Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Tesla: 4 month's to live
Comments
-
gas is getting phased out? Not in back the pack''s lifetime.
-
I completely understand the sentiment, but it isn't like corporate tax incentives are unique to Tesla. Nevada wanted the battery plant so they offered the best package ($1.3B). New York wanted the solar factory, so they did the same. As long as there isn't cronyism, and the state does an actual analysis that shows they will be better off, I feel okay offering incentives. Washington has definitely benefited from doing the same for Boeing.Southerndawg said:
Agree, overly simplistic on that point, but not the point of the link. @HoustonHusky posted that he doesn't "want to fund something that makes no economic sense". Taxpayers provided Musk with 4.9B in public funding up to the time of the blog post, and as @HoustonHusky subsequently noted, tax credits for EV further force taxpayers to foot a portion of the bill. From a purely technical point of view, I'm a fan of what Tesla has been doing, but also understand the perspective (and fall on the side) of letting the market decide winners and losers without government intervention.UWhuskytskeet said:
Is that guy seriously taking Tesla's quarterly P&L and dividing it by the number of cars sold in order to claim Tesla loses $4000 a car?Southerndawg said:
AgreeHoustonHusky said:
Its not that I want them to fail badly...I just understand thermodynamics. I don't want to fund something that makes no economic senseWilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
For the high-end market nobody cares about the economics of gas vs. electricity, but for an average car it makes no sense.
http://blog.independent.org/2016/01/28/the-truth-about-tesla-motors/ -
We fund defense contractors like Boeing for national defense purposes. But we also benefit from better commercial aircraft, a byproduct of their military R&D.
Why do so many of you casually disregard a company like Tesla? We are investing into their R&D for better batteries/solar/transportation, which has the byproduct of boosting our national defense by making us more energy independent.
It's effectively the same thing in a reversed order. -
Batteries are expensive but (obviously) become a smaller percentage of the cost of ownership as the cost of the car increases. Here's an admittedly dated source, but you might find it useful.greenblood said:
That's good to know...UWhuskytskeet said:
I think we'll see taxes shifted toward registrations once gas becomes more phased out.greenblood said:
But doesn't that play into the notion that their market may be limited, especially once the government gets smart and starts creating more taxes on electric usage?UWhuskytskeet said:
Northwest is way cheaper.greenblood said:Is the cost of charging an electric vehicle more expensive than paying for gas on the east coast? If so, that's what I see as a problem for them going forward.
The midwest I believe has the cheapest electric costs, but being geographically spread out, it's not really an ideal market for Tesla as well.
But let's say gas tax is applied to electricity rates. We'll use Washington which is in the top 3 for gas tax, currently at $0.56/gallon. Using $3.50 as the average price, you can say 16% of the cost of gas is tax.
Apply a 16% tax to electricity rates, $0.08/kwh for WA, and the price raises to $0.093.
Basically it doesn't really change the equation much at all. Electric vehicles will still be cheaper to fuel. Even the least efficient EV will still be cheaper per mile than a 45mpg hybrid. This is ignoring the decrease in maintenance (though you'll have to replace the battery some day so it could be a wash).
The battery kind of freaks me out though, because I've heard a battery replacement could be in the thousands.
https://www.aol.com/article/2013/06/24/gas-vs-electric-cars-cost-comparison/20633103/
Here's a crude breakeven cost analysis that includes the the tax credit benefit but also assumes a fixed cost for gasoline (bad assumption).
http://www.fleetcarma.com/miles-recoup-cost-electric-car/
I'm not advocating for or against EV's. I certainly appreciate the technology and they will no doubt continue to improve via technological innovation to at some point perhaps becoming economically viable on a large scale without direct government subsidy.
I'm a bigger fan of KERS/hybrid mixes that optimize performance with advanced energy recovery, storage and delivery systems. A ton of technology across multiple scientific disciplines, very exciting stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_E3bSFi8lI -
Good thing we took all of Afghanistan's lithium.
-
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
-
But it's not R&D for what you want. Ramping up manufacturing on Tesla's batteries is ramping up production on a pretty old battery technology. The only novelty in their batteries is how they manage heat, and even that isn't that high-tech.WilburHooksHands said:
Consider it to be as much about R&D as it is profitability. You could consider it the government essentially contracting out the most viable candiate for alternative energy R&D, its really no different than a defense contract. Do you care if Lockheed Martin makes economic sense?HoustonHusky said:
Its not that I want them to fail badly...I just understand thermodynamics. I don't want to fund something that makes no economic senseWilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
For the high-end market nobody cares about the economics of gas vs. electricity, but for an average car it makes no sense.
