What's your take on Tesla?
Discussion
travel is dangerous said:
Simpo Two said:
modeller said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
When investing, I couldn't give two hoots what kind of company there are, beyond profitable company / unprofitable company.
Lots of serious investors do care, hence the rise of ethical investment funds and pension funds deinvesting from fossil fuels. 
zubzob said:
Interesting stuff. my gut feeling is the above quote is a little harsh on Tesla. Don't they have the largest battery factory in the world or something? And are opening new factories in China too. Does it have to be Tesla vs China? Why not Tesla with China.
Musk claimed it would be the biggest several years ago but there are larger factories in China. BYD just announced an even larger one in China. Edited by zubzob on Wednesday 25th July 22:01
It’s not so much Tesla v China but China v the world and China has set its heart on winning. It’s already the leader.
DonkeyApple said:
V8 Fettler said:
Most car journeys are short, a bicycle would be a better choice of transport for many of these short journeys, with added health benefits. However, range anxiety still applies even if the personal EV outside on the drive is fully charged e.g. "How can I drive through the night to see Auntie Doris if she suddenly falls desperately ill?".
As previously, the real answer is driverless EV cabs to be summoned by a mobile phone.
Definitely agree that the ultimate answer is the driverless Uber, especially as the population continue to become poorer and at the current rate many just won’t even be able to afford the weeklies on a basic utility transport. But, I don’t believe for one minute that we are remotely close to this being a viable product. The EV and autonomy industries are rife with abject dishonesty, deception and propaganda. As previously, the real answer is driverless EV cabs to be summoned by a mobile phone.
Pilotless cars for decades are going to be like cycling. Only suitable in certain locations. I can easily see a Londoner taking a conventional minicab out to an M25 ‘hub’ where they will switch to a waiting driverless car to take them to their non town destination or the driverless hub of another town where they will dive out into a waiting piloted car but anyone who has ever tried to cross key parts of major cities where pedestrian traffic is high knows that fear is a vital element in making progresss across junctions and an autonomous vehicle won’t ever be programmed to create a perceived threat in order to make progress.
Cycling is a bit of a dead end. Few people want anything to do with cycling. Absolutely, it is a logical infill for journeys where walking is a little too far and there is a lack of public transport so long as you completely ignore geography, meteorology and consumerism. If you were to instantly tax people out of cars I would wager that just like in every country on the planet where cars remain too expensive for the masses the infil will be from the immediate rise of a highly complex and efficient minicab/bus hybrid system where no one sweats, no one has to store a bike, no one has to put on special clothing, no one has to adjust for the weather, no one has to worry about how to get their consumer goods home etc etc.
What’s important to consider is that if Aunty Bess is unwell then someone without a car can already get to Aunty Bess. And if millions don’t have cars then that system will expand to become infinitely more efficient.
But also, the range anxiety movement is often failing to recognise that their concerns really are statistical anomalies and if EVs become genuinely cheaper than ICE either through market forces or taxation then the entire country will switch overnight and enterprise will infill the anomalies. The wealthy already have second cars and poor will see things like the bus and coach networks expanding etc. But 99% of drivers will realise that they only drive a few miles a day and that they can charge their car wherever they go or live. We all remember just how quickly every pavement in the U.K. was dug up to install cable as soon as it became commercially viable via consumer demand. The moment EVs become cheaper than ICE then charging points are going to appear every ten feet across the whole of the U.K. and companies are going to be competing for our business before most going bust and the rest being swallowed up in a merger and acquisition frenzy.
As far as I am concerned the only thing stopping the masses from buying EVs is the price. They can’t afford them so they’re s
t. As soon as they are cheaper to buy then the masses will be butchering each other to get their hands on them and telling everyone who’ll listen that only winners drive EVs and that ICE are for poor and stupid people. All concept of range anxiety will have disappeared over night as the masses instantly switch their allegiance to save money but to look richer. In fact, there will almost certainly be a total reversal on the matter of range anxiety as the very people who once screamed that they needed a range of 1000 and even then couldn't charge it become the vanguard for bragging how superior they are because they only need a vehicle that has a 100 mile range and that they infill the anomalous requirements using their higher intellect and wealth. And this brings us back to Tesla as that is exactly what you already see amongst their ownership today and probably the same with other EV brands.
There are several variables driving estimates for construction costs of cabling for home charging of EVs, the primary variable being the ability to charge 24/7 (£££££££) compared to charging during periods where demand for electricity is low (£££). The former provides freedom and flexibility, the latter doesn't. 1000 mile range and occasional charging at "energy" centres = minimal additional cabling to homes and freedom.
