Another petrol bail out (phony war) possible with petrol obviously obsolete?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 101101
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 22
  • Views Views 2K
1

101101

Well-Known Member
Now we still haven't prosecuted the Machiavellians that brought us the Iraq war so that might be part of how we got the point that we are looking at another stupid war of preemption in Iran. But how can they get away with it when petrol for fuel/energy is now obviously obsolete? Its as if they allowed millions of people to experience the light bulb but now want them to pretend its no longer to possible to make light bulbs and they now have to go back to using only candles.

It seems they'd like the get rid of Tesla and stuff the electric car genie back in the bottle. But it just won't happen. You don't have to be someone into conspiracies to see the siege of Tesla right now. Another rigged or questionable car wreck- a series of them, a the same time a credit down grade by BS credit raters and then an apparently stupid decision in a court case over solar city. All of it kicked off with usual suspect Tamberino announcing or telegraphic a stock price decline- could be rigged market too. Even labor sabotage has been playing a role. Also not to mention attempts to fight where it can sell cars.

But the thing its it way too late. Petrol fuel/energy is the enemy and not something we should be fighting for or over. No one wants this over priced toll road for the rich any more, these people were paid off long ago for any contribution. Even if they could get rid of Tesla they'd only martyr it. But much, much worse is the cat is out of the bag on the economic advantage of green energy vs petrol. Green is about 7x more efficient, and that is an insurmountable strategic advantage on things like cost of goods and the advantage vs petrol on the full supply chain will only keep increasing where petrol is static but with costs that rise unpredictably. Its already over for petrol. It is simply not worth fighting for anymore because its so obviously obsolete and it has been for a long time.
 
Tesla really should investigate the false claims and expose them. Imagine if California would have investigated Enron instead of caving to the rolling black out scams. Missing from the above was the incredibly stupid Bloomberg shill piece that advertised good news for Tesla and then contained lower production numbers than any other estimate which was soon reversed but the point was probably just to get Tesla investors that normally screen out the shill pieces to click on it. That was the start of it. I'd suspect the T. admin, you have to question people who are like we're petrol first, as soon as they're out we have to find a way to outlaw that criminality.
 
I don't see how you can call a fuel used daily by the overwhelming majority of car owners 'obsolete'. It is selling more and more every year, worldwide. The most optimistic estimates put peak sales somewhere in the 2030s.

It obviously isn't anywhere near obsolete yet.

Probably one day it will be, and good riddance too, but it isn't yet. Let us stick to the facts as they are rather than how we would like them to be.
 
The facts are its getting banned increasingly everywhere because its beyond criminal and its based on a terrorist business model and industry that causes useless wars and puts everyone's lives at risk for its useless should be illegal profit- going to have to start to ban petrol fuel energies its profit soon- kind of what an outright ban does. Think I read that BEVs were up to 10% of sales for quarters or in certain parts of CA or was it all. The fact is the Model 3 is radically superior to every gas car on the road for most middle class people, its better than Camry and Accord and that is saying a lot.
 
I'm quite sure I could find other parts of the USA where sales of battery cars were zero for the quarter.

The fact is that world sales of petrol are INCREASING, not falling as you claim. As only 5% of the world's population are American, and the car market there is pretty well saturated, American trends are of decreasing importance in a world where car sales are booming elsewhere.

I don't like petrol either, but I am not deluding myself that sales of it are falling.
 
CA alone is the 5th economy in the world. CA is working to ban petrol and came close recently if it weren't for one paid for shill criminal.
And no the economics of petrol are not increasing because they aren't viable to begin with, it comes from pure subsidy, its all economic sham. It all comes back to that sub threshold 13% locked in historical written in stone never going to move at scale, built out mature tech limit for economic efficiency versus something that is way above threshold and only getting better on a Moore's law trajectory.

And not its not credible at this point that you're just a pessimist, or an Eeyore, you seem seem much more like someone on the payroll.
 
I don't really know or care much about California and what they think about petrol, but as most of their cars run on it, it would seem to be rather stupid to make it illegal before something is there to take its place.

Batteries are nowhere near good enough yet, and in my opinion are unlikely to be for decades yet. But the rest of the world is buying into ICE cars like crazy, and that is what will be dominating petrol consumption in the coming years.

As to subsidies, I wish someone WOULD subsidise it!. I believe 61% of the cost of it at the pump is tax here in the UK. We are paying about $8.50 a gallon here!
 
No BEV is already superior to ICE already has lower cost. And no every aware larger state in the world is putting bans on ICE
 
@martin I think you might be paying the unsubsidized cost or a little tax but any tax may be being given back to the petrol makers as a subsidy.

This is where in the UK it might cost you $123.63 to go 320 miles in a typical 22 miles to the gallon car. But a Model 3 with a roof top solar system and a power pack might come in at 3 cents a kwh x 75 kwh or $2.25 to fill the whole thing and be 55x cheaper or a little less than 1/50th the price to run in fuel. Shows how obsolete petrol and ICE are.
 