You are better off having Tesla being a profitable, specialty car manufacturer for very high-end cars and have them continue to work on technology instead of locking into a non-breakthrough technology and almost (to maybe actually) bankrupting themselves by spending all their money on capex ramping up production on a product that really needs subsidies to survive. Doesn't do much for their stock price/valuation though.
Think about it...they have been cash-strappped for a couple years now. They have a huge R&D budget, but all of that R&D is going to get their Model S and Model 3 up and running. You think they can afford to spend much time/attention on something that may help them 10 years from now? And why should the govt pick them over 20 other battery technology companies to give tons of money to, esp when most of it will get spent on commercializing an older technology? -
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours. -
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours. -
They are and also are extremely harmful to the environment.greenblood said:
That's good to know...UWhuskytskeet said:
I think we'll see taxes shifted toward registrations once gas becomes more phased out.greenblood said:
But doesn't that play into the notion that their market may be limited, especially once the government gets smart and starts creating more taxes on electric usage?UWhuskytskeet said:
Northwest is way cheaper.greenblood said:Is the cost of charging an electric vehicle more expensive than paying for gas on the east coast? If so, that's what I see as a problem for them going forward.
The midwest I believe has the cheapest electric costs, but being geographically spread out, it's not really an ideal market for Tesla as well.
But let's say gas tax is applied to electricity rates. We'll use Washington which is in the top 3 for gas tax, currently at $0.56/gallon. Using $3.50 as the average price, you can say 16% of the cost of gas is tax.
Apply a 16% tax to electricity rates, $0.08/kwh for WA, and the price raises to $0.093.
Basically it doesn't really change the equation much at all. Electric vehicles will still be cheaper to fuel. Even the least efficient EV will still be cheaper per mile than a 45mpg hybrid. This is ignoring the decrease in maintenance (though you'll have to replace the battery some day so it could be a wash).
The battery kind of freaks me out though, because I've heard a battery replacement could be in the thousands. -
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.2001400ex said:
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Speed limit IQ... -
The hydrogen car is the only alternative fuel vehicle that makes sense, but there is zero fucking chance it ever happens.WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
Hydrogen is the most abundant thing on the planet, so it would be impossible to turn a profit on it. The exhaust a hydrogen car produces is clean, drinkable water. You lose all of the climate change bullshit that generates a mountain of money under this scenario also.
People are trying to go into the future making sure the same people stay rich. It's just fucking stupid. -
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.RedRocket said:
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources. -
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.HoustonHusky said:
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.2001400ex said:
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Speed limit IQ... -
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?2001400ex said:
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.HoustonHusky said:
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.2001400ex said:
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Speed limit IQ...
You really aren't good at this... -
Yes I'm not good at reading a Forbes article and taking it out of context like you did.HoustonHusky said:
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?2001400ex said:
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.HoustonHusky said:
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.2001400ex said:
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Speed limit IQ...
You really aren't good at this...
Look up oil and gas exploration and the section 199 deduction. -
So was federal investment into helping to commercialize fracking a good or bad decision?HoustonHusky said:
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.RedRocket said:
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.
Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it. -
This is what happens when your clown CEO thinks he will be piloting the first manned mission to Mars.
-
'cause Cherry Bombs get you laid Mother-Fucker!WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
-
I like this thread.
-
Sounds great, but H2 doesn't readily exist and is pretty freaking unstable.Mosster47 said:
The hydrogen car is the only alternative fuel vehicle that makes sense, but there is zero fucking chance it ever happens.WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
Hydrogen is the most abundant thing on the planet, so it would be impossible to turn a profit on it. The exhaust a hydrogen car produces is clean, drinkable water. You lose all of the climate change bullshit that generates a mountain of money under this scenario also.
People are trying to go into the future making sure the same people stay rich. It's just fucking stupid.
A while back they did have a proposal for a "sodium"-powered car (expose Na with water to make H2 to power the car plus NaOH)...was kinda interesting. Some nasty chemicals however, and you still need a ton of electricity to convert the NaOH back to sodium however...
In South America they have been retrofitting cars to be powered by natural gas...probably the best alternative to liquid fuels, but it doesn't get you around the carbon dependence. -
Indifferent. The Govt invested massively in the 1970s into everything energy...relatively speaking very little went to fracking (there are a lot of wrong numbers out there for those thinking it all went to fracking...most of the $$$ which "went" to fracking involved blowing up 3 different nukes in Colorado and New Mexico, and if you think that was really done for fracking purposes or helped in any way, shape, or form current technology more power to you...).RedRocket said:
So was federal investment into helping to commercialize fracking a good or bad decision?HoustonHusky said:
You are talking about two completely different applications of govt resources. The "federal funding" into shale gas was either the DOE directly doing exploratory research with no commercialization 1970s and 80s or the DOE working with Mitchell on a couple wells to prove a concept.RedRocket said:
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
The equivalent of what has been done with all the green energy payoffs to Tesla, all the solar junkets, etc, would have been for the govt to subsidized Mitchell's group to build and drill 1,000+ identical unprofitable shale gas wells based on bad technology on the hopes that the solution would have then just magically appeared.