My Auntie Mildred lives about 200 miles away, if the phone call announcing her imminent demise occurs at 11pm then I can be there as the attentive nephew three hours later (by car). Alternatively, I could be there ten hours later (by public transport), by which time she might be too far gone to tell me where the will is.
EVs are currently not that much more expensive to run in the UK https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/...
Per month:
Diesel 535 euros
Petrol 538 Euros
EV 719 Euros
V8 Fettler said:
Cable TV penetration in tthe UK is not particularly high, cable plus satellite hovers around 50%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/531183/penetra...
There are several variables driving estimates for construction costs of cabling for home charging of EVs, the primary variable being the ability to charge 24/7 (£££££££) compared to charging during periods where demand for electricity is low (£££). The former provides freedom and flexibility, the latter doesn't. 1000 mile range and occasional charging at "energy" centres = minimal additional cabling to homes and freedom.
My Auntie Mildred lives about 200 miles away, if the phone call announcing her imminent demise occurs at 11pm then I can be there as the attentive nephew three hours later (by car). Alternatively, I could be there ten hours later (by public transport), by which time she might be too far gone to tell me where the will is.
EVs are currently not that much more expensive to run in the UK https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/...
Per month:
Diesel 535 euros
Petrol 538 Euros
EV 719 Euros
But you are forgetting where cable is concentrated? It’s concentraed in the urban environment exactly where home charging is more complex. That’s the key. There really is absolutely, categorically no future issue whatsoever with regards to charging EVs. The infrastructure will appear when commercial demand appears. At the moment EVs are hugely expensive and just for people with the easy capability to charge. There are several variables driving estimates for construction costs of cabling for home charging of EVs, the primary variable being the ability to charge 24/7 (£££££££) compared to charging during periods where demand for electricity is low (£££). The former provides freedom and flexibility, the latter doesn't. 1000 mile range and occasional charging at "energy" centres = minimal additional cabling to homes and freedom.
My Auntie Mildred lives about 200 miles away, if the phone call announcing her imminent demise occurs at 11pm then I can be there as the attentive nephew three hours later (by car). Alternatively, I could be there ten hours later (by public transport), by which time she might be too far gone to tell me where the will is.
EVs are currently not that much more expensive to run in the UK https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/...
Per month:
Diesel 535 euros
Petrol 538 Euros
EV 719 Euros
Just FaceTime Auntie Mildred. She’s probably not left you anything in her will.
. Seriously, that kind of ‘essential, emergency’ need is an anomaly and just won’t feature in how we move forward with EVs. Re the cost differential you show above, that is huge. When you appreciate that people are already sacrificing pension investment to finance lifestyle now then it’s easier to understand why being able to offer a lease deal that is a poxy £10/month less can win consumers.
The EV is cheaper to build and to maintain than an ICE and it probably lasts longer due to its mechanical simplicity. The reason why it is currently massively more expensive than a comparable ICE (Let’s be honest and recognise that a Tesla S’ true comparison is not a Jag or Mercedes but a Vauxhall or Ford in terms of quality etc and even then struggles) is obviously firstly economies of scale, they are currently built in such small numbers so are overly expensive but primarily because the batteries are hugely, hugely expensive.
I think the event that the market is looking for is the tipping point where the cost of batteries falls so far that the EV’s price competitiveness absolutely smashes that of the ICE. That’s the point where instantly people will stop leasing ICE and lease EVs and they will adapt to the differences in refuelling.
I think Tesla will still be around at that point. Whether they have gone through a Chapter 11 before then is a different matter but I think the brand is here to stay and it will be the funky, on trend competitor to Ford, Toyota and Vauxhall as there is no conceivable way for them to compete against the more premium brands, no American car manufacturer has ever achieved that and Tesla is even further behind the curve.
DonkeyApple said:
I think the event that the market is looking for is the tipping point where the cost of batteries falls so far that the EV’s price competitiveness absolutely smashes that of the ICE.
Yes, although that immediately triggers the next issue - charging technology and network.- A 20 minute "fast charge" is no use to you if you're third in the queue
- In cities, the natural EV environment, most cars cars are parked on the street with no handy 13 amp socket.
