z31maniac said:
frenchyd said:
In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :
Speaking of Italians, the little Fiat 500 E sells for $52,000 while you can buy a new Chinese made car with the same specs for $12,000. Actually with 90? Some Chinese car manufactures I'm not sure that particular company is still in business. The information is a couple of days old and I just don't want to go through that whole list
I do know BYD is bringing a lot of their cars to Europe in an attempt to stay profitable.
So far only Tesla and BYD are making a profit building and selling EV's
Everybody else is losing money big time on the EV's they sell $20,000-30,000 loss are numbers I hear bantered about. Tesla's profit per car varies, at one point it was $9000+ then battery prices went up and it dropped, Elon Musk lowered car prices and it went down again but now bsttery prices are coming down again and one source has profit per car over $10,000
yet they are all switching to EV sales.
Interesting set of numbers.
In 2019 global auto mfg debt was 1.1 trillion dollars. 2022 it was 2.1 Trillion. And now companies have committed 4.7 trillion dollars in an attempt to follow Tesla's lead.
Do you just get enjoyment out of making stuff up? Not even close to $52k.
https://www.caranddriver.com/fiat/500e
Look at the ones with the good range.
frenchyd said:
z31maniac said:
frenchyd said:
In reply to preach (dudeist priest) :
Speaking of Italians, the little Fiat 500 E sells for $52,000 while you can buy a new Chinese made car with the same specs for $12,000. Actually with 90? Some Chinese car manufactures I'm not sure that particular company is still in business. The information is a couple of days old and I just don't want to go through that whole list
I do know BYD is bringing a lot of their cars to Europe in an attempt to stay profitable.
So far only Tesla and BYD are making a profit building and selling EV's
Everybody else is losing money big time on the EV's they sell $20,000-30,000 loss are numbers I hear bantered about. Tesla's profit per car varies, at one point it was $9000+ then battery prices went up and it dropped, Elon Musk lowered car prices and it went down again but now bsttery prices are coming down again and one source has profit per car over $10,000
yet they are all switching to EV sales.
Interesting set of numbers.
In 2019 global auto mfg debt was 1.1 trillion dollars. 2022 it was 2.1 Trillion. And now companies have committed 4.7 trillion dollars in an attempt to follow Tesla's lead.
Do you just get enjoyment out of making stuff up? Not even close to $52k.
https://www.caranddriver.com/fiat/500e
Look at the ones with the good range.
According to the article I shared ( you know sources that you refuse to use) it looks like $40k. Which last time I checked is way different from $52k.
Why is is so hard for you to use sources?
In reply to z31maniac :
Sorry Teacher Jones.
Use whatever number you want that's still a lot more than a Chevy Bolt, Nissan Leaf, whatever•••• plus you missed the whole point of the posting.
Which is The massive change coming in cars. Trillions of dollars spending trying to catch up to Tesla.
China is bankrupting their car business because 90+ car companies can't be justified. And just to survive companies are dumping cars below cost.
I'm not a fan of Elon Musk but he is at least a couple of generations ahead of legacy car companies.
The Tesla model 3 or Y are the best selling car in Germany. ( including ICE's)
Ford is switching from their (Nickle cobalt) battery supplier to Tesla's ( lithium ) GM is sticking with LG although that mfg is constantly having problems with it's Nickle cobalt battery Plus the global supply of proven lithium is far greater than previously believed and prices are dropping accordingly.
Tesla's cost less to build ( because of mfg efficiency ) and are preferred over legacy's offerings.
Finally I'm a voracious reader, well over 2000wpm I do that in an attempt to learn about things of interest. Not write a report.
When I share information . It's extremely hard for my fat fingers to type.
Plus as you well know my computer skills are, well barely rudimentary
Solar.
Panels prices down 30% so far this year. In spite of that the 4 biggest panel producers Profits are up 50%+ that means their volume has roughly doubled. ( speculation on my part)
There is going to be 358 GIGA WATTS installed by 2030 according to World Economic forum.
33-40% of that by 2025.
According to the same source, right now solar is 1/3 the cost of coal.
Frenchyd, people keep asking you for your sources because your numbers are way off on just about everything. I'm pretty sure your own posts even conflict with each other. Maybe slow down your reading from 10X the average person. Read the content of your searches and not just headlines, and make sure the info is recent.
