Ignoring keef and pwdy is an agnostic and very effective way to waste less time here than many of us already do.
Either great minds think alike or I'm going to insult you by saying that we are in agreement on almost every point you made. ;-)
Three cheers for the non-extremists!
Wow, you sure do a lot of traveling and to a lot of interesting places at that.
It's interesting to see the conflicts that you've noted between basic economics ie the most cost beneficial system, the village/tribal preferences for maintenance jobs, gov't renewable requirements and the "economic connections to some local authorities". I don't envy you having to sort through all of this.
I'm assuming that the most remote areas with ICE generators don't have direct fuel supplies so refueling is expensive. It'll be interesting to see how many of these installations in the future are displaced by solar, batteries or both.
Too bad it hasn't worked out that way. However, until Tesla pulls out of Germany sales are clearly weak but the game isn't over yet.
Is it time again for another ballcoach Hall of Fame stupidity post?
"Improvement in cost? LOL! Average selling price of the 4dr is just a bit over $100,000. the Roadster, $120,000. THIS is an improvement?"
Is $100,000 less than $120,000? I assume others can help you out here.
Is the 85's $80,000 starting price less than $120,000? Answer: yes. Answer for car salesmen: yes but it doesn't matter. What do you want your monthly payment to be?!
The Roadster had room for 2 people and very little cargo. The MS seats 5 comfortably and has more cargo room than perhaps any car it's size or modestly larger.
You are a one-man misinformation campaign. The Volt is the cleanest comparison. Despite a lower starting price:
■ Battery: Drivers can cover 50 miles on batteries alone before the 1.5-liter range extender kicks in, up from 38 in the 2015 Volt.
■ Range: 420 miles on a fully charged battery and full tank of regular gas, up from 350 in Generation 1, which requires premium gas.
■ Efficiency: The two-motor electric drive unit is 12% more efficient and 100 pounds lighter than its predecessor. It can accelerate from 0 to 30 m.p.h. in 2.6 seconds compared with 3.2 seconds in the current model.
■ Weight: The battery pack is more than 20 pounds lighter than the one in Gen 1 Volt and there are 96 fewer cells (192 vs. 288).
■ Fuel rating: The new 1.5-liter range extender engine offers a combined highway and city estimated fuel efficiency of 41 m.p.g. (EPA certification pending), up from the EPA-certified 35 m.p.g. in the original.
"The majority of the land--1,863 acres--is buffer land, on which Tesla won't build structures but could place solar arrays to provide power to the plant, a spokeswoman said. The remaining 110 acres is for industrial purposes, though Tesla says it hasn't planned to expand beyond its original footprint yet."
"The nearly 3,000-acre site takes up about 2% of Storey County's land area and dwarfs most factory locations. The Tesla spokeswoman says the company has options to purchase several thousand more acres as well."
Pat Whitten , the Storey County administrator, said the factory announcement has been followed by a rush of developments by other companies, including those connected to Tesla. Panasonic Corp. , Tesla's primary partner in the battery factory, is bringing up to 15 additional companies to provide components, according to a presentation by Storey County building and community development director Dean Haymore ."
"Talk about global warming...!!! Has anyone ever felt the heat given off from a 2000W inverter...?"
No but at 97% efficiency that's what, 60 watts of heat generation?
So you're a fan of hydro not batteries while also not happy about inverter losses during charge/discharge cycles? How many hydro facilities are located near large cities and how many more are likely to be constructed? If I remember correctly, there was a report showing the cost of building new power generation. Hydro wasn't all that cheap and batteries came in lower as I recall. On top of that, many environmentalists are against hydro and have forced some dams to be taken down so if Tesla sells it's utility scale packs for $250/kwh, they will be more cost effective than new hydro, can be deployed far more quickly, can be scaled more easily and can be located almost precisely where it's most beneficial. And that doesn't include additional battery benefits like line stability etc. that hydro can't offer.
"The raw battery cell pricing is one thing. What about the perceived entire system cost to the customer?"
"Tesla has wholesale price talk of $25K per powerpack. but what is the full price to the customer?"
As I originally posted:
"...ERDF has learned that battery storage in Europe costs 500 to 1,000 euros per kilowatt/hour (KWh), with an extra 30 percent for installation and the inverters..."
The price of electricity will skyrocket? Really? So the utilities that offer lower rates at night are doing so because...? Here in CA, it's the renewables push that's responsible for a lot of our higher rates, not EVs. Even so, there's a limit to much higher rates can go because solar, even unsubsidized, becomes competitive so unlike gas powered ICEs, EV owners have options.
EVs won't "become cheap"? You might want to put down that brick cell phone and look at the improvement in cost, range, size, features etc. of the MS over the Roadster, the Gen 2 Volt (out in Sept) over Gen 1, etc. The improvements over just the last 2 years is quite remarkable-and just beginning.
What makes Tesla "exclusive"...? Other companies?
I'll sort of answer with a question: how do you explain the pricing on the project below vs. Tesla's announced $250/kwh? How could a project with presumed experts and established companies command pricing 2x-4x that of Tesla's? Note that even at the high pricing the article mentions, battery storage is still viable in some areas which means at Tesla's announced pricing it will be viable in far, far more areas:
"But the cost of batteries is the project's Achilles Heel.
From the Nice pilot, ERDF has learned that battery storage in Europe costs 500 to 1,000 euros per kilowatt/hour (KWh), with an extra 30 percent for installation and the inverters that turn direct current solar power into the alternate current used on the grid, an ERDF official said.
