Tesla burning Cash

[jos]

even a coal fire plant is better than an exhaust pipe. If you're in California then you should know how bad the smog gets in the inland empire. 

do you have any idea how much pollution coal produce to provide the power for EV and how much does an equivalent gasoline car produce.. It is day and night.. Coal is extremely bad.. Do you guys have any idea how much carbon emission is produced in making single wind turbine blade? It is huge compared to not friendly power plants if we factor in life expectancy and the power produced of a turbine.  Anyway most of the turbine blades are made in china.. But still it is our planet

[VanayadGaming]

Giving hackers cash is good but need to sustain first.. who will fix the car, if the company cease to exists

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/09/us-teslamotors-cash-insight-idUSKCN0QE0DC20150809

As someone on reddit posted:

 

 

There is a big difference between losing money for every car sold and spending more money than you make. Considering the profit margin on the Model S is over 25%, Tesla is actually in the latter category.

Making the Model S is profitable. Rapidly expanding into a major car manufacturer while making the Model S is not.

*Edit: look at it this way. You want to open a McDonalds. It will cost you $500,000, which you borrow from a bank. The first year you bring in a million dollars in revenue, and make $100,000 profit from sales. However, you borrowed and spent $500,000 opening the store, which means you sort of lost $400,000 that first year.

Would Reuters say you lose $2.00 for every Big Mac sold? I guess so.

[jos]

As someone on reddit posted:

 

 

There is a big difference between losing money for every car sold and spending more money than you make. Considering the profit margin on the Model S is over 25%, Tesla is actually in the latter category.

Making the Model S is profitable. Rapidly expanding into a major car manufacturer while making the Model S is not.

*Edit: look at it this way. You want to open a McDonalds. It will cost you $500,000, which you borrow from a bank. The first year you bring in a million dollars in revenue, and make $100,000 profit from sales. However, you borrowed and spent $500,000 opening the store, which means you sort of lost $400,000 that first year.

Would Reuters say you lose $2.00 for every Big Mac sold? I guess so.

 

 

May be a redditer knows more than Musk.. 2 months back musk told he is not making money selling Model S..I think the calculation was based on annual report and they look for ROI..

[VanayadGaming]

May be a redditer knows more than Musk.. 2 months back musk told he is not making money selling Model S..I think the calculation was based on annual report and they look for ROI..

 

No, Musk said he is not making money with Tesla. That is something else. Every time he was asked about profit margins about model s he stated they were between 23-27% or something along those lines. What reuters did was include the new assembly line development AND R&D spending for the Gigafactory in the calculations.... Hence the comparison. 

[jos]

No, Musk said he is not making money with Tesla. That is something else. Every time he was asked about profit margins about model s he stated they were between 23-27% or something along those lines. What reuters did was include the new assembly line development AND R&D spending for the Gigafactory in the calculations.... Hence the comparison. 

 Most other car manufacturers include product specific R&D, overhead, and marketting in their margins. and Tesla does not include that. which I think is kind of odd

[VanayadGaming]

 Most other car manufacturers include product specific R&D, overhead, and marketting in their margins. and Tesla does not include that. which I think is kind of odd

They do not include R&D as that is not product specific. I mean, R&D include Gigafactory, the model X, model 3 and the batteries. 

[Rune]

Sir Elon has enough money to burn if he wants to. At least he is making the world a better place in doing so, unlike most other rich people.

[Ohlyver]

Also Tesla's building a giant battery factory and its expensive so the volume of cars produced and the possible profit they could have made are probably outscaled by the future factory building costs.

[Fabri91]

windows 10 maybe?

a year of rnd without no immediate payback

MS is seeing cash thanks to Windows 10 and how: OEM licenses are still in place, albeit lowered, and the very lucrative enterprise software assurance contracts are still in place (i.e. large enterprise volume licensing). They essentially lose out only on those who would have actually bough an upgrade license, which are a small minority of the entire userbase.

[HarmFull]

So, just up the price on your cars Tesla! It's not like they were made for the average joe anyway, so 4k extra on the price should not be a big problem. But I'm no car manyfacturer so why the hell should I be giving advice

[bomerr]

do you have any idea how much pollution coal produce to provide the power for EV and how much does an equivalent gasoline car produce.. It is day and night.. Coal is extremely bad.. Do you guys have any idea how much carbon emission is produced in making single wind turbine blade? It is huge compared to not friendly power plants if we factor in life expectancy and the power produced of a turbine.  Anyway most of the turbine blades are made in china.. But still it is our planet

you are in the uk so i doubt you understand how bad smog can get. furthermore coal plants can be put outside major population centers and the energy used for more than transporting so it's better than just gasoline alone. .

 

regardless i think you missed a major point as with electricity it's always possible to refine the energy source. solar being a good example. 