So why are so few people buying them? My guess is for the following reasons (in no particular order)

1. Cost. It seems unlikely that the extra cost will be recovered by lower running cost.
2. Depreciation. They don't retain their value well. A three-year-old Leaf is worth 20% of its original cost for instance.
3. Inconvenience. Many people can't charge at home and find searching for public charging points a hassle, as well as the time charging takes.
4. Range. Nobody in their right mind believes the claims made by manufacturers. It might be achievable on a flat smooth track at optimum speed with no heating or aircon, but in the real world, it will be a lot less.
5. Availability. In an emergency, you might need a car at any time. One that cannot be used because its just come back from a long journey and needs charging is - to put it mildly - inconvenient.

Personally, I wouldn't consider buying a battery car for these reasons. A FCV would suit my lifestyle and needs far better.
 
Well yes, I am ignoring it, because they appeal to so few.

I might be able to make a super-duper whiz-bang pencil sharpener capable of sharpening pencils quicker and better than any other pencil sharpener in the world, but if it cost $5,000 dollars not many would buy it, and it would not have much effect on the pencil sharpener market.

You need to look at the market as a whole. Most battery cars are NOT growing in sales by much if at all. Those who buy Tesla cars are wealthy enough not to worry at its depreciation rate, and see them as toys, or are fans of the glorious future Elon Musk paints.

The ugly fact remains that most people (98 or 99 out of a hundred) prefer to buy a petrol car. Petrol is - unfortunately - far from obsolete.
 
No that is simply wrong. Demand for the Model 3 is the greatest for any car in history as the back order show. And buying an ICE car or investing in ICE is a criminal act, so I don't think people prefer it. Certainly no one who has thought about it does. Also ICE won't work for autonomy- the only good fit is BEV.
 
It may be hugely in demand, but every car is making a loss! And the 'huge demand' is tiny compared with that for petrol cars. Go look at the figures. Try to see what is actually happening rather than what you WANT to see happening.
 
Wrong on both counts. There has never been a back log for a petrol car, because none created that type of demand. And wrong again on margin Tesla's margins on the S and X are at the top of the industry and that won't be different for the 3. That is what happens when something that is practically solid state replaces something with thousands of necessary parts and replaces a supply chain with millions or billions of unnecessary parts.
 
Sadly, the backlog for M3s is due to Musk's inability to produce them not a huge demand.

Have you looked at Tesla's accounts? I suspect you haven't. The loss in 2017 was $20,000 a car! There is every chance it will be higher in 2018. Musk seems to get out of his various loss-making ventures by attracting investment for yet another eye-catching gimmicky project, or an announcement of a new venture which will make everyone rich. But how long this can go on before it is rumbled is limited. It seems to me that already some very sharp questions are being asked about his ventures. Perhaps the end is not too far away.
 
Ah no. The the demand has been non existent for any other car, no other car ever back logged orders like that before it was available, more than the best selling car per year in the US (car not truck,) other vehicles do not get back orders. And the 20K loss BS was debunked.
No have sharp questions have ever been asked. SpaceX is effective to the point that Boing just quite trying to compete.
 
Nonsense. I recall the Mini when it came out in the 1960s having a huge backlog. They couldn't make them fast enough! I had to wait months and months to get one. The demand for the model 3s is enormous by battery car standards, but in terms of conventional cars, it's negligible. The $20,000 loss may have been debunked but not the figures from which it was calculated. 100,000 cars produced in 2017, and a $2 billion pound loss. Go and check them. Tesla has made a tiny profit in only two years of its existence. As to questions about its future, try this:
https://www.themorningbulletin.com....-teslas-future-prospects-says-if-you/3317049/

There is a lot more of this sort of thing if you go and look for it. I don't suppose the recent death due to a self-driving one managing to kill its driver will help much either. Autonomous cars are another notion in which the hype to achievement ratio is millions to one.
 
Ah no. Mini never had anything like the demand. Not even the 1964 Ford had a half a million orders and counting. Nothing like it ever.

As for the so called losses- Tesla is spending to ramp up- that's not loss, but Forbes did kindly clarify that GM and Ford are structurally bankrupt. This is is the one thing that is so outrageous. Petrol firms are totally subsidy welfare cases but green energy simply isn't, not even remotely so. Some public finds helped start Tesla true but a ton of public finds were spend pulling GM and Chrysler out of bankruptcy when the case of GM is shouldn't have without even more severe conditions. Just like a normal BS petrol firm (remember its petrol retail component) it managed to go bankrupt why attempting to blame its union- for that BS Obama rightly lopped its head off and zeroed out its foolish stock holders- remember it went bankrupt at the zenith of the most pro petrol kleptocracy in history but what he should have done is told them no loan unless they converted to 100% BEV, because it was obvious even then only BEV would work- of course he didn't because that firm doesn't know how to make quality and it would failed. But he could have at lease said 50% BEV at the start and rising every year or terms of loan extend and get worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top