables are far from the bondogle that the pro nuclear guys make it look like too. Its a well established fact that some islands are running on solar+batteries today. Solar+batteries beat diesel generators easily already.

Solar subsidies in USA have been renewed until 2021. By then solar will be able to survive without any subsides.

BTW, I think wind energy credits are unfair. I don't think a wind turbine generating at max capacity at off peak hours should be given any credits when the grid is already flushed with electricity. Wind energy credits must be maintained only for wind farm with at least 6 hours of storage for nameplate capacity, or credits should be defined as a % of energy sales revenues.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 12, 2011 2:24 pm
Posts: 92
Location: Taunusstein, Germany
Quote:
Finally Solar PV doesn't need to be cheap at the wholesale level. It needs to be cheaper than retail electricity, which it is. By 2020 it will be cheaper than retail considering storage costs. I have explained this before. And by many other articles on the web at large.


But who is going to finance the electricity grid when more and more people make their own electricity with roof top solar and storage? With that, you will not get to a point where you not have to rely on the grid anymore. You will still rely on the grid, but let others pay for it (poorer people, businesses).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 6:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
macpacheco wrote:
Li Ion batteries have toxic materials ? Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel and Aluminium. Which are toxic ?


The fact you don't realisej ust how nasty Cobalt and Nickel are is rather sad.
They might not be as bad as cadmium but is far from nice (and yes, I know Cobalt is in Vitamin B12 - but only in minute amounts).
Cobalt is also in relatively short supply.

macpacheco wrote:
Many types of solar panels do have toxic materials, but there are plenty of ways to make them, Perovskite cells are still in lab, but are already producing on par with economic solar PV (20+% efficiency). It seems Perovskite cells will be the final breakthrough that will make solar ultra cheap.

Great, you now how very cheap electricity at midday in the summer (in most industrialised latitudes electricity production will be far lower than in winter - especially in Europe).
What do you the rest of the time? The bulk of your electricity consumption will have to be stored, and in the case of the UK example that I have data for, you will need lots of seasonal storage.
This is going to cost vast, vast amounts of money.
And you will also have wildly varying electricity rates that are highly problematic for industrial consumer.
macpacheco wrote:
Finally Solar PV doesn't need to be cheap at the wholesale level. It needs to be cheaper than retail electricity, which it is. By 2020 it will be cheaper than retail considering storage costs. I have explained this before. And by many other articles on the web at large. Oh, and how about we remove 100% of all subsidies from fossil fuels, nuclear and renewables and make a trully fair comparison ? If you're pro nuclear you should be against ALL explicit and implicit subsidies for fossil fuels.

So you intend for everyone to go entirely islanded?
The bulk of the costs of the electricity grid are independent of the amount of electricity delivered.
The easiest way to reduce the price of a unit of electricity is for everyone to use more electricity.

You will stil have to tax people to pay for the grid that they depend on for backup and security of supply, even if they only pull a few dozen kilowatt hours from it every year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
E Ireland wrote:
The fact you don't realisej ust how nasty Cobalt and Nickel are is rather sad.
They might not be as bad as cadmium but is far from nice (and yes, I know Cobalt is in Vitamin B12 - but only in minute amounts).
Cobalt is also in relatively short supply.

Want to compare that with U238 toxicity ?

Cobalt shortage has been predicted but is yet to arrive. Can you see the same bias of those that claim we'll run out of Uranium vs the facts ?


E Ireland wrote:
Great, you now how very cheap electricity at midday in the summer (in most industrialised latitudes electricity production will be far lower than in winter - especially in Europe).
What do you the rest of the time? The bulk of your electricity consumption will have to be stored, and in the case of the UK example that I have data for, you will need lots of seasonal storage.
This is going to cost vast, vast amounts of money.
And you will also have wildly varying electricity rates that are highly problematic for industrial consumer.

