Tesla Bankruptcy Looms!

[Grumblenuts]

Solar power for the time being does not have the efficiency or output that fossil fuels do.

That's so incoherent it's no wonder you provide no evidence attempting to support it. But never let clarity stop you..

Efficiency you say? An array of solar panels converts free sunlight immediately and directly into substantial electrical power. In terms of creating shaft power you can probably only get more "efficient" with a wind turbine. But, like fossil fuels, the wind itself is a byproduct of sunlight. An installed solar panel requires no gasoline, lubrication, gas can, walk to a gas station, special bridge/highway, tanker ride, pipeline, permanent federal subsidy, drilling, blasting, enormous storage tank, scrubber, ... and on,.. and on...

But, clearly you two are shameless, clueless, or both.

 

[Grumblenuts]

If you're 3 years old...OK, maybe 12...and plan to stay in the house YOU personally own right now for the next 15 or so years then, yeah, you might break even on solar. But if you wait much longer to dump the house on the market you'll have to replace those spendy batteries to get a sale moving and then you might as well settle in for another decade or so.

Actually, if you want an easy, cost effective way to increase the resale value of your home? Call Tesla. Then shop around. They'll negotiate such a satisfactory deal that you can literally take it to the bank.

 

[Grumblenuts]

By the way, I have a solar powered home. No batteries. SHOCKING, I know.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

Solar power for the time being does not have the efficiency or output that fossil fuels do.

That's so incoherent it's no wonder you provide no evidence attempting to support it. But never let clarity stop you..

Efficiency you say? An array of solar panels converts free sunlight immediately and directly into substantial electrical power. In terms of creating shaft power you can probably only get more "efficient" with a wind turbine. But, like fossil fuels, the wind itself is a byproduct of sunlight. An installed solar panel requires no gasoline, lubrication, gas can, walk to a gas station, special bridge/highway, tanker ride, pipeline, permanent federal subsidy, drilling, blasting, enormous storage tank, scrubber, ... and on,.. and on...

But, clearly you two are shameless, clueless, or both.

Most solar panel only convert 14% of the energy that reaches them that number drops significantly on cloudy days. No sun no power. Wind turbines are great unless there's no wind. It's a fact neither of these can produce power as reliably or as efficiently as fossil fuels or nuclear power.

 

[Windparadox]

`
According to my portfolio accountant, Tesla is still very viable investment. I also happen to own a couple of Tesla "Powerwall" batteries which perform flawlessly, so I may be bias in that respect.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No sun no power. Wind turbines are great unless there's no wind.

Gee, no fossil or nuclear fuel, no power! No sunlight, no fossil fuel to begin with! Actual logic. SHOCKING! I know.

It's a fact neither of these can produce power as reliably or as efficiently as fossil fuels or nuclear power.

Again, incoherent. Define your terms "reliably" and "efficiently" unambiguously - then scientifically compare each attribute side by side... Careful - requires honesty and some actual caring. One can't get more cheap and reliable than the Sun. Even only 14% of something free and reliable is still something free and reliable. Beats 25% of something costly and of questionable reliability any day. Remember Enron? If you can't afford the electricity. what good is it? Now you know where the people you're copying from got the idea (Tesla cars cost too damn much - bad - waah!) from in the first place. The stole it. Just like they stole everything else.

 

[Grumblenuts]

`
According to my portfolio accountant, Tesla is still very viable investment. I also happen to own a couple of Tesla "Powerwall" batteries which perform flawlessly, so I may be bias in that respect.

Oh no, not another one biased toward facts!
How about green energy stocks in general these days compared to the polluters? Haven't been following it lately.

 

[Old Rocks]

As you can see in the charts above and table below, renewable energy absolutely dominated to electricity generation capacity in the USA in Q1 2016, even more so than it did in Q1 2015.

Renewables = 99% Of New Electricity Capacity In Q1 2016 In USA (CleanTechnica Electricity Reports) | CleanTechnica

Seems a bunch of someones like wind and solar.

 

[Viacheslav]

The "patient" is rather alive than dead.

Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).

Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.

Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.

The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.

Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers

 

[Syriusly]

The "patient" is rather alive than dead.

Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).

Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.

Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.

The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.

Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers

Stock Market doesn't seem to think there is an impending bankruptcy.
343.45USD5.56 (1.65%)
After-hours: 343.010.13%

 

[Viacheslav]

Tesla Model 3 quality is terrible, but will it matter to buyers?

So we've finally had the chance to spend time with a 2018 Tesla Model 3, courtesy of a generous and devoted Green Car Reports reader.
We'll have our first-drive report and a full review of the car within a day or two—but that's not what this article is about.
The build quality of the early Model 3 we tested in late February was, in a word, appalling.

Before we were even able to visit the owner, the car had to go back to the Tesla service center to have the central touchscreen replaced.
You know, the one required to control virtually any aspect of the car except for turn signals, headlights, and wipers?
The car we drove was configured in early January, and received a Vehicle Identification Number (between 4200 and 4300) in mid-January. It was delivered the last week of the month.
As the owner wrote to us:

We took delivery of our Model 3 today. It looked like everything was working OK until we got within about 10 miles of the house. That was when the touchscreen started to malfunction.

It is getting random touches along the right side of the screen. The worst part is that the stereo will go to full volume without notice. It also makes the map and navigation mostly useless. I called Tesla and they had me try rebooting the screen several times.

Unfortunately it didn't resolve the issue. They said they would call me back [within 24 hours] to attempt a software update or to schedule a service call. Nothing like paying $50,000 to be a beta tester. Again.

He later added, "It also causes problems charging, as the charging screen pops up and it constantly presses the button in the upper right corner that stops and starts charging."
Also, "I have found the car twice in the garage, locked, with the stereo blasting at full volume for who knows how long."
In the end, Tesla replaced the screen and the new unit seemed to function properly. We scheduled our test drive for a couple of weeks later.
During the test itself, two things became clear: The Model 3 works largely as intended, and the build quality was the worst we have seen on any new car from any maker over the last 10 years.
The flaws and defects broke down into two categories: those that affected the functioning of the car or the owner's driving experience, and those that didn't.
The first group included:The defective touchscreen and all the follow-on effects (above)

• Persistent creaks and groans from the console or dash
• An intermittent loud buzz from the upper right-hand center door pillar at highway speeds on some road surfaces
• A steering vibration (in a car with just 1,000 miles)

Tesla Model 3 quality is terrible, but will it matter to buyers?

I think that these were the expected "problems" for the "new man" in the "mass" automobile industry.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The complaint quality here by our anti-America biased, Tesla hating contingent has been, in a word, appalling.

 

[westwall]

The complaint quality here by our anti-America biased, Tesla hating contingent has been, in a word, appalling.

That's funny, you don't defend any of the bad actions, and terrible quality of Tesla, and instead merely attack those who point out the flaws and the fact that tesla has never turned a profit. How a company can still command the stock prices it does, when it has never turned a profit in ANY year of its existence is more a testament of how gullible people are, and how they will still fall for Ponzi schemes, even when they have all the information they could ever want at their fingertips.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.

 

[westwall]

"Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.

Oh? What is "at stake" here?

 

[Syriusly]

The "patient" is rather alive than dead.

Several Tesla suppliers are now reporting that Model 3 production is increasing rapidly and they are back to working on Tesla’s guidance of 5,000 units per week in December, which was delayed last month.
In October, a few days before Tesla’s earnings and the announcement of the Model 3 production ramp-up delay, Taiwanese auto component maker Hota Industrial Mfg. Co announced that Tesla slashed its orders for Model 3 parts by 40% (5,000 per week to 3,000).

Now the same supplier, which makes gears and axles, told Taiwanese media that Tesla increased the demand for parts back to 5,000 units per week this month.

Chairman Shen Guorong even said that they now have to mobilize the whole company and work overtime in order to comply with the change and that they are even shipping parts by airplanes instead of boats.

The report also cites other Taiwanese suppliers for Tesla’s Model 3 saying that production is now increasing following the bottlenecks.

Tesla Model 3 production is increasing to 5,000 units per week, say suppliers

Stock Market doesn't seem to think there is an impending bankruptcy.
343.45USD5.56 (1.65%)
After-hours: 343.010.13%

Still no impending bankruptcy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

"Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.

Oh? What is "at stake" here?