DonkeyApple said:
I think Tesla will still be around at that point. Whether they have gone through a Chapter 11 before then is a different matter but I think the brand is here to stay and it will be the funky, on trend competitor to Ford, Toyota and Vauxhall as there is no conceivable way for them to compete
Again yes, once the big boys are churning out cheap electrics with decent range Tesla's volume business, if it ever gets going, will be toast. They'll need to find a specialist niche which can command a price premium.Would I invest in Tesla? No.
zubzob said:
Is Tesla planning on selling batteries to other car makers?
Yes but their model is hugely flawed. Because they are in the middle of the US desert their shipping costs to overseas manufacturing bases are much higher than their Chinese competitors. But far more crucially, a manufacturer demands guaranteed delivery with penalties and as Tesla does not have forward delivery agreements with the raw material firms but relies on buying on the open the market they cannot guarantee continuous and stable supply. And their balance sheet is not strong enough for meaningful penalties. We can also add that the factory is not yet up to speed and that even when it is it will be mostly supply Tesla with not much excess capacity if they are selling their projected number of cars and home powerwalls.
And finally, if battery tech suddenly changes Tesla cannot instantly change.
So, in short, this is why no firm has contracted to Tesla for battery supply as no one is anywhere desperate enough to take such huge risks. All the major manufacturers have contracted to Japanese and Chinese firms because they can guarantee supply and can afford any penalties and can adapt to changing tech.
zubzob said:
Even if they have 'only' the 2nd or 3rd biggest factory in the world, calling that achievement provincial, is a little harsh.
Apple is the biggest company in the world, despite its products being mostly made in China. Solar city are not trying to compete with Chinese solar panel manufacturing costs, any more than Apple is competing with Chinese companies.
I concede tesla don't sell many cars. But maybe cars are a flagship kickstarter, not the end goal. Apple make less than 10% of profit from desktop computers. What industry doesn't benefit from solar powered batteries? Is Tesla really a minor player? It can't all be story retail investors. There is serious money involved.
Comparing the valuation to other established car companies seems a bit off. They have a lot more avenues of potential.
Speculative and overpriced? Sure. Worthless? Hard to look at the gigafactories in that light imo. They are literally trying to build the largest building in the world.
Where have I said they were worthless though?Apple is the biggest company in the world, despite its products being mostly made in China. Solar city are not trying to compete with Chinese solar panel manufacturing costs, any more than Apple is competing with Chinese companies.
I concede tesla don't sell many cars. But maybe cars are a flagship kickstarter, not the end goal. Apple make less than 10% of profit from desktop computers. What industry doesn't benefit from solar powered batteries? Is Tesla really a minor player? It can't all be story retail investors. There is serious money involved.
Comparing the valuation to other established car companies seems a bit off. They have a lot more avenues of potential.
Speculative and overpriced? Sure. Worthless? Hard to look at the gigafactories in that light imo. They are literally trying to build the largest building in the world.
Edited by zubzob on Thursday 26th July 01:05
Where have I compared valuations? I’ve contrasted the business models.
What’s the definition of serious money? 50% of Berkshire Hathaway’s wealth invested or 1% of a VC’s wealth comprised from funds of funds, pensions and private investments?
And regards Apple:
Apple
It is hard to believe that the world's largest company by market capitalization was once in dire straits. While never actually filing for bankruptcy, Apple (AAPL) was on the verge of going bust in 1997. At the last minute, arch-rival Microsoft (MSFT) swooped in with a $150 million investment and saved the company. People have speculated that Microsoft only did so because it was worried that regulators would regard it as a monopoly without the competition from Apple in the marketplace.
Read more: 7 Bankrupt Companies That Came Back | Investopedia https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-fin...
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
zubzob said:
Interesting. Seems like it will be a interesting few years ahead for Tesla, either way.
What do you make of the two Gigafactorys recently announced in Germany and Shanghai? I read these have capacity for 1 million cars a year?
This is serious investment. Some big players seem to believe in it.
I always feel that ‘announcing’ isn’t always the same as ‘doing’ and that Tesla is a very ‘announcing’ sort of company. What do you make of the two Gigafactorys recently announced in Germany and Shanghai? I read these have capacity for 1 million cars a year?
This is serious investment. Some big players seem to believe in it.
They need to raise the money first and secure proper forward supply contracts of raw materials. The fact that they stalled the last equity issue and are borrowing more does tend to suggest that there is no more money for Tesla until they start properly shipping the 3 and start earning the hard revenues that are needed and already 12/18 months late.
