Comments by "" (@baronvonlimbourgh1716) on "Asianometry" channel.

  1. Pushing out videos like crazy lately! 👍 Loving it.
    70
  2. Not if it is subsedised by other products or government. Then it does not reflect market value. If you are a large producer of one product and want to enter or increase market share in another and you decide to sell the second product at a loss, you are subsedising that product with the profits of the rest of the bussiness. That is dumping below market value and is concidered anti competitive and can be damaging to the economy.
    17
  3. They are the ones paving the way for the rest of us. They pay to build the economies of scale that enables prices to come down. If they didn't buy them, prices would never come down. That is why government subsedises these new technologies early on, they incentivise people to buy these things and stuff like solar panels to create a growing market in which prices can come down. Once prices come down to reasonable levels the market takes over and the growth pushes prices down further.
    11
  4. Actually, i rewatched the video and in this case you are right. Or at least it is not explained how japan was dumping. It seems the only reason japanese products where cheaper was because of betting on the right technology and becomming more efficient. That is at least the only reason given here. It doesn't really change my earlier posts, dumping does still happen and is damaging, but it would make the dumping claims invalid in this case and the usa just wishing to protect their own industry. Good catch 👍
    8
  5. We already have wifi coffeecups.
    8
  6. Ahh yes.. ofcourse...
    7
  7. China needs dairy, new zealand has dairy to spare. Free market heaven.
    7
  8. Being reliant on foreign entities for your food supply is very dangerous, hence the domestic protections. One industry where the distortion is just a price worth paying at the source instead of funding wars and occupations. The cost is still there, it is just payed in other place s.
    7
  9. For pv to become a big part of the global energy mix it does not need more efficienty then it already has. More efficient is always better ofcourse, but at current levels pv could provide nearly 50% of the energy requirement for the eu by only using available rooftop space within the eu. Which is already amazing. Add to that the lost land that currently can not be used for anything and pv will become the dominant energy source over the next decade together with wind. Land next to highways is now starting to be used for solar instalation over here, which reprisents massive amounts of acres that are perfectly suited for pv exploitation and also contribute to lowering noise polution. The solar industry has been booming for multiple years now since it has become the cheapest form of energy generation. The only problem we have at the moment is that 30% yearly growth in production capacity is simply not enough and more and bigger production facilities are needed and are constantly being built all over the world. It is also a great economic bennefit as more and more businesses and people have access to free energy, which is a game changer. And it decreases dependence on international energy interests as well.
    6
  10. Current prices are just temporary though.
    5
  11. The problem with tesla margins is that they are artificial. Any automaker can make those margins if they don't advertise and sell the same platform for 15 years. And the way things are looking planning to keep selling them for multiple years into the future. The few brands that also follow this business model give these savings back to the customer. The car is very cheap if you are willing to drive a car over 2 cycles old. And investors are seeing that tesla is falling behind as well and isn't using their profits for the longevity of the brand and the premium image it was persueing. Tesla is increasingly looking to be another fad and will go the same way as all other independent automakers went in the last decades.
    5
  12. Luckilly robot technology has evolved so much now. I was in chernobyl and the robots on display there where still very basic. Especially compared with these.
    4
  13. As pv eficienty keeps increasing the amount of space they need decreases conciderably. Over the last 10 years efficienty doubled. So only half the space is required to generate the same amount of energy. And that will happen again over the next decade. Add to that the continual decreasing price per panel, Enabling huge amounts of people and businesses to become energy independent. Panels easilly last 3 decades or more as well. And while that is happening investment in battery production and development is trough the roof. We will be drowning in cheap storage pretty soon. Nuclear is just way to expensive and political toxic to ever become a viable option again. If you can even find people willing to invest the amounts of money needed into it. Way to risky and it takes ages to see any return on investment.
    4
  14.  @100c0c  how? They'll be just be pushed out of the market as more and more new models are released unless they start heavilly competing and investing. But that's not something they are planning to do.