We've discussed this before. For places at high lattitude solar is stupid. But it works extremely well for Portugal/Spain/Southern France/Italy/Greece/all of Africa. The worst solar month vs the best in Lisbon is about double/half deal. The more insolation the more electricity is needed for AC consumption.

For instance solar is perfect for India. India is a tropical country. Just Asian countries in the tropical/equatorial range = 1/3 of the world's popullation (from the middle east all the way to Vietnam).
If you add the America's population as far north as Texas and as far south as Brazil, Africa, and the southern slice of Europe, I think that's half of the world's population. And solar should still be used MODESTLY in the rest of the world. Energiewende is STUPID. I have said this before. Germany has far more solar than it makes sense to have. If you have the slighest bit of open mindedness, you'll see I'm partially agreeing with you, but that you're also solidly half wrong too ! Very long distance transmission lines work and are practical. In different times of the year, São Paulo metro (population larger than NYC metro) could be drawing electricity from Itaipu 1000 miles away, Brasilia could be drawing from dams 2000 miles away. The important criteria is cheap electricity. Solar is still far from that economic tipping point, but it will get there. I don't dream of transmission lines between Europe and North America, but from Mexico to Canada or full integration of South America is possible (and Brazil already has the ability to ship many GWs for thousands of miles already).

E Ireland wrote:
So you intend for everyone to go entirely islanded?
The bulk of the costs of the electricity grid are independent of the amount of electricity delivered.
The easiest way to reduce the price of a unit of electricity is for everyone to use more electricity.

You will stil have to tax people to pay for the grid that they depend on for backup and security of supply, even if they only pull a few dozen kilowatt hours from it every year.


The optimal scenario is a hybrid local storage + grid tie system. Use storage to shave peak loads completely in the winter (buying a lot of cheap off peak power) and be somewhat autonomous in the summer. If you understand this completely, the user is helping the grid get rid of its peaking plants, and could reduce need for some grid upgrades (based on peak loads).

Until we admit that the world's energy market has subsidies EVERYWHERE, and that there would be NO NUCLEAR POWER without the implicit subsidy the US/Russian navies gave to nuclear energy R&D.

Solar price will drop by a whole order of magnitude until it reaches some stability point. Solar generation at 1 cent / kWh or less. The current price needs to be low enough we can keep increasing solar PV production continously (which is still tiny if we'll ever have 1/3 of total world combined energy production coming from solar).
The curve is 22% price drop for every doubling in installed capacity. In order for solar to reach just 5% of worldwide electricity on today's demand we'll go through at least 4 doublings, 22% price drops, or a 2/3 reduction in costs.
With each doubling solar becomes viable for more applications.

It's also hard for you to see solar and wind as useful until you accept that the future is battery electric cars. We'll eventually move from Li ion to even better chemical formulations, BEV is even 5% of new cars built.


Tesla is moving forward full speed with its Gigafactory, planning to make 35GWh / year of Li Ion cells and using 15GWh / year of sourced cells. Elon Musk have consistently shown he knows what he's doing, and specifically said there is no shortage of materials to make Li Ion cells even @ 100% BEV penetration. So I'll believe the guy that's investing billions on this, instead of the guy that wants him to fail. Plus the future of stationary storage is flow / iron air batteries which have completely different resource requirements.

Once the world has tens of millions of BEVs, a lot of charging will happen at off peak hours (good for wind and nuclear), but a lot of charging could be shifted to day time in the summer. Its called the smart grid. It's not a theory, it has been tested in the real world in some areas. Tesla cars are software upgradeable, could easily shift their charging times based on availability criteria, and by the time penetration is significant range will be in the 300 mile range, enough the car only needs to be charged twice or even once a week. 10 million cars with 100kWh pack each = 1 TWh of total storage capacity. Now think 1 billion cars ! Total electricity demand for transportation might exceed non transportation electricity requirements, which will change the whole architecture.