[dalekphalm]

you are in the uk so i doubt you understand how bad smog can get. furthermore coal plants can be put outside major population centers and the energy used for more than transporting so it's better than just gasoline alone. .

 

regardless i think you missed a major point as with electricity it's always possible to refine the energy source. solar being a good example. 

While I agree that Electric vehicles are still a better alternative over gasoline engines in the long run, your Coal Powered example is simply awful. Coal is one of the least efficient and worst polluting power generation methods. Oil is up there also being quite bad. Natural Gas is a lot better. Hydro-Electric is ideal (Though very regional specific) along with Nuclear (When properly designed and built, produces almost no pollution and very little nuclear waste material).

 

It really comes down to where you live, and what your country/state/city uses to generate power. This does not mean we should abandon electric cars because some people charge a Tesla from a Coal plant - but rather, we should take this opportunity for those regions to retire the pollution generating Coal plants.

 

Ontario, for example, retired most of their Coal plants recently. Most of our power is now generated through Nuclear and Hydro-electric, two of the cleanest methods for reliably generating power.

 

Solar and Wind are great for adding a bit of power here and there, especially if we're able to bank the power into batteries for when they are needed overnight, but neither are powerful enough for large scale primary power sources. The amount of land surface area needed to power a city with Wind Turbines or Solar is ridiculously large. It can work in certain areas, where you have huge empty plains, or desert, but that's very regional specific as well.

 

Point being: More countries need to adopt Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro-Electric (With the latter only being implemented after careful environmental surveys). Once that happens, then driving a Tesla becomes vastly more environmentally friendly compared to an ICE car.

[EpicAdom]

well I mean it was in beta for like 10 months "development"

Ok fair enough.

[Arty]

Ok fair enough.

well yea i also froget MS might have been doing shit after they saw 8.1 fail

[EpicAdom]

well yea i also froget MS might have been doing shit after they saw 8.1 fail

Lmao true. Very true.

[dalekphalm]

well yea i also froget MS might have been doing shit after they saw 8.1 fail

Windows 10 has likely been in development since Windows 8.1 came out, if not even before then in the very preliminary stages.

 

OS's generally take a lot longer than 2 years to come out.

[bomerr]

While I agree that Electric vehicles are still a better alternative over gasoline engines in the long run, your Coal Powered example is simply awful. Coal is one of the least efficient and worst polluting power generation methods. Oil is up there also being quite bad. Natural Gas is a lot better. Hydro-Electric is ideal (Though very regional specific) along with Nuclear (When properly designed and built, produces almost no pollution and very little nuclear waste material).

 

It really comes down to where you live, and what your country/state/city uses to generate power. This does not mean we should abandon electric cars because some people charge a Tesla from a Coal plant - but rather, we should take this opportunity for those regions to retire the pollution generating Coal plants.

 

Ontario, for example, retired most of their Coal plants recently. Most of our power is now generated through Nuclear and Hydro-electric, two of the cleanest methods for reliably generating power.

 

Solar and Wind are great for adding a bit of power here and there, especially if we're able to bank the power into batteries for when they are needed overnight, but neither are powerful enough for large scale primary power sources. The amount of land surface area needed to power a city with Wind Turbines or Solar is ridiculously large. It can work in certain areas, where you have huge empty plains, or desert, but that's very regional specific as well.

 

Point being: More countries need to adopt Natural Gas, Nuclear, and Hydro-Electric (With the latter only being implemented after careful environmental surveys). Once that happens, then driving a Tesla becomes vastly more environmentally friendly compared to an ICE car.

 

i highly doubt coal is less efficient than gasoline. Coal must be dug out of the ground.  Gasoline also needs to be dug (or drilled) out of the ground and usually at greater depths such as underneath the sea. Afterwards both both oil and coal are transported to their respective plants. At this point coal is simply burned and the electricity generated sent over the power grid; while oil needs to be refined further. Lastly oil has to be physically transported by a ridiculously inefficient 18 wheeler--6 MILES PER GALLON--to your local gas station. So the chain of events would point to coal being more efficient overall.

 

Also as I said, at least with coal it's possible to put the plants outside local population centers while with gasoline the pollution is made at your door step. 

 

I don't think coal is a permeant solution but I was making a point that even the worst more inefficient, highest pollution energy source is better than gasoline. 

 

As for your suggestions. 

 

Natural Gas is cleaner burning than gasoline but it has a lot of the same logistical issues such as refining and transportation. Also if natural gas consumption increases it'll put a strain on the resource as there is only one way to get more; drill it out of the ground. With EVs as electric consumption increases i'll incentivize cheaper sources of production. 