    4
  15. Tax competition. If you get massive tax exemptions and the local state will guarantee you water no matter what at their own expense, that is what you will choose.
    3
  16. Where do you find all these great subject to make videos about.
    3
  17. The biggest risk is that the uk will be obligated to buy the electricy for 50 years at those locked in prices.
    3
  18.  @AlexanderSylchuk  you are free to put as much capital in your company as you please. Or have others do it in exchange for shares for example. That is also interest free capital. Also interest rates don't have as big an influence on production cost that you can sell far below market value really. Dumping isn't about comparison. At least it shouldn't be, big powerdul players aren't always honest players ofcourse. It is just about fair competition, so you can not artificially push competitors out of business to create monopolies. If you are just better and cheaper in a sustainable way it is basicly just progress. That is not dumping. In this case it could maybe have something to do with japan depressing it's currency. But then the tarrifs should have been wider then just on electronics. That was trumps justification for attacking china as well. Which was also questionable but did it anyway.
    3
  19.  @vylbird8014  nuclear power is at most 50% efficient too. Often less. There are always some conversion losses when converting actual workable energy. When converting heat to energy that can do actual work you are always dealing with a 50% loss. If is unavoidable.
    3
  20.  @HJJ135  there is no reason to asume china's army is in a simmilar state as that of russia. China has the economic power to support and develop it's forces. Moral and dicipline of troops is high in china while corruption is not more widespread then other western nations and is activly persecuted. Chinas forces probably are not as good tacticly and not directly war tested at the moment, but that will only get better over time as it start to join in on future international joined peacekeeping or interventions. And that does not mean it would not be able to inflict heavy losses on their adversary. It sounds nice but there really isn't much to support that idea.
    3
  21. ​ @Doomer_Optimist  the intermittent stuff really makes no sense. The day the wind stops blowing we have much greater issues to worry about then electricity generation. And solar generation is extremely predictable, which makes it's use a lot easier then people like to imagine.. The single thing people never talk about when discussing nuclear is who is going to buy the electricity they produce? Nobody is going to pay the 30cents per kwh it would cost for the plant to be completely financially self sufficient. So governments will have to subsedise 25 cents or more on every single kwh of electricity the thing will produce over it's 75 year or so lifespan for anyone to even concider comitting to buying it's electricity. These things will become black holes consuming trillions of dollars of tax money over the next century or so they will exis. The fact these things are still even concidered is madness. Shows you how effective the lobby has become.
    3
  22.  @donutey  and that is what will happen to tesla now as well. Remember, they had a monopoly for 15 years while every government was throwing billions around. They hoovered pretty much every penny of it up because they where the only option out there for over a decade. Those days are over now, new models are released it seems like every day. And tesla's just look increasingly dated next to them. They are still selling their mid 2000 design language. Which other car on the market today is still the 2008 model? We are pretty much 2 generations on now, the 8 year refresh cycle is ruthless. And the hype is dying down, tesla no longer is the comparison car with new releases like it has been up to now. People have new shiny things that release all the time now, the free publicity is drying up.
    3
  23.  @oceanwave4502  affordability isn't really what drives car sales. Otherwise we would have all been driving fiats for the last 50 years, like the soviets. It has always been mostly looks and branding what sells cars mainly.
    3
  24.  @lkrnpk  you had to take those compromises if you wanted to buy an ev before because tesla where the only game in town. Now as most is going ev, you can have ev's with quirks and dated looks if you just want transportation for cheap, or if you want a certain brand image or a premium ev or whatever what drives you to buy a specific model and are willing to pay extra for as well. I just don't see the niche tesla would fit in, in a normal competitive automotive industry with basic rules established over more then a century. Ev's are just cars when everyone drives one, the ev novelty is wearing off quickly now. It is just becomming another option next to diesel and petrol with the same level of excitement. And to me it seems tesla is exactly copying what put every single other independent automaker out of business over the last 40 years. And exactly the oposite of what made the succesful brands so succesful. Can only end in one way if you do that in such a long established and conservative industry like automotive.