I know there are significant assumptions here. A lot of grid and social engineering (habits) will be needed. I wish I could count on 1TW worth of new nuclear by 2030, but so far its far more of a dream than the solar/wind path.
We need an actual solution. The more you reject the solution that is possible and have no regulatory problems, the more you loose me on the nuclear side.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Last edited by macpacheco on Dec 26, 2015 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
macpacheco wrote:
Want to compare that with U238 toxicity ?


I am not proposing to forge depleted uranium into thin sheets and spread it all over the place across the roofs of every house in the nation.

E Ireland wrote:
We've discussed this before. For places at high lattitude solar is stupid. But it works extremely well for Portugal/Spain/Southern France/Italy/Greece/all of Africa. The worst solar month vs the best in Lisbon is about double/half deal. The more insolation the more electricity is needed for AC consumption.

You will still need massive load shift - peak insolation occurs several hours before peak temperatures, and thus peak AC load demand.
macpacheco wrote:
For instance solar is perfect for India. India is a tropical country. Just Asian countries in the tropical/equatorial range = 1/3 of the world's popullation (from the middle east all the way to Vietnam).

Also the fraction of the world where temperatures at night tend to be high and AC turns into a baseload rather than peak load on the grid.
macpacheco wrote:
How will you supply AC at night (and from experience, even in the Balearic Isles, AC use at night is common in housing).
And solar should still be used MODESTLY in the rest of the world. Energiewende is STUPID. I have said this before. Germany has far more solar than it makes sense to have. If you have the slighest bit of open mindedness, you'll see I'm partially agreeing with you, but that you're also solidly half wrong too !


Why? In the UK [which is the only place I have proper data for] Solar makes almost no sense at all - all it does is reduce the capacity factor of existing generating plant. Daytime summer is a time of lower than average electricity demand - as such all you do is turn baseload into peaking power.
And production in the winter is almost negligible - in January you get (in Penzance, so as far south as we can get) a tenth of what you do on average in July/August.
If anything if we want nuclear rollout we would want to encourage AC installation and discourage solar installation.
macpacheco wrote:
The optimal scenario is a hybrid local storage + grid tie system. Use storage to shave peak loads completely in the winter (buying a lot of cheap off peak power) and be somewhat autonomous in the summer. If you understand this completely, the user is helping the grid get rid of its peaking plants, and could reduce need for some grid upgrades (based on peak loads).

But grid upgrades cost about $50/kVA according to PNNL, and that is capital. Per year it amortises down to about $1.50/kVA. Remember that an 11kV circuit costs as much to install per kilometre as a 400V one (both underground and above ground - the price of the conductors/insulators is negligible) but can carry 20+ times as much power.

Its to the point that it would be almost cheaper to discontinue gas use entirely and decommission the domestic gas distribution system in favour of total electrification using CCGTs and resistive heaters, let alone air to air cycle heat pumps.
macpacheco wrote:
Until we admit that the world's energy market has subsidies EVERYWHERE, and that there would be NO NUCLEAR POWER without the implicit subsidy the US government gave to nuclear R&D.

That money is gone, we can't unlearn everything we know about nuclear power reactors and magically make the money appear again.
The question is how we move forward from here.
macpacheco wrote:
Solar price will drop by a whole order of magnitude until it reaches some stability point. Solar generation at 1 cent / kWh or less. The current price needs to be low enough we can keep increasing solar PV production continously (which is still tiny if we'll ever have 1/3 of total world combined energy production coming from solar).
The curve is 22% price drop for every doubling in installed capacity. In order for solar to reach just 3% of worldwide electricity on today's demand we'll go through 4 doublings, 22% price drops, or a 2/3 reduction in costs.
With each doubling solar becomes viable for more applications.

You will run into hard material limits sooner or later.
It is dangerous to keep projecting base on past trends.
macpacheco wrote:
It's also hard for you to see solar and wind as useful until you accept that the future is battery electric cars. We'll eventually move from Li ion to even better chemical formulations, BEV is even 5% of new cars built.