Solar panel prices did not drop 30%. There are old articles that predicted a drop, but it largely didn't happen. And not 30%. Prices had been increasing, they were expecting them to drop to normal. There is also a push to make modules cheaper by making them less energy dense, which drives module cost. A 400W 60 cell module is more expensive than a 400W 66 cell module. The 66 cell takes up more room on the roof. Even though it's still 400W, it's not the same thing as a 400W 60 cell. It's like pricing a Civic instead of an Accord and declaring Hondas are cheaper now.
Since you read so fast, you should read back through these 38 pages to better understand how Tesla makes it's money. Their net profit was $3.7 billion last year. Of that, $1.78 billion was from the sale of carbon credits to other automakers. That is almost half. EV's aren't some new technology that was out of reach for traditional automakers. They just didn't see the market as profitable, to the point where they would rather cut their losses and pay carbon credits. As that changes, not only will Tesla no longer be able to rely on selling the credits, other automakers can keep them for themselves.
As for the credits themselves, I believe the fact that they exist for EV's is proof that EV's are not yet ready to replace ICE vehicles. If they were, we wouldn't need the credits.
Opti
SuperDork
5/11/23 5:41 p.m.
frenchyd said:
Hertz made 8.7 billion profit last year main source? Renting Tesla's
New Mexico putting up 900 of the biggest wind generators. It's not the state, it's private co. Western Sprit wind? Spending 5 billion dollars to provide electricity to 3 million people.
3,500 megawatt transmitting as much as 550 miles.
Frenchy you might want to take others advice and read a little more thoroughly. Besides the obvious mix up between profit and revenue, Hertz fleet is only about 11% EVs. So its hard to say their main source of revenue is renting Teslas.
Are EVs more profitable? maybe, but its hard to say their main source of revenue is from a small percentage of their fleet.
Its a big story because the pandemic and reduced travel put them on the verge of failure. 8.7m in revenue is similar to what they were running pre pandemic, after the restructuring and bankruptcy, they are running much better profits, but that doesnt mean its because of 11% of their fleet is EV, it could be because they restructured the whole company. Are they pushing heavier into EV? Yes. Is their success attributable to it? At this point I dont think so. What Im saying is because you seem to just read headlines I think you have a correlation/causation problem, and you should research things better.
In reply to Opti :
The CEO of Hertz credited Tesla's with the turn around. That's good enough for me.
Boost_Crazy said:
Frenchyd, people keep asking you for your sources because your numbers are way off on just about everything. I'm pretty sure your own posts even conflict with each other. Maybe slow down your reading from 10X the average person. Read the content of your searches and not just headlines, and make sure the info is recent.
Solar panel prices did not drop 30%. There are old articles that predicted a drop, but it largely didn't happen. And not 30%. Prices had been increasing, they were expecting them to drop to normal. There is also a push to make modules cheaper by making them less energy dense, which drives module cost. A 400W 60 cell module is more expensive than a 400W 66 cell module. The 66 cell takes up more room on the roof. Even though it's still 400W, it's not the same thing as a 400W 60 cell. It's like pricing a Civic instead of an Accord and declaring Hondas are cheaper now.
Since you read so fast, you should read back through these 38 pages to better understand how Tesla makes it's money. Their net profit was $3.7 billion last year. Of that, $1.78 billion was from the sale of carbon credits to other automakers. That is almost half. EV's aren't some new technology that was out of reach for traditional automakers. They just didn't see the market as profitable, to the point where they would rather cut their losses and pay carbon credits. As that changes, not only will Tesla no longer be able to rely on selling the credits, other automakers can keep them for themselves.
As for the credits themselves, I believe the fact that they exist for EV's is proof that EV's are not yet ready to replace ICE vehicles. If they were, we wouldn't need the credits.
People know that I'm unable to cut copy etc Typing for me is several letters and go back to correct the mistakes. Sometimes I do it wrong and it disappears so I have to start all over again.
I'm dyslexic. I have to read fast or my brain turns everything into jumble. The slower I go the worse it gets.
So if I get a detail wrong. I'll just have to live with it.
Did you read how much auto mfg are spending on updating their factories?
4.7 trillion dollars.
Why?
Look at the Tesla model 2 a brand new car for $18,000 that's cheaper to own than a used car?
Worried about Electricity? New Mexico is putting in 900 big wind generators. Enough to power 30,000 homes.
They are putting in 358 Giga watts of solar power by 2030. And 34-40% will be active by 2025.
Have you seen how the UK is going 100% renewables? Australia will be 75% renewables same with New Zealand.
The complete information is there if you look. Solar costs 1/3 what coal does.
I haven't confirmed this but one source says Texas, oil rich Texas has more renewables than any other state.
