Digital Yuan

[VicBee]

What was the "now I get it" moment with Tesla?

Throughout 2019, a good friend of mine who owned several thousand shares of Tsla bought at around 50 kept on pestering me about how great the company was. While I could appreciate the EV achievement, I didn't much like Musk and couldn't see the EV future. The company was hyped, the stock overpriced, the supporters annoying fanboiz, but I decided to look into it more seriously.

The "now I get it" moment was one specific video that I posted here not long after I joined ET which outlined in great details what Tesla truly was and would become. It spoke not only of the car company but of Tesla's vertical integration into battery R&D, manufacturing innovation, power grid and consumer energy storage, software application to manage distribution, Tesla’s entry into the energy supply, etc.. Suddenly, to me Tesla became the energy company that Musk was beginning to formulate to a puzzled public. I went all in.

While I remain critical of some details that I regularly point to on the Tesla groupies site TMC, I'm fundamentally on board with the goal to transition from oil, gaz and coal to electric energy and believe that Musk, despite some annoying antics and awkward public appearances, is the genius driver who is making it all happen with his global vision.

 

[Overnight]

...
...I'm fundamentally on board with the goal to transition from oil, gaz and coal to electric energy and believe that Musk, despite some annoying antics and awkward public appearances, is the genius driver who is making it all happen with his global vision.

 

[VicBee]

I know, I know... you repeat the same and I've responded to you before. Just look up my answer about the acknowledged need for oil and gaz for a period of time until alternatives are up and running. I do believe in nuclear as an alternative btw.

 

[Overnight]

...I do believe in nuclear as an alternative btw.

I am sure you do. But since you have to build nuke plants on the edge of large bodies of water, this will never be a viable solution. Not to mention all the killing of micro-organisms, and sea-water temp rise. Spent-fuel disposal? Hah! Good luck on that!

No win-scenario with nuke plants.

 

[VicBee]

I am sure you do. But since you have to build nuke plants on the edge of large bodies of water, this will never be a viable solution. Not to mention all the killing of micro-organisms, and sea-water temp rise. Spent-fuel disposal? Hah! Good luck on that!

No win-scenario with nuke plants.

The French seem to have nuke under control

 

[Overnight]

The French seem to have nuke under control

Indeed. I guess that is why the Aussies just gave the French the finger on the nuclear-sub program, and instead went with the UK-US proposal. Nuclear plants are a part of the answer, but a very small part of the answer.

I think you need music.

 

[VicBee]

Indeed. I guess that is why the Aussies just gave the French the finger on the nuclear-sub program, and instead went with the UK-US proposal. Nuclear plants are a part of the answer, but a very small part of the answer.

I don't see the connection between French nuclear energy and the submarine.

 

[Overnight]

I don't see the connection between French nuclear energy and the submarine.

Because the Aussies went to the French to build the the new Aussie nuclear submarine. The French couldn't figure it out, so the Aussies gave the French the finger and cancelled the contract with the French and went somewhere else.

Nuclear reactors on boats are the same as on land. A very simple concept...Turn nuclear fission into heat to run a steam turbine to generate power.

So the French do NOT have "nuke" under control. They don't know the FACK they are doing. More nuke plants per-capita than the US notwithstanding.

 

[Overnight]

Because the Aussies went to the French to build the the new Aussie nuclear submarine. The French couldn't figure it out, so the Aussies gave the French the finger and cancelled the contract with the French and went somewhere else.

Nuclear reactors on boats are the same as on land. A very simple concept...Turn nuclear fission into heat to run a steam turbine to generate power.

So the French do NOT have "nuke" under control. They don't know the FACK they are doing. More nuke plants per-capita than the US notwithstanding.

@themickey Need your help here to understand if I got that right.

 

[VicBee]

Because the Aussies went to the French to build the the new Aussie nuclear submarine. The French couldn't figure it out, so the Aussies gave the French the finger and cancelled the contract with the French and went somewhere else.

Nuclear reactors on boats are the same as on land. A very simple concept...Turn nuclear fission into heat to run a steam turbine to generate power.

So the French do NOT have "nuke" under control. They don't know the FACK they are doing. More nuke plants per-capita than the US notwithstanding.

Not sure you know what you're talking about. The French have had nuclear power since the late 1970's still above 70% of their energy needs today from 56 reactors and never had an accident, unlike Americans, Russians and Japanese. They may not know what they're doing, but it's still better than anybody else.
Their success comes from replicating the same units everywhere so, should an issue arise all other units are checked at the same time for that issue.

Nuclear certainly isn't ideal, particularly its waste management. The goal is to figure out ways to further reduce it by applying solutions that don't yet exist. But that or coal? I'll take nuclear.