That depends on what model for BEV deployment you chose.
They may or may not be available for grid support - people chosing to run up fatigue cycles on their batteries is far from certain You may end up with a simple controllable load or even with a simple off peak tarrif load if you are unlucky.

macpacheco wrote:
Tesla is moving forward full speed with its Gigafactory, planning to make 35GWh / year of Li Ion cells and using 15GWh / year of sourced cells. Elon Musk have consistently shown he knows what he's doing, and specifically said there is no shortage of materials to make Li Ion cells even @ 100% BEV penetration. So I'll believe the guy that's investing billions on this, instead of the guy that wants him to fail. Plus the future of stationary storage is flow / iron air batteries which have completely different resource requirements.

Is this the same Tesla motors which is haemmorhaging money and issuing huge new stock issues to raise capital in a desperate attempt to keep the company afloat?
The Gigafactory is his last throw of the dice.
(I have been following Tesla for years, If you've read my seldom updated blog you will notice I talk about my proposed 'Atomic Future' with an all electric society.)
macpacheco wrote:
Once the world has tens of millions of BEVs, a lot of charging will happen at off peak hours (good for wind and nuclear), but a lot of charging could be shifted to day time in the summer. Its called the smart grid. It's not a theory, it has been tested in the real world in some areas.


I have serious social and economic problems with the smart grid - the only way to get people to cooperate would be an electricity price that changes from day to day or hour to hour or even minute to minute. Which means poorer people will be forced to spend their lives watching their weather forecasts and the price displayed on an electricity meter - planning their activities accordingly.
Familiies having to have breakfast at 4am because they can't afford to make toast, boil a kettle or have a hot shower at normal times is not my idea of a utopian future.

macpacheco wrote:
I know there are significant assumptions here. A lot of grid and social engineering (habits) will be needed. I wish I could count on 1TW worth of new nuclear by 2030, but so far its far more of a dream than the solar/wind path.
We need an actual solution. The more you reject the solution that is possible and have no regulatory problems, the more you loose me on the nuclear side.

Social engineering is an order of magnitude or two more expensive than actual engineering. I learned this some time ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 8:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
There are some clearly marked signs of your confirmation bias.

Tesla isn't wasting money. Its investing money on massive uptooling and world class R&D.

Tesla production has been growing 50% year over year non stop, up tooling costs a lot of money, and they're learning how to optimize costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Mot ... uarter.png
Q4 always has the biggest jump every year, projections for Q4 2015 is 16-18k deliveries.


If you account for 2012 investment against 2013 production, 2013 investment against 2014 production, 2014 investment against 2015 production, Tesla is a very profitable business.
Tesla has stated that 2016 will end cash bleed while continuing production increases of 50%. Lots of significant investments were done thinking at least two years ahead, and those investments are starting to pay off substantially for starters, painting facility still at 20% of capacity, production line tooling just reaching full capacity for current tooling (2000 cars / wk). There were plenty of week long shutdowns to implement those up tooling changes, normal when a company has a single assembly line. Model X investments only now started to generate some revenue (and will only result in substantial numbers in Q1 2016).


Tesla is an open company. Why do I see NO article claiming what you state from reputable financial analysts ?

If you look at the first 10 years of amazon.com financials you'll see the exact same pattern. Except making cars is very investment intensive.
How square do you have to be to realize this is the result of Tesla not paying one peny to the mainstream media complex, which gives the media every incentive to create all sorts of doom and gloom for Tesla ?
Pools range from 95 to 99% of current Tesla owners stating their next car will be a Tesla. Which car company can claim such loyalty ? Take a look at Tesla full autopilot, performance of a 500k car @ 150k price (Tesla Model S P90DL does 2.8 seconds 0-60mph/0-100km/h), the safest car in the world period, the most inovative car ever.


