GREEN NEW DEAL = BLIZZARD OF LIES

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

No, the drivers were EV drivers, so this should be seen as an EV rating, not an overall rating.

The reliability ratings, which show Tesla as the worst, was an overall rating.

The Consumer Reports survey covered EV and ICE. RAM was third and they do not have any EVs.

Ultimately all that matters is sales and Tesla is sold out through the end of the year. That is a lot of people converting from ICE to EV.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Consumer Reports survey covered EV and ICE. RAM was third and they do not have any EVs.

Ultimately all that matters is sales and Tesla is sold out through the end of the year. That is a lot of people converting from ICE to EV.

CR took input from the EV drivers of Tesla, so that is a selective sample of reports. They did not ask ICE drivers to report on EV's.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Congress is getting ready to study and vote on the new carbon bill, and it looks like a good bill for the oil and natural gas sectors.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Will-Bidens-Infrastructure-Plan-Threaten-The-US-Oil-Industry.html

"The long-awaited bipartisan infrastructure bill worth more than $1 trillion was opened for debate on the Senate floor yesterday.  -     Unless the bill’s provisions get tightened, the scope of potential demand destruction for the oil industry remains narrow – the $10 billion allotted for electric vehicle infrastructure might be perceived as eschewing broad-scale ambition.-     In fact, oil refiners might benefit from the record investment pouring into rebuilding the US’ highways and transportation infrastructure, which should increase residue demand in the mid-term. -     Natural gas producers might be tempted to cash in on the bill’s natural gas fueling infrastructure and plentiful hydrogen-related dimensions. -     In addition, the bill calls for $12.5 billion in funding for carbon capture programs, including some $2 billion for carbon dioxide pipelines across the country. "

Here is the key statement,

"oil refiners might benefit from the record investment pouring into rebuilding the US’ highways and transportation infrastructure, which should increase residue demand in the mid-term. "

This will be a boost for the oil sector, plus the following,

"the bill calls for $12.5 billion in funding for carbon capture programs, including some $2 billion for carbon dioxide pipelines across the country. "

The federal government will fund the carbon capture future of oil, and provide CO2 pipelines. This should calm the nerves of the Green folks, who are concerned about CO2.

 

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

CR took input from the EV drivers of Tesla, so that is a selective sample of reports. They did not ask ICE drivers to report on EV's.

In other words, the reporting/data collection for Tesla was dissimilar to ICE drivers.

That induces a real bias.

[turbguy + 1,544]

2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the key statement,

"oil refiners might benefit from the record investment pouring into rebuilding the US’ highways and transportation infrastructure, which should increase residue demand in the mid-term. "

This will be a boost for the oil sector, plus the following,

"the bill calls for $12.5 billion in funding for carbon capture programs, including some $2 billion for carbon dioxide pipelines across the country. "

The federal government will fund the carbon capture future of oil, and provide CO2 pipelines. This should calm the nerves of the Green folks, who are concerned about CO2.

 

What do you do with it once it's in a pipeline??

Coca Cola and Pepsi can only use so much.

Am I missing something???

Edited August 3, 2021 by turbguy

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

2 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

CR took input from the EV drivers of Tesla, so that is a selective sample of reports. They did not ask ICE drivers to report on EV's.

And the drivers of Tesla reported higher satisfaction with their Tesla cars than the ICE drivers did with their ICE cars.

Satisfaction surveys are well known tools of behavioral economics. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand how they work.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

In other words, the reporting/data collection for Tesla was dissimilar to ICE drivers.

That induces a real bias.

Well, EV Tesla drivers only reported on their satisfaction levels with respect to Tesla, ICE drivers only reported satisfaction levels for their own brand of ICE.

There was no overall test of satisfaction for the market as a whole, just people voting for their own vehicles.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

4 hours ago, turbguy said:

What do you do with it once it's in a pipeline??

Coca Cola and Pepsi can only use so much.

Am I missing something???

This is all about perception, not reality. In fact, CO2 is not a problem, it is just perceived to be a problem.