The company is in a transition phase from start-up to conventional business and for me that makes it far too risky to buy in today and pay all that huge premium at a time when that premium is totally reliant on a product delivery that’s already late. Anyone who invested ahead of the premium has been rewarded hugely for their risk and there’s almost certainly more upside once the 3 is old news and delivering revenues but I can’t see any logic today. Even more so when institutional funds are saying no thanks to discounted stock issues. It’s time to wait. If only to see if Musk is ousted, the debt restructured under a C11 filing and Tesla 2.0 appears.
For those under an illusion that Tesla batteries are somehow unique, they are Panasonic L-Ion AAs. Granted, you can't buy a blister 4-pack of them down at Wilco, but they aren't *that* special.
https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/tesla-battery-cell-...
https://electrek.co/2017/03/22/tesla-battery-cell-...
200 300 400 mile trips ?
thing is were so used to filling up a tank that we forget that it could be so much eaiser. as battery technology improves we will make inroads to energy density and recharge times. if we got down to 25 miles charge in a minute then would that make a difference ? home charging a few minutes enough to do a day or so, longer trips with coffee breaks etc make it manageable, no long charge times but then were not looking to fill 400 miles in one go.
we don't need to go to a petrol station when ever the car is stopped it could be plugged in. maintain that charge float and it would be seemless. no range anxiety as there would be countless places to recharge.
electric is the future no hybrids or hydrogen. pure electric. and it will happen sooner than we imagine. governments are desperate to get rid of fossil fuel. the market for electric cars is immense as once people start to see the real cost of running one they will be desperate to get on the bandwagon.
no expensive servicing
brakes last for ages
can be recharged in many places
zero emissions at point of use
no gears
50 years from now - 2068 ? what do you think the roads will be like ? wont be anything like they are today,
think on what the roads were like in 1970.... and what cars were like then.
thing is were so used to filling up a tank that we forget that it could be so much eaiser. as battery technology improves we will make inroads to energy density and recharge times. if we got down to 25 miles charge in a minute then would that make a difference ? home charging a few minutes enough to do a day or so, longer trips with coffee breaks etc make it manageable, no long charge times but then were not looking to fill 400 miles in one go.
we don't need to go to a petrol station when ever the car is stopped it could be plugged in. maintain that charge float and it would be seemless. no range anxiety as there would be countless places to recharge.
electric is the future no hybrids or hydrogen. pure electric. and it will happen sooner than we imagine. governments are desperate to get rid of fossil fuel. the market for electric cars is immense as once people start to see the real cost of running one they will be desperate to get on the bandwagon.
no expensive servicing
brakes last for ages
can be recharged in many places
zero emissions at point of use
no gears
50 years from now - 2068 ? what do you think the roads will be like ? wont be anything like they are today,
think on what the roads were like in 1970.... and what cars were like then.
ruggedscotty said:
electric is the future no hybrids or hydrogen. pure electric. and it will happen sooner than we imagine. governments are desperate to get rid of fossil fuel. the market for electric cars is immense as once people start to see the real cost of running one they will be desperate to get on the bandwagon.
[put's on tin foil hat]What does the oil industry think of this? I mean sure, most of them have some small form of exposure to renewables, but their bread and butter is selling black gold. Given, many of them have influence over governments (party sponsors), I find it hard to believe they'll sit back and allow the electric revolution to take off so easily... conflict of interest?
Oil industry will be bothered a bit, but a lot of oil goes into feedstock for chemical manufacture (Esso/Exxon makes it money that way, not from automotive oils / diesels) to make plastics for facias for cars etc and depending on your oil source there is also quite a lot of gas for power, like our North Sea.
It may be harsh to suggest, a bit like "sustainability", "diversity" and "being green" (remember BP stands for Bye Planet) that the investment in EVs is a PR stunt. Though we're just looking at a feasibility study for a North Sea oil major producer for using their rig bases for "VBFO Wind Turbines" so they may be into being green for real *1 *2.
It may be harsh to suggest, a bit like "sustainability", "diversity" and "being green" (remember BP stands for Bye Planet) that the investment in EVs is a PR stunt. Though we're just looking at a feasibility study for a North Sea oil major producer for using their rig bases for "VBFO Wind Turbines" so they may be into being green for real *1 *2.
- 1 Very Big Fook Off, bigger than anything every before.
- 2 Or this could be the accountants seeing a way to transfer the redundant rig assets and future decommissioning costs into "shell" (not Royal Dutch Shell) renewable companies accounts instead to take decommissioning liabilities off their books at the expense of taxpayer subsidies.