It's really hard to see what you truly don't want to see. This is all the proof I need to know for sure you're solidly bound by your pro nuclear BOX, you'll never see outside of it. No point in debating you.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
macpacheco wrote:
There are some clearly marked signs of your confirmation bias.

Tesla isn't wasting money. Its investing money on massive uptooling and world class R&D.

Tesla production has been growing 50% year over year non stop, up tooling costs a lot of money, and they're learning how to optimize costs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Mot ... uarter.png
Q4 always has the biggest jump every year, projections for Q4 2015 is 16-18k deliveries.


Yes, uptooling in automotive applications costs a lot of money.
A stupendous amount of money - which is why there hasn't been a succesful new mass manufacturer of cars in the west in a very, very, very long time.
Attempting to start car production from scratch is insanely risky bet, as is moving from a niche car manufacturer [and 16-18k/quarter is a niche production rate] to a mass market one.

macpacheco wrote:
Tesla has stated that 2016 will end cash bleed while continuing production increases of 50%. Lots of significant investments were done thinking at least two years ahead, and those investments are starting to pay off substantially for starters, painting facility still at 20% of capacity, production line tooling just reaching full capacity for current tooling (2000 cars / wk). There were plenty of week long shutdowns to implement those up tooling changes, normal when a company has a single assembly line. Model X investments only now started to generate some revenue (and will only result in substantial numbers in Q1 2016).


Yes, but there is no guarantee Model X will be a success - and if it is not Tesla is dead.
Ford or GM could take a lemon model - but Tesla cannot.
macpacheco wrote:
Tesla is an open company. Why do I see NO article claiming what you state from reputable financial analysts ?

If you look at the first 10 years of amazon.com financials you'll see the exact same pattern. Except making cars is very investment intensive.

You do remember the dotcom boom right? Most companies with these financials tend to crash and burn.
macpacheco wrote:
How square do you have to be to realize this is the result of Tesla not paying one peny to the mainstream media complex, which gives the media every incentive to create all sorts of doom and gloom for Tesla ?

....what?
Its all part of a massive media conspiracy against Tesla?
macpacheco wrote:
Pools range from 95 to 99% of current Tesla owners stating their next car will be a Tesla. Which car company can claim such loyalty ? Take a look at Tesla full autopilot, performance of a 500k car @ 150k price (Tesla Model S P90DL does 2.8 seconds 0-60mph/0-100km/h), the safest car in the world period, the most inovative car ever.

Tesla is the only manufacturer of all electric, luxury cars. There isn't really anywhere for people who want such a thing (which constitute the majority of Model S users, Roadster being even more niche) to go - so it is not surprising they have amazing brand loyaty.

And making $150k cars is not going to get large penetration of BEVs.
Come back when you have a usable $15k BEV.
macpacheco wrote:
It's really hard to see what you truly don't want to see. This is all the proof I need to know for sure you're solidly bound by your pro nuclear BOX, you'll never see outside of it. No point in debating you.

I must be in a pro nuclear box because I do not fall down to my knees and praise all works of Elon Musk as inherently perfect?
(For example, for all the glorious publicity and praise Space X has achieved.... all they have done is get launch prices down to where they are somewhat competitive with Proton and Ariane.....)
BEVs are a long long way from being competitive in real life settings - and even further from being usable for grid support. That would require a control infrastructure we aren't even sure of how to arrange. Charging algorithms wil have to be designed and tested from scratch in real world applications to avoid massive load swings that will collapse the grid - and we do not know whether people are willing to accept their car battery having an uncertain state of chage in the morning when they want to drive it to work.

All this will require lots of R&D spending - spending that would be better spent just pumping out J series CCGTs and LWRs as fast as we possibly can.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
You realize every one of your arguments are Fear Uncertainty and Doubt rather than support your statement that Tesla IS going to fail as a certain thing (or even very high likelyhood thing).

With your mentality there would be no SpaceX. Yet SpaceX is a mortal threat to United Launch Alliance and Arianespace.