    3
  25. It's easy. If the dessert offers you the biggest tax exemptions and guarantees you water no matter what on it's own dime, you will pick the dessert..
    2
  26. Co2 tax will still not make them economicly viable. It is simply increasingly uncompetitive technology.
    2
  27. I would like a video going deeper into the silicon used for solar panels, developments in that field and the differences with electronic grade silicon. Kinda like a side video to this one.
    2
  28. Nobody was interested. Manufacture was a dirty word in the 80s and 90s. If you don't do it, somebody else will.
    2
  29.  @MTobias  everyone keeps bitching about china stealing jobs here and china there. Truth is, companies are shutting down early, stores are limiting opening hours, businesses have to decline orders because they all are short on people to do the actual work. Imagine having to produce all the shit we need and buy on a daily basis ourselves as well on top. Everybody had to work 20 hours or stores would be empty, pick one. People who would have worked a manufacture job 30 years ago now do something better and more productive. And the only reason why is because we no longer need to do it ourselves. We moved up the value chain, that is how you increase prosperity and wealth in a country. Trying to conserve what was done 100 years ago so you can keep doing it into the future is stagnation. Stagnation in a world that progresses rapidly around you will only result into being left behind and a regressing position in the world.
    2
  30. ​ @Digo-eu  like everything needs to fit a singular definition. There always are a million ways to achieve anything. There is no one size fits all and small changes can turn a succes into a failure or a failure into a success.
    2
  31. ​​ @guitarazn90210  that is actually a major myth. Almost all technological progress is funded by the public trough government. It was in the cold war and still is today and will always be that way in the future. The vast majority of millitary technology in the cold war was never developed out of pocket by any corperation. Government gave money for development, for prototypes from multiple manufacturers and then for production. And most of fundamental research is done in universities with public grants and then given to the private sector who figures out how to use it to turn it into marketable or millitary products.
    2
  32. You must live in a huge mansion lol.
    2
  33. Ahh yes, privatisation. Somehow the public always pays.
    2
  34. Luckilly we have a near unlimited supply of silicon.
    2
  35.  @8bitorgy  no idea what you are trying to say, sorry. This policy was just a simple reaction to industrialist using exectly this tactic to monopolise an increasing amount of markets. And anti-trust simply prevents that. It is a practical application that solves actual problems that used to exist. This really isn't some theorethical idea or something. If left unregulated every single market converges into monopoly 100% of the time. And eventually would lead to a single entity controling all markets. It is the obvious end result.
    2
  36.  @AlexanderSylchuk  hmm i don't know. If you produce and sell in a way that is sustainable it will be hard to stick dumping charges to you. The whole tech sector is built on cheap capital. Any idiotic idea gets a 25 million check to burn in a startup. Can't get much cheaper then that.
    2
  37.  @Not_Sure-i6o  still stuck in the past lol.
    2
  38.  @mjbaricua7403  what do you mean? We are entering an age where electricity generation will be free for most people and businesses or will cost pennies or fractions of a penny to buy what you can not generate yourself. Newest nukes have a fixed cost of over 25 cents per kwh over their entire lifetime to make them financially viable. Who is going to be willing to pay that? Either nobody and the thing has to be boarded up or government has to subsedise it in order for it to put it's electricity on the market at said market rates. Which in the end will mean it has to be subsedised for 95% with public money for half a century or more. Imagine building 10 of them or something, that will be billions a year flushed down the toilet. And that is if nothing goes wrong and some sort of solution will be found to deal with it's waste. The whole idea is just absurd.
    2
  39. At least somebody is doing something against these exploitative practices. I wish more governments acted like china.
    2
  40. It is perfectly sensible to let an industry who isn't able or willing to properly maintain the infrastructure they already have build massively complex and maintenance intensive machines that can sanatize masive amounts of land in an instand when managed poorly. What could go wrong? Don't worry so much lol.