Right now there are 11 states that will install solar panels at no upfront cost. Paid for with the surplus electricity they generate. Minnesota is one. Illinois is another. Iowa maybe but I know they have a very generous program for wind.
Frency's E36 M3 spewing is the best renewable energy. It should power cars.
Opti
SuperDork
5/12/23 11:56 a.m.
In reply to frenchyd :
I legitimately tried to search for this. Ive seen lots of reporting on the restructuring, high demand for Teslas and a comment about decrease in maintenance cost from EVs but I havent seen a direct attribution of their success to Tesla. Can you post where you saw this?
In reply to frenchyd :
When discussing numbers and doing calculations, details are important! You can't just substitute options and feelings in place of numbers and call it good. You are also omitting/ignoring significant parts of the equation when comparing costs.
On your Tesla Model 2 example- No, Tesla is not selling $18,000 cars. They are heavily subsidized on the production side with carbon credits, and on the purchasing side with tax credits. Tesla is getting a lot more than $18,000 per car. Any car can be an $18,000 car with enough subsidies. Unfortunately my representatives won't support my push for $18,000 911 Turbos.
On your coal Vs. solar example, it looks like you are off by 33%. I'm pretty sure I found the article you are referencing, and it has solar power as 1/3 less than coal, not 1/3 the cost of coal. No bid deal though, I'm told math has a 33% margin for error. Of course, like the Tesla example above, that number ignores all of the subsidies. But we won't count those because that would change the headline. Just like your repeated example of free solar in Minnesota. It's free, that's all we need to know.
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
When you buy a gallon of gas do you remember to pay extra for the oil depletion allowance or other tax code benefits.
GM also go a bail out and gave the responsibility of their retirement obligations to the Federal government.
In short big wealthy corporations have perks and benefits. That's why our tax code has 77,000+ pages, instead of 1
We pay for those.
Opti said:
In reply to frenchyd :
I legitimately tried to search for this. Ive seen lots of reporting on the restructuring, high demand for Teslas and a comment about decrease in maintenance cost from EVs but I havent seen a direct attribution of their success to Tesla. Can you post where you saw this?
I sincerely wish I could do that sort of thing.
I do remember the numbers pretty well
2019 1.1 trillion 2022 2.1 trillion obligation 4.7 trillion.
Realistically some car companies simply will not survive. So some of that debt won't actually happen.
About in the same place was an article about the 10 companies they believed would survive. GM, Ford, Tesla. Were the only Americans to make it.
What most shocked me is the #1 company, Toyota isn't forecast to make it. As of right now the Japanese companies are having their zEV's made in China. Since only 2 EV Companies are actually making a profit BYD and Tesla. That doesn't bode well for them.
frenchyd said:
What most shocked me is the #1 company, Toyota isn't forecast to make it.
Volkswagen is the number 1 revenue car manufacturer in the world. Toyota is number 2.
It will be a cold day in hell when Toyota fails.
In reply to frenchyd :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
When you buy a gallon of gas do you remember to pay extra for the oil depletion allowance or other tax code benefits.
How about you look that up if you are concerned about it? I provided you with the info on Tesla's subsidies. If you want to argue the equivalency of gasoline subsidies, you need to do some work for yourself. Warning, it's not easy. There is a lot of opinion mixed in with the numbers I saw, and interesting definitions of subsidy vs. standard business tax deductions when it comes to oil subsidies. Good luck.
I will point out that oil is a vital part of our economy and national security. Oil subsidies are not just to lower prices at the pump. If EV's disappeared tomorrow, it would have zero effect on our commerce or national security. If oil disappeared, our economy would grind to a halt and we wouldn't be able to fuel our military. Those are the primary reasons for oil subsidies, not to lower your fuel costs.
GM also go a bail out and gave the responsibility of their retirement obligations to the Federal government.
Which relates to this topic how?
In short big wealthy corporations have perks and benefits. That's why our tax code has 77,000+ pages, instead of 1
We pay for those.
Well it's a good thing then that all of the EV, battery, and solar and wind generator companies are operated by Mom and Pop businesses. Most out of their garages.
You do realize that "big oil" is made up of energy companies, right? That many own or have owned solar module manufacturers? That the solar industry was largely started by oil companies?
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I understand your support of the oil companies. Plus they compete with each other. . Further "big Oil" is also investing in renewables. That is why Texas is reported to have more renewable power generation than any other state.
I have no doubt about the truth of the complexity of figuring out the various tax breaks the oil companies get. I won't bother. To me it's not which gets more or anything like that. I hope the field is more or less level.
I just know that we will be pulling oil out of the ground long after you and I are worm food.