I'm not going to waste my time repeating answers to every single one of your points, you can find them on the internet a hundred times over.

Tesla Model X has 30 thousand reservations. Tesla will limit Model S production throught 2016 just to deliver the whole backlog of MX orders.

I'm not trying to convince you, just leaving my bet documented so I can reinforce how shortsighted you are as the forecasts become numbers.

2015 sales will break US$ 5 billion for the first time. Not bad for a company that is destined to fail and go bankrupt.
2016 should break 80k MS+MX deliveries plus around US$ 1 billion in Tesla Energy deliveries (and there's still Tesla drive trains sold to Mercedes and a few other car makers). Around US$ 8 billion in sales.
2016 should break 110k MS+MS deliveries plus several billions in Tesla Energy deliveries. At least US$ 12 billion in sales (as much as US$ 15 billion).

Talk to you when full FY 2015 numbers come out. See ya then !


Meanwhile I predict there will be ZERO MSR reactors under construction (even demo reactors) until 2020.
While Tesla is actually doing real world work, new nuclear is stuck in the paper world.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 9:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3790
Location: Alabama
macpacheco wrote:
With your mentality there would be no SpaceX. Yet SpaceX is a mortal threat to United Launch Alliance and Arianespace.


*laugh*

United Launch Alliance and Arianespace are the greatest threats to United Launch Alliance and Arianespace.

macpacheco wrote:
Meanwhile I predict there will be ZERO MSR reactors under construction (even demo reactors) until 2020.
While Tesla is actually doing real world work, new nuclear is stuck in the paper world.


You doing anything to change that, chum? Or just blathering on the internet?

Read "The PayPal Wars". About how Elon conned Confinity into merging with his X.com, then conning them to make him CEO, all with no real product or strategy. After a few months of his terrible "leadership" they staged a coup while he was at the 2000 summer Olympics and kicked him out. But he kept his stock, and a few years later (2002) when EBay bought PayPal Elon got very very rich on a company that he did not create and did nothing to build. Rather every move he made weakened it. Based on his loot from PayPal, he started SpaceX. Later he took over Tesla. Not quite the hero you imagine.

macpacheco wrote:
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Looking for the doers who build the companies that change the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
macpacheco wrote:
You realize every one of your arguments are Fear Uncertainty and Doubt rather than support your statement that Tesla IS going to fail as a certain thing (or even very high likelyhood thing).

With your mentality there would be no SpaceX. Yet SpaceX is a mortal threat to United Launch Alliance and Arianespace.

United Launch Alliance is a disaster that exists to loot public money from the US Government - it is and has always been hopelessly uncompetitive, in a free market it would have been crushed by Arianespace or International Launch Services a long time ago.
And SpaceX still does not have a working heavy lifter - as Falcon Heavy keeps being pushed back, until that happens it can't even hope to compete as it can't lift the heavy sats that make the money.

And Ariane 6 will arrive in a few years time and push the envelope further, after all Ariane 5 is a fully man rated launcher and thus would be expected to cost more.

macpacheco wrote:
I'm not going to waste my time repeating answers to every single one of your points, you can find them on the internet a hundred times over.

Tesla Model X has 30 thousand reservations. Tesla will limit Model S production throught 2016 just to deliver the whole backlog of MX orders.


30 thousand reservations is nothing? If you want reasonable BEV penetration we need to be talking millions of units.
macpacheco wrote:
2015 sales will break US$ 5 billion for the first time. Not bad for a company that is destined to fail and go bankrupt.
2016 should break 80k MS+MX deliveries plus around US$ 1 billion in Tesla Energy deliveries (and there's still Tesla drive trains sold to Mercedes and a few other car makers). Around US$ 8 billion in sales.
2016 should break 110k MS+MS deliveries plus several billions in Tesla Energy deliveries. At least US$ 12 billion in sales (as much as US$ 15 billion).