The way to deal with a perceived problem is to create a perceived solution. 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

And the drivers of Tesla reported higher satisfaction with their Tesla cars than the ICE drivers did with their ICE cars.

Satisfaction surveys are well known tools of behavioral economics. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you don't understand how they work.

There is an asymmetric comparison here, because Tesla buyers subscribe to a "cause", real or illusory, which gives a certain psychological satisfaction to participants in the "cause". That would be true even if the Tesla was not a primary vehicle for the owner, but a second or third family vehicle to represent a public commitment to a worthy "cause".

ICE drivers do not receive psychological satisfaction from their auto purchase in terms of a "cause", but rather just common sense transportation services. Whereas the EV driver gets both, one or two ICEs for everyday driving needs, and the "cause" vehicle parked in the driveway to demonstrate public responsibility.

Use of the EV as a primary family vehicle is problematic. I see a few Teslas around my area, but mostly family ICEs, SUVs and vans, practical vehicles to shop or transport families around town.

Here is where the rubber meets the road,

https://hypebeast.com/2020/6/tesla-j-d-power-least-reliable-car-us-2020-survey-news

"American analytics company J.D. Power has just released its 2020 Initial Quality Report for the auto industry, and Tesla (NASDAQGS:TSLA +3.27%) has been rated the least reliable new cars in the U.S.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

The Green revolution represents a genuine threat to housing costs going forward, especially for lower income people.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/Is-This-The-Next-Major-Threat-For-Natural-Gas.html

"...many consumers are not sold on the idea of living in all-electric new homes. They are concerned that their choice of energy—natural gas or propane in this case—is taken away, and that their energy bills will be higher, especially in towns with colder winters.    Opponents of the natural gas ban, including the American Gas Association, say that residential energy costs would be much higher without any use of natural gas at homes.According to an American Gas Association study from 2019, the total annual residential energy cost for appliances in a typical new natural gas home is $879 lower than the electric home, $924 lower than the oil home, and $965 lower than the propane home. For space heat alone, residential consumers of natural gas can save $525 a year relative to electricity consumers, $593 a year compared to oil customers, and $655 a year compared to propane customers, according to the association.The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) said in two separate studies this year that all-electric homes cost more upfront and that American consumers still prefer gas to electricity for cooking.NAHB’s What Home Buyers Really Want, 2021 Edition survey showed that consumers generally prefer electricity (51 percent) to gas (33 percent) for their air heating and cooling systems, but prefer gas (51 percent) to electricity (39 percent) for cooking. Consumers were split on electricity (45 percent) versus gas (40 percent) for water heating systems, with 15 percent indicating no preference.

Total added construction costs for all-electric homes range from around $11,000 to $15,000 for cities with colder climates such as Denver and Minneapolis, a study prepared for NAHB showed earlier this year. In warm climates such as in Houston, the total added construction costs range from $3,988 to $11,196.

Overall, the study found that all-electric homes cost more upfront in comparison to gas homes. Electric homes in cold climates were also found to have higher ongoing utility costs, NAHB said.

Higher costs for homes could be a big hurdle to lower-income households, opponents of the all-electric buildings say."

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

CR took input from the EV drivers of Tesla, so that is a selective sample of reports. They did not ask ICE drivers to report on EV's.

What imbecile would ask ICE drivers to report on their satisfaction driving EVs that they did not own or drive? We will chalk this up to your low level education.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, turbguy said:

In other words, the reporting/data collection for Tesla was dissimilar to ICE drivers.

That induces a real bias.

They asked Tesla drivers and ICE drivers the same questions. Tesla drivers reported greater satisfaction. Please explain the bias?

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Here is the key statement,

"oil refiners might benefit from the record investment pouring into rebuilding the US’ highways and transportation infrastructure, which should increase residue demand in the mid-term. "

This will be a boost for the oil sector, plus the following,

"the bill calls for $12.5 billion in funding for carbon capture programs, including some $2 billion for carbon dioxide pipelines across the country. "

The federal government will fund the carbon capture future of oil, and provide CO2 pipelines. This should calm the nerves of the Green folks, who are concerned about CO2.

