I think there was an indifference in market perception regarding the 35K price of the Model 3. This same price had been alluded to earlier. It is the price before any rebates, though. Given that the average new car price is somewhere around 33K, this is a pretty interesting price point for a 200 mile EV.
The issue was more along the lines of when the car would be delivered to the consumer. This date has been pushed out now about 6+ months. I think this is what disappointed the market. OTOH Tesla in now planning on pushing its Model X first, which is surely a much higher profit margin vehicle. They also offered a battery/performance upgrade package for the Roadster at the same time.
Some speculate, and it is only speculation, that there are only so many lithium cells available per week and that the huge potential sales of the smaller Tesla could conceivably drain the market of available cells. This might explain the delayed delivery of the Model 3. Additional speculation is that the Tesla manufacturing line can only produce so many cars and models at a time.
In any case, I think the future is still good for Tesla and the stock price will reflect that over time.
This kind of inflammatory language is precisely the reason so little gets done cooperatively in politics. Try toning it down a little and maybe civility can have a chance to flourish...
The board doesn't have to tell us anything until they make a decision. I'm sure this decision can be much more complex than you perceive. There is no indication that anything 'smells' as you put it.
Probably the hydrogen is stored in the dispensing facility as a gas at 10,000+psi pressure...maybe as high as 14,000 psi. When it is released into the Mirai's tank, which is at a presumably lower pressure, it will heat up considerably during compression. This will lower the amount of gas that can be injected into the Mirai's tank and also make the tank quite hot. The tank is only air-cooled and can't easily dump the heat of compression into the surroundings.
Having the hydrogen gas at the pump cooled to -40, the final temperature/pressure of the Mirai tank is in acceptable limits after filling. I always wondered how much of a problem this might be for FC tank filling as I know how hot a metal scuba tank can get during filling...
Years ago, $5 a kilogram was touted on this board as the 'actual cost of hydrogen', despite all evidence to the contrary.
I agree. The Mirai has a 5 KG capacity at 10,000 psi.
I am amused to see that the big CO2 polluting trip to Alaska by the President and his large tag-along staff brought no satisfaction to the environmentalists as China, India and Russia refused to sign the document...even if it was a non-binding agreement.
Yet the President agreed to deploy more ice-breakers in the Arctic to counter the increased ice breakers and military ships of other nations. Now the ice floe will be more mobile and more easily flushed from the Arctic Ocean and the huge increase in black particulate from diesel exhaust will accelerate the ice melting faster than ever before...
Yes hypocrisy and idiocy are still alive and well in la-la land.
There is a lot of interesting information in this post.
- Hydrogen is pre-cooled to -40F presumably to limit overheating during compression in the Mirai tank. This adds to the cost of the dispensed fuel.
- Hydrogen cost is $14.00/kg (Closer to the real cost than the earlier touted $5 /kg numbers).
- Does the Mirai really only have a .67kg useable tank capacity? That would mean stopping every 38 miles for refueling? That doesn't seem right...
- The Fountain Valley facility probably represents one of the most expensive forms of hydrogen production.
There's no 'tee hee' about this, jake. You must consider the whole picture when taking a stance. It's clear that you are not doing so.
You take full advantage of all the power and reliability that the grid offers you today. And that means you accept accept the pollution and waste that it produces and the taxes you pay for clean-up and de-comissioning. If you truly don't, then you should disconnect immediately so you don't retain the hypocrisy of your statements.
It's one thing to support different and cleaner technologies, but you have to be willing to accept the costs and understand the trade-offs, too. By not discussing these in their overall context it makes it clear that the understanding of your position is substantially incomplete.
This year there has been a 6% drop in US wind power output despite a 9% increase in Installed wind power capacity. The culprit is being blamed on the current El Nino that lowers wind speeds across the US slightly. Since wind power output is exponentially correlated to wind speed a small drop in average wind speed can make a big difference in output. And vice versa.
I think it is almost a complete fallacy to think that solar and wind can meet all the US electrical needs just because one thinks storage is the panacea to the production/consumption equation. How much excess wind/ solar and storage might we need to meet every conceivable weather/environmental situation that one could imagine so that no-one in the country ever lacks for power at any moment in time for any demand situation?
It is inconceivable to think that we would never need a reliable base load power system that runs 24/7 to meet future needs. Can you think of trying to meet the need of a 500 megawatt materials processing facility just by managing wind mills, solar PV and storage? Can you imagine the size of such a power generating system that would provide such uninterruptible power to an aluminum smelter?
What makes you think these are NOT 'normal' circumstances? The price per share is what the entire market thinks it's worth is looking forward about half a year. All the optimists, pessimists, looking at the potential, looking at the debt, looking at the global economy, looking at the geopolitics...everything integrated into what someone is willing to pay and to what someone is willing to sell for.
I would argue that this is the 'correct' price per share until perceptions change...
I purchased my first third of my intended position just before close yesterday. Glad to join the current investors.
There is an article that helps explain how one can get to 60% cap factor windmills, but there are many caveats. I would suspect that only a very small percentage can achieve that. However, adding in compressed air storage to intermittent wind can make a huge difference and I believe this is a viable future option to making wind power a major portion of AE.
High Capacity Factor Wind Energy Systems
That being said, I must agree with missjhurt that the beatiiful west and central plains viewing areas are becoming forever damaged by the presence of moving, ungainly, white skeletal structures protruding above the ground that can be seen from 20 miles away. I hope PV solar can take a much higher fraction of energy harvesting than wind mills as we move forward...
Did the scientist note whether we have finished warming from the LIA yet. If we have, then we are still 1 degree cooler than where we were 10,000 years ago when we exited the last major ice age. Oh yeah...and then there is the question of why 0.6 degrees temperature has been added to the temperature record through 'adjustments' since 1945. What does he say about that?
And because you are continually so dense about such things, I never said that CO2 had no effect, said it was very little effect. Someday maybe you will remember that?
Shady? Self interest? Suppressing the price? Hypocracy?
Yes to all the above. And I didn't bring any politics into this.
Oh, yes... It's spelled hypocrisy.