New York State Taxpayers Lose 900 Million to Tesla

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/11/08/new-york-state-takes-900-million-write-down-on-tesla-plant-value

 

New York State Takes $900 Million Write Down on Tesla Plant Value

Here we go again. If all the money that was invested in the multiple bankrupt ventures the United States and individual states has invested in were spent on natural gas pipelines and facilities, we would have made far more progress in lowering pollution by replacing coal. The same thing goes for all the subsidies to help sell electric cars. We would be better off with natural gas vehicles to compete with the few electric cars that are being sold. Make it an even playing field. But natural gas will make the electricity anyway. 

51

[John Foote + 1,135]

That solar tile thing was always more great idea than economic reality. The engineering to make it economical isn't here yet. I worked for a company that ended up writing off $6 billion, essentially betting on thin film solar, but collapsing photovoltaic rendered thin films a bad investment. I was on a board once recommending technology ventures for the State of Texas. The only one I recommended which was funded ended up laying an egg.

When you bet on undeveloped technology, you usually lose. But the right win can pay for a lot of losses. 

For those who have ever played with inverters, and effect of shade and partial shade, how this could have worked on many roofs without a really sophisticated micro-inverter and switching system, is beyond me. 

Not a fan of the Telsa man, but I am absolutely fascinated with getting booster rockets to land vertically on a time platform in the sea. Very, very, amazing. Again, how the economics work, I don't see it.  But I am not a rocket scientist. I do understand basic finance, but don't grasp playing with other people's money and how losing doesn't matter. Which is a key sales pitch part of technology commercialization.

[PE Scott + 563]

On 11/8/2019 at 6:56 PM, ronwagn said:

But natural gas will make the electricity anyway. 

This is my thought. For that reason, I don't really understand why people are afraid of daily commuters adopting EVs. Big trucks, service vehicles, trains, airplanes, tractors, long distance commuters, etc. will all continue using ICE vehicles for a long long time. The entire midwest with its lower population density and cold winters will likely remain on ICE vehicles for a long time.

For those who do adopt electric cars, solar isnt always practical or affordable - especially at a scale large enough to offset residential use plus transportation. Natural gas should and probably will be the answer to scaling up energy production to meet increasing demand.

[canadas canadas + 136]

Neoliberalism: Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. (A recipe for socioeconomic inequality.)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp

Edited November 11, 2019 by canadas canadas

[ronwagn + 6,290]

11 hours ago, PE Scott said:

This is my thought. For that reason, I don't really understand why people are afraid of daily commuters adopting EVs. Big trucks, service vehicles, trains, airplanes, tractors, long distance commuters, etc. will all continue using ICE vehicles for a long long time. The entire midwest with its lower population density and cold winters will likely remain on ICE vehicles for a long time.

For those who do adopt electric cars, solar isnt always practical or affordable - especially at a scale large enough to offset residential use plus transportation. Natural gas should and probably will be the answer to scaling up energy production to meet increasing demand.

I am not really concerned about electric vehicles. I realize that natural gas will make most of the increased electricity demand. I just have heard so much from the fans of electric cars about how ICE should really worry about being replaced within ten years. The other reason is that I think natural gas vehicles make more sense and could be much less expensive. They basically just require a new fuel system and tank.  Trucking should be the main concern because of the amount of fuel they use. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

4 hours ago, canadas canadas said:

Neoliberalism: Privatize the profits and socialize the losses. (A recipe for socioeconomic inequality.)

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/privatizing-profits-and-socializing-losses.asp

Capitalism: exploit labour, dump negative externalities on the public/earth, make a few people very rich. (Also a recipe for the tragedy of the commons.)

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

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

Edited November 11, 2019 by Enthalpic

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 11/9/2019 at 2:09 PM, John Foote said:

Not a fan of the Telsa man, but I am absolutely fascinated with getting booster rockets to land vertically on a time platform in the sea. Very, very, amazing. Again, how the economics work, I don't see it.  But I am not a rocket scientist. I do understand basic finance, but don't grasp playing with other people's money and how losing doesn't matter. Which is a key sales pitch part of technology commercialization.

Can't not like SpaceX after seeing stuff like this (skip to 0:20):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-pfzKbh2k

Amazing engineering