 

So far all those programs have been dismal failures. There is no reason to think that anything is different going forward. This was just an expense for getting the other meaningful programs through.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

NAHB’s What Home Buyers Really Want, 2021 Edition survey showed that consumers generally prefer electricity (51 percent) to gas (33 percent) for their air heating and cooling systems, but prefer gas (51 percent) to electricity (39 percent) for cooking. Consumers were split on electricity (45 percent) versus gas (40 percent) for water heating systems, with 15 percent indicating no preference.

So by your own reporting the majority of consumers want electricity over gas for heating, cooling and hot water. The only issue is over cooking??? How is that natural gas microwave, toaster or refrigerator working out for you? HaHaHa, what a self own!

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[specinho + 470]

On 8/2/2021 at 5:04 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

If you click on the link you will get a detailed report of their Q2 financials. Note the $23 million dollar impairment on bitcoin. Tesla stock price is irrelevant to an earnings report.

https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/ZBOUYO_TSLA_Q2_2021_Update_DJCVNJ.pdf?xseo=&response-content-disposition=inline%3Bfilename%3D"q2_2021.pdf"

 

Thank you for the sharing.

It has been rather impressive to grow from making 20 cars to current state. With more than 160 robots, vehicles take 3 to 5 days to complete vehicles assembly process, could we deduce that the rate has been roughly 200 to 500 cars per week? And there are 5 factories world wide producing for US market?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Fremont_Factory#Overview

 

Operating income =  cash in hands/cash flow = 1.3B or 619M. Not 10.21B?

619M cash - debt repayment 1.6B = - 912M (no extra cash in hands)?

Pardon me, the questions are raised out of curiosity. Not intent to find fault.

In an attempt to dodge tax,

all modern professional reports, particularly financial reports, have been aimed to confused, no?

The way words are displayed for busy laymen can be interesting, sometimes. Who is up for tax reformation?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by specinho

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

What imbecile would ask ICE drivers to report on their satisfaction driving EVs that they did not own or drive? We will chalk this up to your low level education.

Jay, I have not seen any economic analysis in your posts, you should rely on someone with a genuine economics degree to help you with economic issues. Just ask me for an educated opinion. I have worked as a broadcast media commentator on economic issues.

I was pointing out the issue of EV users being dedicated to a "cause" as contributing to the satisfaction level. You could not get the same level of "cause" related satisfaction from an ICE user.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They asked Tesla drivers and ICE drivers the same questions. Tesla drivers reported greater satisfaction. Please explain the bias?

It was explained to you.

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So far all those programs have been dismal failures. There is no reason to think that anything is different going forward. This was just an expense for getting the other meaningful programs through.

The demand for  asphalt is going to be huge under this bill, Jay.

 

 

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

15 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

So by your own reporting the majority of consumers want electricity over gas for heating, cooling and hot water. The only issue is over cooking??? How is that natural gas microwave, toaster or refrigerator working out for you? HaHaHa, what a self own!

Read the report,, Jay.

"Total added construction costs for all-electric homes range from around $11,000 to $15,000 for cities with colder climates such as Denver and Minneapolis, a study prepared for NAHB showed earlier this year. In warm climates such as in Houston, the total added construction costs range from $3,988 to $11,196.Overall, the study found that all-electric homes cost more upfront in comparison to gas homes. Electric homes in cold climates were also found to have higher ongoing utility costs, NAHB said.Higher costs for homes could be a big hurdle to lower-income households, opponents of the all-electric buildings say."

Edited 16 hours ago by Ecocharger"

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

There is a looming problem for battery power,

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Do-Lithium-Batteries-Pose-A-Major-Fire-Hazard.html

"Batteries are sensitive to overheating and overcharging, Alexey Glushenkov explained to EcoGeneration. Overheating initially happens in a single battery cell but can quickly spread to all the other cells in a battery pack. Battery manufacturers seek to minimize the chance of that happening. Unfortunately, recent battery incidents have proven that it is not always possible to completely eliminate the danger.