Fails to address several direct, simple questions? Check!
Sig line reveals to be proud climate science denier? Check!
So doesn't care? Check!

Well, I would try to explain some of what's at stake here, but you would simply deny it and most everyone who would listen already knows. The future of all life on Earth to be blunt. But you don't care about that, do you? Just admit it.

 

[westwall]

"Funny"? For me, not defending bad actions is quite normal. You? And I attacked "The complaint quality" of the "anti-America biased, Tesla" haters here. Why are you crying if that doesn't accurately describe you? Who else do you presume to represent? There's far more than "profit" at stake here - do you care? Appears not at all.

Oh? What is "at stake" here?

Fails to address several direct, simple questions? Check!
Sig line reveals to be proud climate science denier? Check!
So doesn't care? Check!

Well, I would try to explain some of what's at stake here, but you would simply deny it and most everyone who would listen already knows. The future of all life on Earth to be blunt. But you don't care about that, do you? Just admit it.

If you make the claim that there is something truly at stake then you have to present evidence to support that contention. I can show you chapter and verse that hybrids like the Prius are more harmful to the environment than a Ford F-150. I can show you chapter and verse that biofuels are horrible for the environment. A new study shows beyond doubt that organic cotton grocery bags do more harm to the environment than the plastic bags they are replacing. You don't care about any of that because your motives are good. I WANT a clean world, I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.

Simply repeating your ridiculous claims above, thereby lending them undue credence, fits that description to a tee: "to engage in behaviors that are harmful" regardless of what you really know or how deliberately you spread all this denier propaganda. Seem hard core though. Quite shameless indeed.

 

[westwall]

I'm just not going to engage in behaviors that are harmful because other people tell me to based on the fact that they have no clue what they are talking about.

Simply repeating your ridiculous claims above, thereby lending them undue credence, fits that description to a tee: "to engage in behaviors that are harmful" regardless of what you really know or how deliberately you spread all this denier propaganda. Seem hard core though. Quite shameless indeed.

Here's just one example of how greenies get it wrong...



"For at least a few decades, Americans have been drilled in the superiority of tote bags. Reusable bags are good, we’re told, because they’re friendly for the environment. Disposable bags, on the other hand, are dangerous. Municipalities across the country have moved to restrict the consumption of plastic shopping bags to avoid waste. Many businesses have stopped offering plastic sacks, or provide them for a modest but punitive price. Bag-recycling programs have been introduced nationwide.

But canvas bags might actually be worse for the environment than the plastic ones they are meant to replace. In 2008, the UK Environment Agency (UKEA) published a study of resource expenditures for various bags: paper, plastic, canvas, and recycled-polypropylene tote bags. Surprisingly, the authors found that in typical patterns of use and disposal, consumers seeking to minimize pollution and carbon emissions should use plastic grocery bags and then reuse those bags at least once—as trash-can liners or for other secondary tasks. Conventional plastic bags made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, the plastic sacks found at grocery stores) had the smallest per-use environmental impact of all those tested. Cotton tote bags, by contrast, exhibited the highest and most severe global-warming potential by far since they require more resources to produce and distribute.

Such results feel deeply counterintuitive. HDPE bags seem foreign, artificial. They lodge in trees, catch in the esophagi of animals, fester in landfills, clot cities, and are reduced to small particles floating in ocean gyres—for hundreds of years into the future. But even though they don’t easily degrade, they require very few resources to manufacture and transport. They produce less carbon, waste, and byproducts than cotton or paper bags. They’re recyclable. They’re cheap. For all those reasons, they’re ubiquitous. And they remain, long after their usefulness is exhausted.

The UKEA study calculated an expenditure of a little less than two kilograms of carbon per HDPE bag. For paper bags, seven uses would be needed to achieve the same per-use ratio. Tote bags made from recycled polypropylene plastic require 26, and cotton tote bags require 327 uses. (Although they weren’t included in the study, one can presume that designer totes, made with leather adornments, metal, and so on drive the required number of uses into basically astronomical numbers.)



Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006
A study to assess the life cycle environmental impacts of carrier bags for the UK in 2006

Life cycle assessment of supermarket carrierbags: a review of the bags available in 2006 - GOV.UK