Talk to you when full FY 2015 numbers come out. See ya then !

Lots of companies have had huge sales and still gone bankrupt - the problem is not how much money comes in, but the balance of money coming in and going out the door. It is not "destined" to fail and I never said it was, I merely pointed out this is a very dangerous game and one slip will end them.
You cannot, by any means, take their success for granted.
macpacheco wrote:
Meanwhile I predict there will be ZERO MSR reactors under construction (even demo reactors) until 2020.
While Tesla is actually doing real world work, new nuclear is stuck in the paper world.


Then what about those 100+ units under construction around the world, they must be just mirages?
I don't really care about MSRs, they are primarily an interesting technical challenge to me.
The LWR with a once through cycle can support humanity for dozens of millenia at Quebec levels of electricity use.
Seawater extraction of uranium has changed everything. (Even at its inflated current price of $600+/kg).

EDIT:

I just checked something - a Tesla powerwall can deliver ~7kW peak and costs $4k including installation.
That comes out at something like $550/kW.
Once you include the cost of diversity (since you have to have one for each house) that is going to get close to a J series CCGT plant with 61.5% full load (and 55% fractional load) efficiency at $1,000/kW.

At which point I have a plant that can use cheap gas to produce power indefinitely against a battery pack with the same rated output that can keep it up for under two hours.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 10:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 29, 2014 4:05 am
Posts: 269
Location: Vitoria-ES-Brazil
PWR/BWR have zero chance of mass adoption in North America and Western Europe. It will take too much social engineering to convince voters they're safe, and unless you convince voters, they will crush politicians that support nuclear power. Just because I'm ok with PWR/BWR doesn't mean others are. Tough lesson I gather from trying to talk to friends and colleagues.

Falcon Heavy is 3 F9R first stages side by side... There were many times more changes between Falcon 9 v1.0 and v1.1 than there are between the first Falcon Heavy and the current Falcon 9 v1.2 (just launched for the first time with 100% success).

F9R 1.2 (full thrust) is going to launch a 5.3 ton satellite to GEO transfer orbit. The largest GEO satellite ever is 7.1 tons. Falcon Heavy will have 2x the lifting capability of Ariane V, and it will launch in 2016.

Ariane 5 is just as much as a money pit as Delta IV. Ariane demands just as much subsidies to survive as ULA. ULA does state by state sourcing, Ariane does country by country sourcing. Just as inefficient. Again... Your bias is transparent. Europe good, America bad. Facts don't matter. The only somewhat affordable ULA LV uses Russian engine.

Tesla Model 3 will achieve millions in yearly production. Its a well known FACT that first generation of anything totally new will be toys for the rich (Roadster), 2nd generation toys for the upper middle class (Model S/X), 3rd generation useable merchandise for the middle class (Model 3/Y), then you might get to a product that everyone can buy (perhaps by 2030). But of course that's too outlandish for your prejudice. Just look at the history of LED/LCD TVs.

When you don't want to see, its invisible to your eyes.

You have just as much prejudice as the anti nuclear people, just directed towards other things.

_________________
Looking for companies working to change the world.


Last edited by macpacheco on Dec 26, 2015 10:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Dec 26, 2015 10:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2011 12:06 am
Posts: 225
macpacheco wrote:
Meanwhile I predict there will be ZERO MSR reactors under construction (even demo reactors) until 2020.
While Tesla is actually doing real world work, new nuclear is stuck in the paper world.


MSR nuclear is "stuck in the paper world" due mainly to regulatory roadblocks, which in turn affects investment in R&D. As much time as you spend on this site, I would think you would know that.

As for Tesla, I strongly suspect that they are a limousine liberal fad. Liberals with lots of money burning a hole in their pocket make themselves feel better by investing in "green" technology. That's what they do instead of giving to a church or charity. Then of course they pressure the government to force everyone to contribute to "charity" through taxation.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group