When a battery cell overheats, gases begin to build up inside it, swelling it and eventually opening it, allowing oxygen to come in and spark a fire. 

But how does overheating happen? By overcharging, which can also cause unwanted chemical reactions in the battery cells—again threatening fire.

The most common cause for all of this is a short circuit. According to Glushenkov, it could be the result of a bad battery design or a manufacturing defect. Short circuits can also start at a molecular level when overcharging the battery cell results in the buildup of metallic lithium in the anode. These buildups grow into what are commonly known as dendrites."

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

Jay, I have not seen any economic analysis in your posts, you should rely on someone with a genuine economics degree to help you with economic issues. Just ask me for an educated opinion. I have worked as a broadcast media commentator on economic issues.

I was pointing out the issue of EV users being dedicated to a "cause" as contributing to the satisfaction level. You could not get the same level of "cause" related satisfaction from an ICE user.

Your hypothesis as to the consumer's utility function is fine but it is just something you made up.  Don't act like it is known fact until you have done some actual testing. It also requires the corollary that ICE drivers can feel dissatisfied because they are unhappy with the pollution they are causing. Of course you could get the same level of dissatisfaction from ICE drivers.

As to your economics, what a laugh! You think a 6 month rebound from a crash is a sign of long term trends, you don't understand substitutes and you think high fossil fuel costs are a positive for fossils but higher input costs for renewables are a correlating negative for renewables.  Oh and we haven't even gotten to exponential economics. You need to get a refund on that degree.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

It was explained to you.

They were all asked the same question "Would you buy the same car again?" There is no bias. They determined satisfaction on that one question. You have failed again. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ecocharger said:

There is a looming problem for battery power,

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Do-Lithium-Batteries-Pose-A-Major-Fire-Hazard.html

"Batteries are sensitive to overheating and overcharging, Alexey Glushenkov explained to EcoGeneration. Overheating initially happens in a single battery cell but can quickly spread to all the other cells in a battery pack. Battery manufacturers seek to minimize the chance of that happening. Unfortunately, recent battery incidents have proven that it is not always possible to completely eliminate the danger.

When a battery cell overheats, gases begin to build up inside it, swelling it and eventually opening it, allowing oxygen to come in and spark a fire. 

But how does overheating happen? By overcharging, which can also cause unwanted chemical reactions in the battery cells—again threatening fire.

The most common cause for all of this is a short circuit. According to Glushenkov, it could be the result of a bad battery design or a manufacturing defect. Short circuits can also start at a molecular level when overcharging the battery cell results in the buildup of metallic lithium in the anode. These buildups grow into what are commonly known as dendrites."

ICE cars are still more flammable. The battery situation is being minimized through software and different chemistries. Sales continue growing faster than ICE sales.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

33 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Your hypothesis as to the consumer's utility function is fine but it is just something you made up.  Don't act like it is known fact until you have done some actual testing. It also requires the corollary that ICE drivers can feel dissatisfied because they are unhappy with the pollution they are causing. Of course you could get the same level of dissatisfaction from ICE drivers.

As to your economics, what a laugh! You think a 6 month rebound from a crash is a sign of long term trends, you don't understand substitutes and you think high fossil fuel costs are a positive for fossils but higher input costs for renewables are a correlating negative for renewables.  Oh and we haven't even gotten to exponential economics. You need to get a refund on that degree.

It has served me well, Jay. I have not seen any economic analysis in your posts, so perhaps you are the one who deserves some refunding. I don't think that anyone would deny that one of the prime motivations for purchasing an EV is to contribute to a greater "cause", and "cause" related purchases do not follow the normal rules of economic rationality.

I presume that is why you pay no attention to the abysmal ratings of Tesla vehicles in the surveys above. Again, your "cause" trumps (excuse the term) any rational evaluation.

 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Ecocharger

[Ecocharger + 1,474]

30 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

They were all asked the same question "Would you buy the same car again?" There is no bias. They determined satisfaction on that one question. You have failed again. 

No, the EV purchases are part of a "cause".