JaredVannett said:
[put's on tin foil hat]
What does the oil industry think of this? I mean sure, most of them have some small form of exposure to renewables, but their bread and butter is selling black gold. Given, many of them have influence over governments (party sponsors), I find it hard to believe they'll sit back and allow the electric revolution to take off so easily... conflict of interest?
I think the bigger issue is what to do with all the petrol and diesel that subsequently isn’t being burnt by cars? It doesn’t cease to exist just because no one wants it but instead it goes from being a valuable resource back to what it was before the invention of the ICE, a waste byproduct of the oil refining industry!!!What does the oil industry think of this? I mean sure, most of them have some small form of exposure to renewables, but their bread and butter is selling black gold. Given, many of them have influence over governments (party sponsors), I find it hard to believe they'll sit back and allow the electric revolution to take off so easily... conflict of interest?
DonkeyApple said:
V8 Fettler said:
Cable TV penetration in tthe UK is not particularly high, cable plus satellite hovers around 50%. https://www.statista.com/statistics/531183/penetra...
There are several variables driving estimates for construction costs of cabling for home charging of EVs, the primary variable being the ability to charge 24/7 (£££££££) compared to charging during periods where demand for electricity is low (£££). The former provides freedom and flexibility, the latter doesn't. 1000 mile range and occasional charging at "energy" centres = minimal additional cabling to homes and freedom.
My Auntie Mildred lives about 200 miles away, if the phone call announcing her imminent demise occurs at 11pm then I can be there as the attentive nephew three hours later (by car). Alternatively, I could be there ten hours later (by public transport), by which time she might be too far gone to tell me where the will is.
EVs are currently not that much more expensive to run in the UK https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/...
Per month:
Diesel 535 euros
Petrol 538 Euros
EV 719 Euros
But you are forgetting where cable is concentrated? It’s concentraed in the urban environment exactly where home charging is more complex. That’s the key. There really is absolutely, categorically no future issue whatsoever with regards to charging EVs. The infrastructure will appear when commercial demand appears. At the moment EVs are hugely expensive and just for people with the easy capability to charge. There are several variables driving estimates for construction costs of cabling for home charging of EVs, the primary variable being the ability to charge 24/7 (£££££££) compared to charging during periods where demand for electricity is low (£££). The former provides freedom and flexibility, the latter doesn't. 1000 mile range and occasional charging at "energy" centres = minimal additional cabling to homes and freedom.
My Auntie Mildred lives about 200 miles away, if the phone call announcing her imminent demise occurs at 11pm then I can be there as the attentive nephew three hours later (by car). Alternatively, I could be there ten hours later (by public transport), by which time she might be too far gone to tell me where the will is.
EVs are currently not that much more expensive to run in the UK https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/environment/2018/...
Per month:
Diesel 535 euros
Petrol 538 Euros
EV 719 Euros
Just FaceTime Auntie Mildred. She’s probably not left you anything in her will.
. Seriously, that kind of ‘essential, emergency’ need is an anomaly and just won’t feature in how we move forward with EVs. Re the cost differential you show above, that is huge. When you appreciate that people are already sacrificing pension investment to finance lifestyle now then it’s easier to understand why being able to offer a lease deal that is a poxy £10/month less can win consumers.
The EV is cheaper to build and to maintain than an ICE and it probably lasts longer due to its mechanical simplicity. The reason why it is currently massively more expensive than a comparable ICE (Let’s be honest and recognise that a Tesla S’ true comparison is not a Jag or Mercedes but a Vauxhall or Ford in terms of quality etc and even then struggles) is obviously firstly economies of scale, they are currently built in such small numbers so are overly expensive but primarily because the batteries are hugely, hugely expensive.
I think the event that the market is looking for is the tipping point where the cost of batteries falls so far that the EV’s price competitiveness absolutely smashes that of the ICE. That’s the point where instantly people will stop leasing ICE and lease EVs and they will adapt to the differences in refuelling.
I think Tesla will still be around at that point. Whether they have gone through a Chapter 11 before then is a different matter but I think the brand is here to stay and it will be the funky, on trend competitor to Ford, Toyota and Vauxhall as there is no conceivable way for them to compete against the more premium brands, no American car manufacturer has ever achieved that and Tesla is even further behind the curve.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/...
Depreciation is a monster.
Which comes first? A tidal wave of EVs or the supply network for home charging? An issue with the freedom version of home charging i.e. 24/7, is that the UK national grid probably would not be capable of supplying a surge in demand on a dark, cold, still winter's evening when all the commuters return home and plug their cars in.
Charge rage is here already https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/science/in-cali... or rather, it's over there.