 

Hydro has one major fault. After they are built no one wants to put any money into maintainaice and repairs. So that reservoir behind them is a ticking time bomb.

 

Nuclear is essentially the something: chernobyl, three mile island, fukushima, Everything can be fine for decades but one problem and it makes world news.    

[dalekphalm]

i highly doubt coal is less efficient than gasoline. Coal must be dug out of the ground.  Gasoline also needs to be dug (or drilled) out of the ground and usually at greater depths such as underneath the sea. Afterwards both both oil and coal are transported to their respective plants. At this point coal is simply burned and the electricity generated sent over the power grid; while oil needs to be refined further. Lastly oil has to be physically transported by a ridiculously inefficient 18 wheeler--6 MILES PER GALLON--to your local gas station. So the chain of events would point to coal being more efficient overall.

 

Also as I said, at least with coal it's possible to put the plants outside local population centers while with gasoline the pollution is made at your door step. 

 

I don't think coal is a permeant solution but I was making a point that even the worst more inefficient, highest pollution energy source is better than gasoline. 

 

As for your suggestions. 

 

Natural Gas is cleaner burning than gasoline but it has a lot of the same logistical issues such as refining and transportation. Also if natural gas consumption increases it'll put a strain on the resource as there is only one way to get more; drill it out of the ground. With EVs as electric consumption increases i'll incentivize cheaper sources of production. 

 

Hydro has one major fault. After they are built no one wants to put any money into maintainaice and repairs. So that reservoir behind them is a ticking time bomb.

 

Nuclear is essentially the something: chernobyl, three mile island, fukushima, Everything can be fine for decades but one problem and it makes world news.

You'd be extremely surprised. Do you know why Gasoline is the primary fuel source for transportation worldwide? Energy Density.

 

If coal was better, we'd be using coal fired cars, and coal fired trains and boats still.

 

Take a look at this for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

 

Now obviously, it's not an exact comparison, since we're looking at a solid vs a liquid, but the numbers are as follows for Energy:

 

Specific Energy (In MJ/kg):

Gasoline (petrol): 46.4

Coal: 32.5 - 14 (Depending on specific type: bituminous, anthracite, etc)

 

That's already after Gasoline has been refined.

 

For a power plant, does it make sense to use Gasoline? No, of course not. But Coal is stupid, and a ridiculously shitty Power Generation fuel. There are way better alternatives. Even pure Oil is better.

 

Every single nuclear disaster was human error. The Nuclear Reactors in Canada have excellent safety records. If a reactor falls below preset safety measures, it's shut down, FAR BEFORE a nuclear incident. The technology is sound, but you just can't cut corners. A Coal Plant can still cause an explosion or a massive fire, if people don't follow safety regs or maintain it.

 

Simply put, coal is a damn shitty energy generation fuel, and there are better alternatives - even among fossil fuels.

[bomerr]

You'd be extremely surprised. Do you know why Gasoline is the primary fuel source for transportation worldwide? Energy Density.

 

If coal was better, we'd be using coal fired cars, and coal fired trains and boats still.

 

Take a look at this for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

 

Now obviously, it's not an exact comparison, since we're looking at a solid vs a liquid, but the numbers are as follows for Energy:

 

Specific Energy (In MJ/kg):

Gasoline (petrol): 46.4

Coal: 32.5 - 14 (Depending on specific type: bituminous, anthracite, etc)

 

That's already after Gasoline has been refined.

 

For a power plant, does it make sense to use Gasoline? No, of course not. But Coal is stupid, and a ridiculously shitty Power Generation fuel. There are way better alternatives. Even pure Oil is better.

 

Every single nuclear disaster was human error. The Nuclear Reactors in Canada have excellent safety records. If a reactor falls below preset safety measures, it's shut down, FAR BEFORE a nuclear incident. The technology is sound, but you just can't cut corners. A Coal Plant can still cause an explosion or a massive fire, if people don't follow safety regs or maintain it.

 

Simply put, coal is a damn shitty energy generation fuel, and there are better alternatives - even among fossil fuels.

 

Energy density isn't everything.  You need to look at the entire logistics chain. 

 

Gasoline requires a lot of energy to extract

 

case in point: all the off-shore oil rigs

 

Gasoline requires a lot of energy to transport

 

case in point: massive tankers transporting crude oil across the world

case in point: oil pipelines

case in point: 6 MPG 18 wheelers delivering refined gasoline to your local station.

 

gasoline requires a lot of energy to refine

 

case in point: refineries. 

 

lastly only about 30% of the energy used by a gasoline engine makes it down to the road, other 70% gets wasted. 

 

so while the energy density of gasoline is higher, it's less efficient overall. 

[RagnarokDel]

windows 10 maybe?

a year of rnd without no immediate payback 

Windows is still making a buck from Windows 10. Every new prebuilt/laptop, every enterprise computers, etc.