    2
  41. Solar is easilly the cheapest source of energy. Solar plus storage is already among the cheapest options. And prices for pv and storage keep decreasing day by day.
    2
  42. Geothermal is a much better alternative. It actually stands an economic chance to be competitive in the future. Nukes are just massive financial liabilities that will gobble up massive amounts of tax money.
    2
  43. It will be an expensive win though.
    2
  44.  @JoseLopez-hp5oo  the subsedies usually make sure that it becomes an economically viable choice to take the more expensive option. Tesla's for example where first adopted by taxi companies here. Even though the cars where a lot more expensive, the much lower running cost still made it a profitable investment for them because they drive those cars the whole day every day. Making it the best choice for them even at inflated prices. And as time goes by and prices come down, the group who fall into this category also grows. Driving adaption, lowering prices, growing the group for who they make economic sense etc. Etc. That is why the bulk of teslas where being bought. The people who buy it just to show off no matter the price is relativly small in comparison. But pretty much covers all private sales i imagine.
    2
  45. Modern carwashes reuse a lot of the wster though.
    2
  46. Capitalism baby.
    2
  47. Saying that after another video describing the financial desasters of the nuclear industry feels kinda silly.
    2
  48.  @joansparky4439  you are saying they did not recieve a litteral shit ton of free advertising for over a decade?
    1
  49.  @borek772  people have been buying 100k mercs while 25k skodas have been available for decades. Price really isn't a decisive factor alone. And prices on european ev's will come down quickly as well as economies of scale shift to ev's and away from ice cars.
    1
  50.  @joansparky4439  in the press tesla was the car to beat for years. Every new ev release was made into a comparison piece against a tesla, both in print and on youtube. At a certain point people used tesla and ev interchangably. Mostly because tesla was pretty much the entire ev market ofcourse. And that's fine, tesla did accelerate the transition a lot and made ev's mainstream and with that comes a lot of publicity. But that is very much still free publicity.
    1
  51.  @joansparky4439  lol, you are confusing the automotive press with the anti-progress press. They are still saying that same nonsense even today about every ev in existence. Not just tesla. And not just the ev industry for that matter either. And they will be giving these industries shit and make up all sorts of wild stories about ev's long after the last new ice car will have been sold. That's just what they do. Tesla has been the darling of the automotive press since the moment they came with the roadster. And for good reason, they single handedly pushed the industry forward and made it finally commit to electric propulsion. Something we had been waiting on for 20 years to finally happen.
    1
  52.  @flubadubdubthegreat1272  this video is about pv silicon. Not battery technology... But it is the exact same story. Decentralisation is key.
    1
  53. Contractual obligations. And tsmc does not get more for a graphic chip. They get payed by wafer, no mater what is on them.
    1
  54.  @en0n126  tsmc will have guarantees to have first dibs on that water before anyone else.
    1
  55. It is all about money, money, money. And how much these companies are allowed to polute the environment and the supply chain.
    1
  56.  @xungnham1388  if only industries existed that do not require huge amounts of resources that are in short supply right. Ahh well. Maybe we will create some of those in the future..
    1
  57.  @uku4171  don't be bro. Not nescesary 👍
    1
  58. That is alrwady happening now. China is leading the way in these fields as well.
    1
  59. The energy transition will not be driven by governments though. It will be driven by economics in the private market space. Solar and storage is now becomming so cheap it simply undercuts grid power by an increasing amount in places where electricity is a bit more expensive. You now see an explosion in adoption of pv by people having the roof space available and private companies having huge roofspace as well. Retailers, warehouses, factories etc. Everyone and their dog is scrambling at the momement to fill every roof in the land with as much pv as will fit on it. Here waiting lists to even have an installer come over to give you a quote exceed 6 months at the moment. That demand feeds increases in production capacity which in turn increase economies in scale making it cheaper. Which in turn fuels demand even further. Most of our energy supply will be decentralised by the end of it. The challange is going to be managing all this and some challenges still exist in timeshifting. Creating generation capacity no longer seems to be the issue, that is solving itself by creating overproduction in the system.