The govt should not be involved in the commercialization of research, because it ends up being a complete misallocation of both govt and private resources.
You're analogy is a massive exaggeration. The government invested a significant amount of money into fracking from 1970s-1990s to support energy independence. It was unclear if it was going to profitable in 70s at the time of the initial investment. Fracking is why OPEC can't fuck us so I'm glad the government pitched in.
Federal investments into solar has been a mixed bag. The gov still does tons of public private partnerships in the solar industry similar to what was done in mid 70-80s for shale. The gov wanted to help bring down production cost and increase PV efficiency - both have happened in the last decade. Utility scale solar will grow with or without subsidies at this point - its just getting too cheap. Distributed generation and battery storage will happen and would rather have gov help fast track it.
And that is a completely different argument then what has been going on. Govt does fund some research in solar/etc...its a legit debate to say if they should and how much. But it should be done directly through the DOE/universities, etc., or even private start-ups that are in the exploration phase of a technology.
Instead of funding the early research, Obama (really whatever idiot he had telling him) picked technologies/companies that on their own are not competitive and any competent scientist could have told you so. And instead of funding them to research better technologies, he funded them to ramp up and spend billions of dollars to commercialize those non-competitive technologies.
And the results has been a complete waste of money, very little actual commercial technology, and what little that was developed is all now built in China. Brilliant.
Bringing this back to Tesla...there is a great business model buried under the mess. A high-end car that shouldn't be constrained by the economics of batteries/electricity, limited manufacturing required, etc. Its a perfect set-up to be profitable and use as a base to improve battery technology. Unfortunately, its also a limited market that won't grow rapidly and therefore won't drive valuations/stock higher, etc. Hence the push to ramp up Model 3, which will likely turn into a mess. -
http://www.crfb.org/blogs/tax-break-down-section-199-domestic-production-activities-deduction2001400ex said:
Yes I'm not good at reading a Forbes article and taking it out of context like you did.HoustonHusky said:
You mean like the foreign tax credits, or the domestic manufacturing deductions? Or do you mean with some midstream setting up as MLPs just the same way some real estate groups set up as REITs and such?2001400ex said:
Are you seriously saying that oil companies get the same subsidies as Apple? Or Polaris? Or whoever makes shit? Fuck you are a lemming.HoustonHusky said:
I support oil companies, just like I support battery companies, companies that make helmets for people with soft heads like yourself, etc...I support all companies that want to build here in the US and hire folks. And I support uniform laws and tax codes that treat them all equal, and don't try to pick one in favor of the other. And when a future technology has one beating the other out, I'm all for it.2001400ex said:
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
Speed limit IQ...
You really aren't good at this...
Look up oil and gas exploration and the section 199 deduction.
The Tax Break-Down: Section 199, the Domestic Production Activities Deduction
The eligible activities center around manufacturing, but many other businesses qualify. In addition to manufacturing, qualified activities include producing electricity and films, selling items manufactured in the United States, engineering, and software development. The deduction is adequately broad that assembling gift baskets, making hamburgers, or roasting coffee qualifies for the deduction. Roughly one-third of corporate activities qualify for the deduction. As former U.S. tax official John Harrington explained, "If you are in the Dow Jones industrial (average), and you are not taking this deduction, there must be something wrong. It has always applied to a motley crew of activities."
Yeah...a deduction for only the oil and gas industry. God you are an effin moron...
-
It wants to grow up to be GTOTurdBuffer said:
'cause Cherry Bombs get you laid Mother-Fucker!WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
-
It wants to grow up to be GTO - @GrundleStiltzkin
Listen to them Glass-Packs Bitches! Welcome to the Cherry Popper! -
Those cars are fucking ugly and lame. Enter the 21st century already retard.TurdBuffer said:
'cause Cherry Bombs get you laid Mother-Fucker!WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
-
@LamboBacker POTD!oregonblitzkrieg said:
Those cars are fucking ugly and lame. Enter the 21st century already retard.TurdBuffer said:
'cause Cherry Bombs get you laid Mother-Fucker!WilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
-
TSLA up 42% since Feb 27th.
-
I blame pulling out of the Paris accordUWhuskytskeet said:TSLA up 42% since Feb 27th.
-
I endorse this bored's recent conversion to accountability, just as long as there isn't any for me.
