He is averaging 43 posts per day for the last 20 days under this one alias, so we'll see if the safari keeps him off the internet like he says it will
Are you taking all your alias's with you? Guess we will see that your telling the truth about your trip if there are no posts for a month.
More Puget Sound jobs gone again per McNerney's plan. Give the Puget Sound 777-x wings, and take away elsewhere. As long as it isn't composite wing work research jobs, it might make sense.
I doubt that is possible since it would have to go thru a bidding process to avoid anti-competivness law suites by the other manufacturers. Just like ELON does when Space-x didn't get to bid on some contracts.
Why do you think a battery factory needs massive amounts of water?
you can't add in water usage by the employees since they would be using the same amount of water no matter where they are.
t took Boeing Co. 10 bumpy years to turn its 787 Dreamliner concept into a commercial success. The journey was fraught with costly redesigns and production delays. But it was worth it.
At least that’s the conclusion from aerospace analysts at Jefferies, who in a note published Thursday write that all those setbacks taught Boeing lessons it is now profiting from by taking steps to optimize capital, labor and its supply chain.
According to their note, these efforts have the potential to lift operating margins in the company’s commercial aviation business to 15% by the end of the decade from a forecast 12% in 2017-18.
What’s this mean to the bottom line? Jefferies estimates it will add about $2 billion in incremental pretax profit, or as much as $12 a share.
And the benefits are not bestowed on the 787 program alone, but spilling over into other key programs, such as the Boeing 737.
Meanwhile, Jefferies says demand for the 787 could hit $500 billion over the next two decades, with deliveries topping 3,000 planes.
“With only about 185 deliveries and cumulative revenues in the range of $20 billion, we think Boeing has 95% of the opportunity in front of it. The present value of this opportunity alone could be well in excess of 40% of the company’s current share price.”
"2017 Tesla Model 3 Starting Price: $50,000, According To A Sobering Report On Tesla’s Future Challenges" is the title of the article. Do a yahoo search to find it.
Do you really believe Panasonic or TESLA is going to invent this new technology and not someone else who could patent it?
I just added 2 million shares to my yahoo portfolio at fifty cents like it was in 2009. What a bundle I made. Where can I buy lobster and wine with my monopoly money?
Why would he go ahead and spend money to build them, he has already pocketed the money he receives in extra energy credits for the concept when he sold them to other auto manufacturers. No need to spend money on it now.
A recent(Sept 2) article says TESLA is averaging 429 units/month in Norway this year(it also says 436 average since starting to sell them about a year ago), From your numbers, they are averaging 392/month. The article is stating a number about 9.5% higher than yours. Which one is correct. I can understand 1 or 2 percent difference, but 9.5%?
While the Model S seems like it would be a more difficult car to turn into a convertible, the engineering company's CEO and lead engineer Al Zadeh said it wasn't.
Zadeh said the Tesla is a well-built vehicle and that made it a little easier to customize the car.
Found a 2013 article that says coal was the highest source at 39% with natural gas coming in second. Didn't notice the original article was outdated and was not meant to mislead. My mistake, I don't see a date on the original article
I didn't notice the date, here is an article from 2012, can't find anything more current at this time, but it does appear to have dropped to 45%
"coal electricity, coal power plants - World Coal Association"