    1
  60.  @homo-sapiens-dubium  things are changing rapidly. Every roof in the country (in europe at least) will have pv on it within a decade. And will have a storage appliance to go with it in order to timeshift personal use. That is a lot of pv generation. Especially if you include commercial space into this as well. Which all produce far more then they consume themselves creating a secundary revenue stream for the business or real estate owner. This is A LOT of surface area that will be dedicated to energy generation. And this is all happening without government intervention. It is driven by simple market forces by it simply being the increasingly cheaper option. Not installing pv is just a bad financial decision especially since the one time investment will continje to come down more and more into the reach of more people every month. If people like anything it must be saving money and free stuff for decades.
    1
  61. Probably cheaper chinese imports if it was an relabled oem product. You have those people everywhere. Who even makes panels in germany still? It's all korean and chinese nowdays.
    1
  62.  @MTobias  it depends on the country i think. The service jobs stil exist like they always have. But what was the manufacture sector has basicly moved up the value chain. It is now all research and design and outsourced manufacture. And the manufacture that is still here is high quality high margin manufacture. The education level has skyrocketed over the last 40 years and everyone is working in jobs that require higher education and are much higher value then they ever were. Going back to manufacture would be a downgrade of the economy.
    1
  63. They are just an economic dead end no matter how you look at it. Only for governments willing to keep shoveling massive amounts of tax money they are viable options. And their uncompetitivenes will only increase going forward.
    1
  64. ​ @100c0c  exactly. Almost everything originates from government funded research. Either by grants or development contracts in the private sector or trough funding for fundamental research in universities or things like darpa and nasa.
    1
  65. ​ @channelname501 the main problem in the soviet union was that it was still a peasant middle aged society in the first world war. It took reinvesting nearly all resources it could produce back into milltitary and industrial development every year to first become industrialised enough to fight the germans in the second world war and after that to keep up millitarilly with the usa. It went from backward peasant society to millitary and scientific world power in only 60 years. But this took everything their economy was able to output to make that happen in order to provide security for their country as well as providing homes and infrastructure for society. With all economic output being necesary to get this done it simply left very little resources and output to dedicate to consumer goods or luxuries. That is in the end what killed the soviet economy. If there hadn't been the millitary arms race with the usa they would have been able to dedicate resources to production and development of consumer goods and other luxuries and research in other fields of science other then exclusivly millitary related things. Things would have looked completely different. It might have succeeded or still failed, nobody knows. But life would have been a lot more like in the west that is for sure.
    1
  66. That is what they are for..
    1
  67.  @TrueThanny  huang is a super villain. He will be slain some day.
    1
  68. Cotton mills and steel plants aren't fundamental to the millitary industrial complex. Tsmc is, and the whole chips bill was created to pull tsmc into the usa. The samsung and intel parts where just added to make it look like an open process. This will also be a one time thing and it won't happen again. Tsmc is now invested in the usa
    1
  69.  @uku4171  but high tech , high quality steel is available from multiple places. The millitary industry doesn't need much steel, it needs specific steel. And that need probably is covered in the usa or at least in multiple friendly places. What tsmc offers was only available in taiwan. Nowhere else.
    1
  70.  @danharold3087  sure. My point is that only what is demanded by the millitary industrial complex is incentivised. And is done without drama or arguing and is done on increadible short notice. Like the chips bill. If the millitary industry needs specialty steel that is only available in a single place abroad tomorow. Next week a bill will be passed to stimulate the steel industry. It will be just enough to get whatever is needed to move to the usa and 1 or 2 other companies get sprinkled some funding as well to make it look fair and after that any stimilus for the steel industry will be dormant for another 30 or 40 years.
    1
  71.  @cyrilio  i wonder who would be willing to invest in it though. Private entities generally hate losing money on their investments. It must be done by public money if the public wants any new ones..