At that level, battery storage would already be economically viable in certain parts of Germany and Denmark, where renewable energy use is most advanced and where retail power rates, at around 30 eurocents per kilowatt/hour (KWh), are among the highest in Europe, according to Eurostat data."
Thanks for posting the article n0m0.
"The real need for all of us it to cut demand across the board."
Speak for yourself. You don't speak for me. I'd prefer to live a higher quality and more comfortable life, moderated if there's a compelling reason to do so. I think most people feel the same. It's called progress and it's the result in part of cheaper AND cleaner energy. The environmental extremists (note that not all environmentalists are extremists) hurt more people than they help by pushing their "my way only" agenda. Here in CA, the cramdown of renewables has somewhat helped air quality but raised prices for everyone. At the same time those on the lower end of the economic spectrum have seen their power bills go up, solar subsidies have benefited the very few and mostly wealthy homeowners with large homes and EVs, effectively pushing their rates well below those of the majority of ratepayers even though these installations are not nearly as cost effective as large scale installations. If incentives are going to be offered, make them the most cost effective and widely beneficial: incent large scale installations and those that benefit ALL ratepayers; residential solar fails both tests.
BTW a large part of our water problem here is also due to environmental extremists. No desalination plants allowed, water diverted with little compromise due to environmental "concerns" etc. The irony: climate change is their big concern so now after preventing the building of desal plants and continuing to block them, we're spending around $1 billion to have people tear out their lawns...to install artificial grass. Replacing real grass with fake, letting other lawns and plants die. In other words, killing and removing the things that absorb co2 and are good for the environment while burning energy ie creating co2 to manufacture and install the dead stuff while killing the living stuff. And water rates are now going up, even if you're using less and you're not rich. Despicable.
My recollection was that Tesla planned to spend $300 million on the GF in 2015.
"Utilities may "love" batteries. Why? Because every installed battery set will consume 10% of the power generated from somewhere. That means more money for the utilities in the end because they have to make up for this charging loss."
LOL jmcvicker can twist anything to make it fit his nefarious theories. For the rest of you, battery storage could lower line losses, offsetting charging/discharging losses but more significantly avoiding the need to build, expand or fire up peaker plants is beneficial to everyone-ratepayers and utilities. There is also discussion of how battery storage could reduce grid maintenance and upgrades.
C'mon, 20 million per year for Tesla? 25% of the global market? EVs yes, Tesla no.
The EV business model in general and Tesla's in particular are nearly diametric opposites so I'm not sure how a dealer partnership would work out. I don't think the states that have banned Tesla are significantly hurting sales since one way or another residents can still purchase an MS and there service centers even in Texas.
As a side note, I don't think lobbyists or lobbying is inherently corrupt. Everyone has a cause that's important to them and the politicians should at least listen to all sides but obviously they shouldn't use their power solely based on who contributes the most to them directly.
Actually I don't think it's a bad idea to at least start a conversation. I'm thinking it also offers the possibility of an easy way out for the pols since if their high contributing constituents and Tesla come to an agreement I'd suspect they'd rubber stamp it so as keep the support of the dealers and continue the flow of funds into their coffers. What do you think?
No, I'll be pointing out that the equipment Tesla has purchased to produce the MX can't be depreciated until it's in use as I understand it so no depreciation on it-yet. When the MX goes into production, depreciation expenses will begin. And those depreciation expenses will increase more in proportion to MX revenue during the first few months of production than in the future so...yes, Tesla's paper losses will increase.
You keep telling us how savvy you are when it comes to financials so did you not know this or was the best retort you could come up with? 'Cause it's weak, even for you.
Every one of you guys who objected to Elon and other Tesla management's laughing at the i3 (actually if you listen to the recording someone in the background started to laugh and Elon couldn't stop himself) would be 10x more derisive, condescending and confident in Tesla's demise if the i3 was Tesla's car and not the MS. Since when are you guys so concerned with a car who's priority is being green? 80 mile range? are you kidding me? Even with the REX, maybe 130 at 75 mph? Seriously? And how long does it take to charge even after you find a "convenient" dealer located charger? And I'm sure you love the i3's looks.
Fuel cells? Guys like you always bring up range anxiety so...how are FCVs better? YOU GUYS hate government incentives yet you're ok with not just the incentives for the cars but the millions of $ ($22 million in California alone) that the government is paying to help build a handful of hydrogen charging stations? You know, the ones that cost far more than Tesla's Superchargers and for which it'll be many years before you can travel very far since you can't refuel at home nor will there likely be any refueling stations at shopping centers or hotels?
How ironic that you take any exception to Elon's characterization of fuel cells.
Last point: if you have any basic knowledge of EVs, grid power and FCVs you might want to talk to the nice people representing various FCV entities. I have (for several years) and they are not so nice and not so honest when asked direct questions. One example: apparently EVs are coal powered, even in California, but somehow the power used to produce and keep hydrogen compressed...isn't. Really?
In an increasing number of developing countries among others, solar powered microgrids with some battery storage is cheaper than building a new power plant. It's also cheaper to maintain and powering such a plant with the easiest fuels to transport, namely coal or oil, is not good for air quality. You don't have to be an environmentalist to prefer fuels other than coal or oil in this situation. I'm ignoring the co2 impact since this isn't a priority for me.