Do you know anything about trains? Steam was king through WW2 and by the mid 50's diesel electric took over. 10 years from coal to oil.
Will it only take another 10 years for EV's to take over I don't know.
But most people ( 99%) don't care what powers the car. Cost and Convenience are all they care about.
Cousin_Eddie (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
What most shocked me is the #1 company, Toyota isn't forecast to make it.
Volkswagen is the number 1 revenue car manufacturer in the world. Toyota is number 2.
It will be a cold day in hell when Toyota fails.
Toyota has several problems. First it's population. Japan's population is getting smaller and older. Starting in the 1990's they started building cars where they were selling them rather than in Japan because of that.
The trouble with that approach is exactly why Ford is getting out of China and Europe while focusing on the home market. GM's problems in China are a different issue but basically the same.
Second, Toyota hasn't started working on the EV's yet. They are having China build any the market demands. But China has more than 90 car companies and the one who building for Toyota is really upside down and on the list expected not to make it.
Meanwhile Both Tesla and VW are 2-3 generations ahead. Well Tesla is 3 generations and VW is almost 2.
Finally with the change in military policy the last 5 presidents have embraced international trade is going to be going through some very rough times.
In reply to frenchyd :
Tx has more renewable power because it's huge, has some of the windiest areas in the US (Amarillo is much windier than Chiown "the Windy City"), and has monetary resources due to a balanced budget and favorable business law. It has almost zero to do with oil companies.
I'm still surprised at the push to go green building giant solar and wind farms with no consideration to land use or power density. Almost all other forms of energy win there. I commute 75 miles one way. The site I am at produces a lot of power. To make the equivalent power using wind would require a path 3 miles wide to be cleared out along the route of my commute, all 75 miles. It would never be as reliable either.
Using roughly 80 times the land to generate the same amount of power doesn't seem that efficient to me. And it's funny how the green energy proponents act concerned about the rain forests. Do they actually care about land use?
frenchyd said:
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I understand your support of the oil companies. Plus they compete with each other. . Further "big Oil" is also investing in renewables. That is why Texas is reported to have more renewable power generation than any other state.
I have no doubt about the truth of the complexity of figuring out the various tax breaks the oil companies get. I won't bother. To me it's not which gets more or anything like that. I hope the field is more or less level.
I just know that we will be pulling oil out of the ground long after you and I are worm food.
Do you know anything about trains? Steam was king through WW2 and by the mid 50's diesel electric took over. 10 years from coal to oil.
Will it only take another 10 years for EV's to take over I don't know.
But most people ( 99%) don't care what powers the car. Cost and Convenience are all they care about.
The last sentence is the most honest answer yet. This is what people want. All the "environmental" arguments offered in support are usually incomplete and only reflect the favorable parts. That isn't real open and honest discussion or problem solving. I'd say for some it's about being cool too. Tesla's are cool just like parachute pants used to be. It's not actually about saving the planet so why am I required to pretend it is?
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
In the later 1970's I sold Honda Civics ( and GMC TRUCKS)
I heard much the same objections about Honda's. Oh, they are so cheap they will never last. No performance etc
Yeh it's a little different now it's about range, as if we all went on 500 mile trips every day.
Too expensive. Yeh, even a series 3 it was hard to compete against a $1500 well selected used car.
But $17,500? That really changes things OK sales tax, options, delivery. Etc.
It's going to have really decent range.(53kwh) charge fast, 200 more miles in 10 minutes.
Elon Musk thinks he can manufacture a million by 2024. Then 2 million a year. The run is scheduled for 42 million cars.
The $30,000 market is estimated at 700 million cars globally.
To those worried about electricity. Just have to read about the coming investments. Yes some of those are from big oil. They recognize a good deal.
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
frenchyd said:
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I understand your support of the oil companies. Plus they compete with each other. . Further "big Oil" is also investing in renewables. That is why Texas is reported to have more renewable power generation than any other state.
I have no doubt about the truth of the complexity of figuring out the various tax breaks the oil companies get. I won't bother. To me it's not which gets more or anything like that. I hope the field is more or less level.
I just know that we will be pulling oil out of the ground long after you and I are worm food.
Do you know anything about trains? Steam was king through WW2 and by the mid 50's diesel electric took over. 10 years from coal to oil.
Will it only take another 10 years for EV's to take over I don't know.
But most people ( 99%) don't care what powers the car. Cost and Convenience are all they care about.