    1
  72. Nothing is 100% efficient obviously.
    1
  73. Who wants to pay for nuke energy? They are an economical dead end.
    1
  74.  @mjbaricua7403  if electricity costs a penny per kwh during the day and 25 cent kwh during night time, how long will it take for you to go out and buy a storage appliance for a couple of 100 bucks to hang in a closet somewhere so you can simply buy what you need at night during the day. And what is left over push back into the grid for a nice profit before the sun comes up again. A battery pack will pay for itself in months. Anybody not doing it will be an idiot. And that doesn't even factor in the massive turbine parks being build all over that will be pumping electricity into the system during both night and day. Wind energy is even cheaper then pv, although you can not do that yourself at home for free. The cost disparity is just to massive. When timeshifting the cheap energy is cheaper then generating it at the time, timeshifting will be what the market is going to do. It is simple economics.
    1
  75.  @marvintpandroid2213  for bulk buyers those are already the going rates, those will eventually become available to consumers sooner rather then later. Same with batteries, storage prices already are below 100 dollars per kwh and still going down rapidly. Those prices will be reality far before any new nukes will be operational.
    1
  76.  @TheTrueMichael  i deleted nothing. And they are nukes.. why not call them that?
    1
  77.  @wolfy1398  what exactly is a nuke? Anything that uses nuclear science can be called nuke as nuke is simply a nickname for nuclear. I don't think bombs have the rights to the name "nuke"....
    1
  78.  @marvintpandroid2213  dude, just use google. There are multiple solar farms that where contracted to deliver their electricity for 20 years at a couple of cents per kwh. 1 in california and 1 in tunesia i remember from the top of my head. There are more if you take a moment to look for them. One of them even included a part storage in the contract for a couple of pennies per kwh. Pv panels cost less then 40 bucks a pop if you buy them by the container load from the factory. And they produce quite a lot of electricity over 20 years.
    1
  79.  @marvintpandroid2213  lol. You do know there are no links allowed here right. Anyway, stop wasting peoples time if you are to lazy to do a 10 second search to actually learn something, it is disrespectful both to yourself and the people willing to give you their time.
    1
  80.  @TheTrueMichael  when did bombs get the rights to the word nuke?
    1
  81.  @TheTrueMichael  we have called nuclear reactors nukes since forever as well. At least for as long as i can remember and i'm no teenager anymore lol.
    1
  82. Yup.
    1
  83. Asml, our pride and joy..
    1
  84.  @nvelsen1975  obviously the government organisation is far superiour. Mostly because the way you portray things is just a childish fantasy. Furthermore, government run services always end up cheaper when run by government in the long run then by any private party. Private corperate efficienty originates from externalising costs. Cost that is externalised to the public, that is what the word means. So in the end the public ens up paying for it anyway might as well do it upfront. Prevention is always cheaper then eventually having to fix things when they fail and all sorts of extra costs start piling up that could have been avoided. Not to mention the fact that once anything gets privatised costs always end up ballooning because of unforseen this or that or whatever. Why you still incist on repeating all this horseshit is beyond me. I know you aren't stupid enough to actually believe it yourself.
    1
  85. Water rights should be traded like carbon.
    1
  86. Lol
    1
  87.  @marcbiff2192  you lot are such drama queens man haha.
    1
  88.  @TubersAndPotatoes  you can ask those questions about everything. That can easilly be fixed by regulation.
    1
  89. The time for more fission of any sort was 25 years ago. Now it is just obsolete tehnology that can never become economicly competitive again. Anyone who still wants to build them will be signing up for dumping massive amounts of tax money into them for at least the next 50 to 60 years. That sort of stuff generally recieves little public support. No private entity will be willing to touch them. They want to make money not lose it.
    1
  90.  @bambusmode8902  which ones where they, and who built them? As fas as i know the technology was dormant and nearly forgotten for many decades.
    1
  91.  @bambusmode8902  thanks. There goes another 2 hours of my life haha. Have a nice weekend.