JLR do not offer a high quality product, see poor reliability. JLR do offer a highly desirable product.
At the moment EVs are a premium product. That means you get prima dona consumer self entitlement rage. And places like NY are capitals to such behaviour.
When EVs become cheap enough for the ‘people’ then you will see rapid roll out of charging points. For starters the car companies won’t be able to sell an EV to someone who hasn’t a charging point. I suspect that that installations will become part of the product purchase and many retail outlets and places of work will have to offer charging to retain consumers. I genuinely don’t see charging as an issue in the long run as there is electricity wherever there are people and all that is currently missing is the financial incentive to add taps.
When EVs become cheap enough for the ‘people’ then you will see rapid roll out of charging points. For starters the car companies won’t be able to sell an EV to someone who hasn’t a charging point. I suspect that that installations will become part of the product purchase and many retail outlets and places of work will have to offer charging to retain consumers. I genuinely don’t see charging as an issue in the long run as there is electricity wherever there are people and all that is currently missing is the financial incentive to add taps.
Lentilist said:
With respect to the oil majors, look at where the investment is going. BP have a stake in Lightsource and will be acquiring Chargemaster, whilst Total own Sunpower, SAFT and Greenflex, and have recently invested in EREN RE. They're pivoting away from being "oil companies" and towards being "energy companies", both generation and service provision. There's a definite direction of travel there, and it's picking up pace.
With regard the "spare" petrol and diesel, I don't think it's valid to think of them as byproducts. Certainly not petrol, given it's relatively near the top of the refining stack. Diesel is lower, but again, there are all sorts of other intermediates produced, a great many of which (especially kerosenes) go into the petrochemicals industry, from where they go into pretty much everything. As they did previously, notably to meet sulphur ppm requirements, refiners will adapt and adjust their slate of products. They're not going anywhere, and I don't think you need to invoke conspiracies to see how they're going to change. Even when we're all in EVs, we'll likely still be driving on bitumen surfaces and using all sorts of plastics, paints, solvents, polymers and lubricants. The world isn't about to stop using Avtur or marine fuel oils either.
Yup. I suspect the oil companies will be among the majors bidding for the contracts to fit charging meters down residential roads in years to come, merging with battery companies etc. With regard the "spare" petrol and diesel, I don't think it's valid to think of them as byproducts. Certainly not petrol, given it's relatively near the top of the refining stack. Diesel is lower, but again, there are all sorts of other intermediates produced, a great many of which (especially kerosenes) go into the petrochemicals industry, from where they go into pretty much everything. As they did previously, notably to meet sulphur ppm requirements, refiners will adapt and adjust their slate of products. They're not going anywhere, and I don't think you need to invoke conspiracies to see how they're going to change. Even when we're all in EVs, we'll likely still be driving on bitumen surfaces and using all sorts of plastics, paints, solvents, polymers and lubricants. The world isn't about to stop using Avtur or marine fuel oils either.
Re oil refining, I think you may have missed my point. From Crude we obviously split out many commercial fractions as you highlight. The point it that in that process the petrol and diesel fractions don’t just disappear if you no longer need them. Before the invention of the ICE there was no commercial use for the petroleum fraction so it was just burnt off. Once the ICE is gone, the big question is what other uses are their for this fraction to prevent it from being waste?
If ICEs disappeared today then we would need to refine a lot less oil but from what is refined for plastics, pharmaceutical, farming etc etc there will still be a petrol fraction left over. The question is what can be done with it?
What commercial use/value does millions of gallons of petrol have without the ICE to burn it in?
DonkeyApple said:
JaredVannett said:
[put's on tin foil hat]
What does the oil industry think of this? I mean sure, most of them have some small form of exposure to renewables, but their bread and butter is selling black gold. Given, many of them have influence over governments (party sponsors), I find it hard to believe they'll sit back and allow the electric revolution to take off so easily... conflict of interest?
I think the bigger issue is what to do with all the petrol and diesel that subsequently isn’t being burnt by cars? It doesn’t cease to exist just because no one wants it but instead it goes from being a valuable resource back to what it was before the invention of the ICE, a waste byproduct of the oil refining industry!!!What does the oil industry think of this? I mean sure, most of them have some small form of exposure to renewables, but their bread and butter is selling black gold. Given, many of them have influence over governments (party sponsors), I find it hard to believe they'll sit back and allow the electric revolution to take off so easily... conflict of interest?
Until either taxes have to be spent on more immediate issues or policy changes.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff