This is Herman's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Herman's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
(1) 7M is a nonsense number. It presumes there is an immediately affordable set of energy solutions that does no harm whatsoever. The net excess death rate for the use of the present fuel mix is not knowable at all, and may even be negative. (2) What is the excess death rate in countries with limited access to dispatchable energy? (3) How much higher productivity occurs due to readily-available and affordable energy? (4) The protien content in grain is directly related to the abilty of soil and/or dry matter mass of the crop to maintain an adequate nitrogen content to maintain protein content. This, in turn, is related mostly to yield considerations (and resultant farmer behavior) than almost anything else. Moreover it's complete horsepoop to posit that plant husbandry will somehow become motionless in a future of higher CO2 concentration because apparently when CO2 goes up everything gets worserer and worserer. (5) See (4). But anyhow, Harvey, you still haven't gotten to the point: you make a specific economic assertion (saves money in 12 years) that's basically just whatever popped into your head that moment (must be the CO2 blinding your reason). Your only answer is that your assertions are world-saving and disagreement implies baby-hating villany. BS. By the way? Just by putting question marks at the end? of your assertions? as you often do? does not mean that you're excused? from actual reasoning?
Well, political nonsense rules on GCC once again. Here's how the discussion goes... (1) (a) Advocate for all-BEV anything or other perceived goodness says "it saves money"; (b) another states that bus companies have the audacity to charge slightly above fully-burdened cost for a feature not required by law (2) Rational view suggests (a) subsidized 12-yr "payback" that does not include cost of capital is not actually a payback, and (b) including the cost of additional features in a product price is not evil. (3) Trump!!! Reagan!!!!! Resist!!!!!!!! What a waste of bandwidth. GCC presents useful information; sadly there are people who can't contain their political zeal on ANY topic and thus they compulsively pollute the discussion.
One more time with this charging rate question… 300 miles (imperial units today, thank you) requires about 75kWh in a small and efficient vehicle at modest speeds and small HVAC demand. So 75kWh in 5 minutes = 900kW; with a 98% charging efficiency, that’s 918kW going into the connection. How will this happen? How will 18kW of waste energy be rejected at the small delta-T between the battery maximum and the atmosphere? (Obviously some sort of heat pump, I know, but this is a non-trivial implementation at such a power level.)
(1) "Costs less over 12 years". Yes, with no cost-of-capital in the calculation and inclusve of incentives that apparently fall out of the sky, this is true. Which means it isn't. (2) You found out that labor, hardware, warranty reserve and liability overhead to install 54 sets of restraints that are going to be subjected to mostly unobservable K-12 student damage for 200 days a year is under $200 each. That's a pretty good deal. I'd charge more if I were BlueBird et al.
Stupid Daimler running dozens of production intent vehicles in varied environments when they could just be visionary like Tesla and just sell beta prototypes to customers. Sad.
So where are the scammers Adomani in all of this? Notably absent, much to the better.
Major distribution centers for Walmart and Amazon already power their material handling equipment with hydrogen (no more propane or SLA's, no battery charging roms or battery spares and maintenance). They can make the change probably by just adding a couple of stations. FedEx has already acquired (and is running) H2-powered aircraft GSE (tugs, etc.) so it's not that big of a dela for them. I have not been a Hydrogen advocate, and I'm still a bit skeptical. But My skepticism is waning.
Well pardon me: appears that the good folks from EDI (and I do mean that; a capable lot) chose to avoid any references to Adomani, with whom they are obliged to work on the Blue Bird bus project. My apologies; you'll see a virtually identical presser at the Adomani site in which they basically take credit for EDIs work (all BS).
The California HVIP subsidy for school e-buses is $220k each. Every company in the game of providng propulsion loses money, so the road to electrified school buses is long indeed. FWIW: the Adomani company named above is a complete sham. They are school bus salesmen with a stock scheme and they add no value to the design, mfg, or service process. A company of 11 individuals with zero staff technical expertise, they business has booked a few $M of revenue in its existence but has a current market capitalization of $100M (it peaked at over $1.2BILLION). The story behind the company is... well, interesting: Sadly, the alt fuel / green world sees this sort of nonsense too often. We need to police our own.
May 2017: Tony Seba sez virtually all auto purchases will be BEV in 2025 and the global oil industry will collapse as a result. My bet is with XOM, but there's 7 years yet to determine the winner.
I arrived at client this morning at 0730 with the car's thermometer reading -18C. In my 2012 Leaf this would have been a 55-60km range day if I were to maintain a barely tolerable interior temp and an occasional swiping of foggy glass. The '13 Volt I drive now is getting about 3km/kWh while keeping me nominally comfortable and the windows clear, and that WITH some help from the engine. (In the 30-odd days of deepest winter temps the Volt is markedly MORE expensive to operate than a pure ICE of equivalent size and performance, and certainly not nearly as good as a Prius. So was my Leaf, actually -- UCS average figures be damned. Wind producton on most of these days is de minimus and good old Coal is the predominant source.) In northernmost climes BEVs have some serious challenges, and for God's sake don't any Tesla fanbois start with the "what about Norway" business. When a country has shorter average psgr-km, exemptions from a gigantic confiscatory vehicle tariff, massive fuel taxes, abundant hydropower, and a laundry list of special privileges bestowed on buyers of US$120k+ automobiles, yes, the most expensive and highest-range EVs make sense.
How can Workhorse possibly qualify for this loan? Current trailing twelve month (ttm) revenues are about $8M, and won't get materially better over the next couple of quarters at least. For EBITDA and Operating Cash Use, respectively, ttm metrics are roughly -$36M and -$34M. The only way they have stayed solvent over the last five years is share issuances, and they're presently doing them at a twice/year pace. ATVM rules don't permit the Agency to issue loans to such a weak enterprise. This would have the look of a Solyndra Redux (or Fisker or A123 or whatever boondoggle you'd like to insert). Not gonna happen.