    1
  92. At least somebody is doing against this exploitative behavious of companies.
    1
  93.  @1968Christiaan  and the gap will only keep increasing going forward into the future. I always wonder who is going to be willing to pay for nuclear energy. If there are no takers it either has to be shut down or heavilly subsedised. And with storage plumiting in cost as fast as photovoltaics it will simply be orders of magnitude cheaper to simply buy cheap energy and store it then it will be to buy nuke energy. The economics simply do not add up.
    1
  94.  @Croz89  ohh come on man, don't keep wasting everyones time with these nonsense comments. Lithium isn't an issue, there is more of it then we need. All the extremely cheap stuff is in china hence no others can compete. If that supply ever went away there are more then enough other deposits that can be mined at fractional higher cost. And renewables are plenty reliable. If you had payed attention in high school you would understand why pv and wind are such a good match to create reliable power. This stuff isn't rocket science. Next you will be saying that hydrogen is the answer the world has been waiting for lol. Stop repeating useless crap.
    1
  95.  @Croz89  what's your age if you don't mind me asking. Are you a teenager? You must be under the impression that current technology has been cheaply available for decades in order to be able to make such a statement. We just barely arived at the base of the technological s curve, economies of scale are yet to kick in fully. Production capacity is growing exponentially and we are now quickly reaching economic viability for comodification on both pv and storage. Things are going to be wild the next 10 years, probably is going to be the biggest disruption we have seen yet. Pay attention to what is happening, you will go trough these technological disruptions multiple times in your life and the trajectory is always the same. Seeing these disruptions comming while all the people involved in the legacy industry keep talking about how change is impossible can change your life. The earlier you learn not to listnen to people who are just not able to see or think beyond their own little boxes the better 👍.
    1
  96.  @Croz89  i'm not saying extrapolate linearly from here forward. I am talking about exponential growth, that is what a s-curve is... every single disruptive technology follows the same curve on it's way to becomming a commodity good for centuries. A decade from now it will all be done and ready. 85% of buildings have their own private storage appliance, just like fridges and microwaves. And 85% of people will be driving ev's. It's just how these things work. Just basic evonomics
    1
  97.  @Croz89  we can solve any roadblock out there if they are imaginary.. I don't think you understand what commodity goods are, they definatly are not highly regulated death machines that need university degrees to operate..... You really need to read up on this stuff if you have an interest in energy, the transition and the technologies leading the charge, as you obviously do. Making random statements just because they make sense in your head really doesn't help your credibility.
    1
  98.  @Croz89  you turn out to be bad judge of character then lol. I never downplayed any challenges, where did i do that? If you actually look at what the industry is doing, where investment is going and who is betting big on these technologies, planned production capacity for the short to mid term and the effects it will have on pricing across the industry, how energy supply is rapidly changing as big new players are entering the market like the big retail chains becomming energy suppliers, it will tell you a pretty obvious story. The irony in here is thick. Almost able to smell it as it stinks up the room ;).