[Arty]

Windows is still making a buck from Windows 10. Every new prebuilt/laptop, every enterprise computers, etc.

they still potionally lost 15M*100$

[dalekphalm]

Energy density isn't everything.  You need to look at the entire logistics chain. 

 

Gasoline requires a lot of energy to extract

 

case in point: all the off-shore oil rigs

 

Gasoline requires a lot of energy to transport

 

case in point: massive tankers transporting crude oil across the world

case in point: oil pipelines

case in point: 6 MPG 18 wheelers delivering refined gasoline to your local station.

 

gasoline requires a lot of energy to refine

 

case in point: refineries. 

 

lastly only about 30% of the energy used by a gasoline engine makes it down to the road, other 70% gets wasted. 

 

so while the energy density of gasoline is higher, it's less efficient overall. 

You're using "case in point" a lot, as if those points slam dunk your opinion. That is not the case.

 

Do you have a source for your 30% claim? Do you have a comparable source and figure for coal?

 

If that were the case, why does hardly any modern country use Coal? You still have to transport it. Gasoline might require a lot of refinement, but Oil for Power Plants requires much less so. And during the refinement process, you can simultaneously refine the various Crude Oil byproducts at the same time. There's also very little waste in the refining process. All the stuff that doesn't make "Gasoline grade" go into other products, all of which we need:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/oil-refining2.htm

 

Even the "waste" material are used in various other products.

 

Also, your 6 MPG 18 wheeler comment... what exactly is your point? Sure your Honda Civic gets 6 or 7 times better fuel efficiency, but the 18-wheeler is carrying vastly more cargo per MPG. If that truck was powered by Coal instead, then it would certainly not get better efficiency. Any vehicle that size is going to be exponentially less efficient when compared to a car.

 

Those massive tankers would still need to transport Coal all over the world... so that point doesn't make any sense.

 

Furthermore, Coal still needs refining. Sure, the process is simpler, but the process must be done regardless. Coal plants also require huge water supplies. So it's impractical to put a Coal plant in the middle of a desert, since you'd need to pump large amounts of water hundreds or even thousands of miles, or use deep well reservoirs, which may not be reliable supplies.

 

The mining process itself is also significantly more energy demanding. You literally have to rip it out of the ground using giant machines that tear through the earth. With Oil, once you get your pump up and going, it's doing most of the heavy lifting, and due to in the inherent pressure of the oil field, the pump has less work to do. Obviously, there are more intense methods, like Oil Sands and Fracking, but the majority of our oil is still traditionally extracted.

 

Honestly, you've shown no evidence at all for your findings. It just seems like you think coal should be more efficient, simply because it's refinement process requires less?

 

If we take some figures here:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=667&t=3

 

Kilowatthour generated per unit of fuel used:

 

1,904 kWh per ton, 0.95 kWh per pound, of coal

570 kWh per barrel, or 13.6 kWh per gallon, of petroleum

 

http://elsegundo.chevron.com/home/abouttherefinery/whatwedo/what_is_in_a_barrel_of_oil.aspx

Average weight of one barrel of Crude Oil is 7.21 Pounds (This is worse case, since much of that crude is split into Gasoline, Diesel, Fuel Oil, etc).

 

We then take the 570 kWh per Barrel, and divide by weight, you get: 570 / 7.21 = 79.1 kWh per Pound of oil. Compare that to 0.95 kWh per pound of coal.

 

Are you seeing how much more energy is in Oil? There's a reason why we used to use Coal to power everything, and now we use Oil for most of those same things. And it has nothing to do with the Environment, because we didn't give a shit about pollution until recently (And even now, it's questionable how much we actually care).

[dalekphalm]

they still potionally lost 15M*100$

I think thats unrealistic. How many people actually upgrade a computer from one version of Windows to another? Basically none. In most cases, people will use whatever is on the computer, until they get a new PC.

 

Even XP/Vista to Windows 7 upgrades were pretty damn small. We, as tech users, might upgrade our Windows pretty frequently, but we're a tiny tiny percentage of Windows users.

[Arty]

I think thats unrealistic. How many people actually upgrade a computer from one version of Windows to another? Basically none. In most cases, people will use whatever is on the computer, until they get a new PC.

 

Even XP/Vista to Windows 7 upgrades were pretty damn small. We, as tech users, might upgrade our Windows pretty frequently, but we're a tiny tiny percentage of Windows users.

Very true, i thought i put in "best case senraio" 

[dalekphalm]

Very true, i thought i put in "best case senraio" 

True. But lets be fair. Microsoft can afford the "potential" loss in sales. They'll make up for it with better market adoption, and with OEM/Enterprise sales.