The last sentence is the most honest answer yet. This is what people want. All the "environmental" arguments offered in support are usually incomplete and only reflect the favorable parts. That isn't real open and honest discussion or problem solving. I'd say for some it's about being cool too. Tesla's are cool just like parachute pants used to be. It's not actually about saving the planet so why am I required to pretend it is?
I've always tried to avoid green reasons for doing things. It's political.
I use economic reasons. The new Tesla model 2 makes that a very easy case.
As far as your comment about popularity ( being cool). Well that's a bit of a double edge sword. Somethings are about choice and if it's popular it makes it that much easier
AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to frenchyd :
Tx has more renewable power because it's huge, has some of the windiest areas in the US (Amarillo is much windier than Chiown "the Windy City"), and has monetary resources due to a balanced budget and favorable business law. It has almost zero to do with oil companies.
I'm still surprised at the push to go green building giant solar and wind farms with no consideration to land use or power density. Almost all other forms of energy win there. I commute 75 miles one way. The site I am at produces a lot of power. To make the equivalent power using wind would require a path 3 miles wide to be cleared out along the route of my commute, all 75 miles. It would never be as reliable either.
Using roughly 80 times the land to generate the same amount of power doesn't seem that efficient to me. And it's funny how the green energy proponents act concerned about the rain forests. Do they actually care about land use?
Wind and solar are both renewable and can be used very efficiently. There is a giant wind farm here in Minnesota surrounded by corn. Like a giant corn stalk grew up and sprouted blades.
Corn right up to the base of the tower. ( well I suppose it's a few inches away).
The big solar yards around here release goats periodically to keep the weeds down. But that's pretty much exactly how the land originally was. It wasn't really used for anything. Just meadows and too rocky to be farmed.
Some land I've seen out west with wind generators is like New Mexico.
Pretty much scrub land. Only a handful of people down miles of dirt roads.
I can see wind generators down the freeway taking advantage of the wind trucks stir up.
In reply to frenchyd :
In reply to Boost_Crazy :
I understand your support of the oil companies. Plus they compete with each other. . Further "big Oil" is also investing in renewables. That is why Texas is reported to have more renewable power generation than any other state.
I'm not supporting oil, just calling balls and strikes. I enjoy the convenience of my current methods of travel, and resist increases in costs travel or to power and heat my home. Or to ship the goods that I rely on. I also appreciate the security our military provides. If those can be done without oil, great. We aren't anywhere near there yet.
I have no doubt about the truth of the complexity of figuring out the various tax breaks the oil companies get. I won't bother. To me it's not which gets more or anything like that. I hope the field is more or less level.
But it's not level, and maybe it shouldn't be. We want the best option for society. The problem is, it's really hard to determine what that is when we cherry pick evidence to support a conclusion rather than use an evidence to reach a conclusion.
I just know that we will be pulling oil out of the ground long after you and I are worm food.
Do you know anything about trains? Steam was king through WW2 and by the mid 50's diesel electric took over. 10 years from coal to oil.
Will it only take another 10 years for EV's to take over I don't know.
But most people ( 99%) don't care what powers the car. Cost and Convenience are all they care about.
Diesel replaced steam because it was better in just about every way. That example- just like the horse and car example- might seem relatable to the ICE vs EV discussion, but it really isn't. EV's do a lot of things better, but most of those things were already good enough for most ICE drivers. Cost and charge time are still sticking points. But speaking of trains, California is pushing for zero emission freight trains by 2035. Technically zero emissions in the state, so I guess they will haul train cars full of batteries around within the state? It's a good thing transportation costs aren't very important to the economy.
In reply to AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) :
I'm glad we agree that renewables make solid business sense. As far as location? Most solar will wind up on home and business roofs. I can understand a power company buying some scrub land with no real marketable value and placing them at ground level. Around here they get the goats in a few times a year and keep the weeds down. That's about all the maintenance required.
Right now solar panels are around 22-23% efficient at converting sunshine to electricity. But the Germans are working on a printing method that tests out at 50% efficient. Plus a tiny fraction of the costs.
Wind? The valley in Minnesota has giant wind generators growing out of corn fields. I'd be surprised if a farmer loses more than one or two bushels an acre and I know he's well compensated for use of his land.
The hog farms and cattle barns we sold wind generators to, well they are on the edge of the property but you don't want to spend much time complaining about the view. The smell drives you away. Those had as little as 4-3 year payback.
Yes We put a few in farmsteads just because they wanted to be green. The flaw is it takes 15 years to payback the costs on those small ones. ( bigger ones have much much faster payback)
After about 20 years you need to pull the generator off the tower and rebuild it. That's going to cost around $5000 So another 3-4 years to break even.