The desireability of BEVs notwithstanding, there is a procurement spec for the vehicle and a budget line item authorization associated with that. If a lower-priced vehicle that meets the spec can be selected it will be; changing the selection criteria and project budget to pick something else would endanger the likelihood of continuation and eventual production launch. And the letter from concerned taxpayers carries zero weight. Gary, I don't disagree with your math, but it doesn't account for cost of money, which is not zero. $15k of savings over ten years doesn't come close to "paying" for $10-15k up front. And don't forget infrastucture. Also, the idea that the truck might be obsolete by 2030 is refuted by the LLV. The median age for these old dogs is 26, and most of them are on the road still. The plan is that the last NGDV built in ~2024 will be in service in 2045 (if not longer).
A modern engine with mild electrification will make a gigantic difference in the USPS fuel use and emissions profile. The current Long Life Vehicle (LLV) fleet built '87-'94 uses the ancient 2.5L Iron Duke engine, really a commercially non-viable engine even then. Using the Mahindra version as an example -- with the new (and completely unrelated) GM 2.5L e-assist -- the old 9mpg metric for the LLV will rise by at least 4-5mpg. So you get a 50% reduction in fuel use (and by extension CO2), along with >80% drop in unburned CHO and NOx, for an affordable price and no plugs. These improvements are good enough to please most taxpayers. The price target for the NGDV is stated as "$25-35k each". A pure EV won't fit in this target, and the infrastructure cost, while not really that huge, isn't trivial. EVSEs for over 100,000 vehicles are not in the budget. My math says it's not likely that a strong hybrid will make the cut, but of course that would be the best compromise. Above all, there's no assurance that the project will even happen. (IMO the "right" choice would be an plug-in REx architecture like that proposed by VT Hackney and Workhorse. WAAAAY too expensive.)
"We can clearly see that the memory of Hitler and che guevarra are still influencing the stupids to buy big heavy suvs and for some even more stupids to buy costly toxic big battery cars and suvs" I'll attribute this bit of psychobabble to some challenge in expression other than your native language. What exactly were you trying to say?
In fact you truly CAN fool some of the people all of the time.
James: Workhorse has nothing but competition. The army of enterprises offering electrified solutions continues to grow, and Workhorse faces them with modest weapons and little ammo. They won't survive.
As Tesla continue to slip further behind the automotive world in the growing commoditization of sensors, mapping and autonomous controls... Whence Henrik / Change, who regularly lectured all who dared comment on the nature of this initiative?
I seem to recall numerous commnenters here predicting the imminent demise of VW (to be replaced by Tesla according to Henrik, I think, perhaps the most prolific with the moribund VW theme). Now with this announcement of 33,000 vehicles (avg) delivered EVERY DAY in the month of September, the drafts of VW's obituary were a bit... premature, perhaps? (Re: Henrik: that's more than Tesla's deliveries for the entirety of Q3, FWIW.)
"Technology improvements will soon separate the winners from the losers, so it’s a pretty certain bet that more M&A—a lot more—will likely happen over the next few years." Of course we will, Mark. Oh... and for which company(ies) are you underwriting the 424 Prospectus filing?
In 2013 I started driving plug-ins with a Leaf. In 2016 I moved to a Volt (cold midwest + flexibility of ICE needed; still e-driving ~75-80% w/o range anxiety now). A happy plug-in driver and EVangelist. Wife drives a Tahoe (5.3L V-8 with pretend cylinder cutout) and she will give it up when the fob is pried from her cold dead fingers.
sd: Here it is. Definitely a chance for some "greening" of the standard P/U truck with pretty much complete transparency to the operator. A compromise, to be sure, but fits the bill for many municipalities.
... and the sharp-eyed among you must have seen I inverted the ratio. That should be ROIC/WACC>1 as a money-making measure.
No bias here, Lad: realism. Tesla has taken the world's imagination by storm and energized the EV movement more effectively than anyone expected. All good. But they aren't plowing profits back into the business. Excepting 2014, SG&A and interest expense ate more than their total gross margin. That's BEFORE any R&D is accounted. Looking at the balance sheet: all the Capital Investment has been paid for through borrowing or sales of shares and/or convertible bonds. Excepting a couple of quarters, Tesla has never generated cash from operations; as a net they've burnt over $1B just building product and keeping the lights on -- that's before a dime of CapEx. That's Tesla's filings talking here; I'm just telling you what they say. Toyota has delivered over 10 Million hybrid autos since they started with the Prius. Like it or not, the energy equation for the CHO-burning world currently makes hybrids the best net saver of emissions for private mobility except for PHEVs. Yes, better than pure BEV's, and yes, that is changing rapidly. But in the meantime the core activities of making EVs (affordable and efficient power electronics and motors, robust controls, etc.) continues to be led in the industrial world by Toyota, all while we witness a rapidly developing global commoditization that's outstripping everyone's expectations. The future of batteries is unwritten and no doubt extraordinary. While Tesla's mass(ively)-produced 2170 will likely set a cost and packaging standard, it will be fleeting. Tethered H2 vehicles will enter the scene more commonly than any of us (me included) expected. And ICEs have a surprisingly vibrant path ahead as well. You haven't seen the end of them. The coming times are excellent for consumers, which means brutal and bloody for manufacturers. Currently only five automobile companies truly make money (WACC/ROIC ratio > 1): FHI's Subaru, Great Wall, Suzuki's Maruti venture, BMW, and Daimler. Nope, not Toyota, but they are close. Tesla is WAY below the crowd, not only <1 but negative. Tesla does not make money: Tesla Raises money, and very effectively I might add.