    1
  99.  @Croz89  you seem to be pretty interested and invested in our energy future. And are pretty opinionated about it for some reasen even though your entire argument seems to be "i heard that before" and "i don't think that is possible". I then wonder why are people so invested in opinions that they obviously have no interest diving deeper into and exploring further then the superficial advertorials and parroting of eachother by breadwriters on blogs and clickbaiting populist websites. To then try to argue with decade old arguments that everyone has heard a million times by now that somehow originated out of a questionable paper many years ago and since has been adopted by the medias darling. I mean if you are not interested enough to keep up with what is actually is happening, why bother arguing about it and look like an ass while doing it. Mining companies say there are more then enough of the resources out there then we will need for the forseeable future. Geologist say we don't have to worry about it because it is not as rare as once thought, companies like lg, samsung, sony, tesla, byd and other chinese giants all are betting big on the technology by building billion dollar facilities that dwarf teslas gigafactory and are sure they can source enough resources at prices that make these investments more then worth while. These institutions spend a lot of money researching. They don't make these long term market decisions based on some hype or wild guesses and i am pretty sure they also read the morning paper with your articles and watched buzzfeeds top 10 list why lithium is a desaster. This is where is decided what our future looks like, they decide what will become the mainstream commodity technology going forward and how we will be using energy a decade from now. Soon you can just buy a few kwh storage appliance from your favorite korean or chinese retail manufacturer at the local bigbox store for a couple of 100 bucks. To either store the energy you create yourself for use at night or to charge during low price hours so you can use the electricity during peak hours when electricity will be expensive. Everybody loves to save money and these things will pay for themselves in no time. There you have most of your on network storage that you need. No enormous billion dollar facilities that can run an entire country for an entire day that would skyrocket your enrgy bill. Decentralised storage that actually lowers your energy bill, not raise it. If you think the only thing that will change is how the enrgy is made and that the grid will stay a one way delivery system where everything must be managed on network like every boomer out there without any imagination, ofcourse the problems seem unreasonable and masivly expensive. But doing things that way would be stupid and inefficient wouldn't it. And if the energy companies want to try in order to stay relevent they can, but the more expensive they try to make it the more the public is incentivised to generate and store on their own when the network is flooded with dirt cheap solar during the day. Like i said before. It is simple economics and if you look at what is happening it will tell a pretty obvious story about how this is all going to play out.
    1
  100.  @Croz89  at least you can't say we didn't see it comming anymore lol 👍
    1
  101.  @leland818  if only it was, if only it was.
    1
  102. Time is on china's side in this case. I don't think they will invade taiwan because it makes no sense. And china is not russia's olicharchy. Keeping up the threat to taiwan does weaken taiwan substantially, as long as they can keep the insecurity up foreign investment will rather look elsewhere then taiwan. And it makes it more dependent on foreign entities. It also triggered the usa to start pulling out what it deems valuable out of taiwan. It is a small step now, but if china keeps it up for another decade there will be more and more of thise small steps made, every time making taiwan less worth it to create major conflict over by the west. And during that time china will only grow stronger also making defending taiwan a less attractive option. China is betting that if they keep the conflict brewing slowly brewing along eventually support for taiwan will lower over time, both because it loses value while the cost of supporting it constantly rises. While it is cheap for china to fly a few jets by every now and then and do some excersises to keep up the pressure. Going for active conflict will only put china in the same situation as russia. Why would they want to do that. Their entire strength comes from abroad. If thats cut off it will collapse into itself. China knows exactly what it is doing and how to get what it wants.
    1
  103. The usa has a treaty with ukraine that it would ensure it's security. But it has decided that ukraine is not valuable enough to start major war over and basicly let ukraine fend for itself. If china can lowers taiwans value enough that major conflict over it no longer is worth it, china has what it wants. And supporting taiwan will be far more difficult the ukraine. Ukraine has major logistics links with europe like rail and the ability to set up support hubs right across the border. Taiwan has nothing like that, it is an isolated island far away.
    1
  104.  @HJJ135  sure, over time that will become easier. And if they can get away with it that way they'll prefer that. Doesn't change anything really though.
    1
  105. It is just the way commodity markets work. That is why you can have massive 500 euro tv's nowdays and mobile phones cost a couple of bucks. Someone has to pay for those low prices.
    1
  106. That goes for almost every industry.
    1
  107. Most houses and businesses can be self sufficient with solar nowdays in germany. Even including transportation.
    1
  108.  @bryanbarnard4094  yup. Right.
    1
  109.  @jansix4287  we are drowning in our own dairy. Hence the tarrifs.
    1
  110.  @thomas316  china's population would half if it stayed on the same trajectory. Much like the pretty much the rest of the world as well. But asuming that will actually happen is not realistic. It will simply be filled by immigration like all other countries. Especially since the habitable part of the earth wil als have shrunk substantially in 50 years.
    1
  111. Solar is already the cheapest form of energy by far. And is only getting cheaper.
    1
  112.  @EmilNicolaiePerhinschi  who is? The nuclear and fosil fuel industry? I don't know. Ask your government. Solar projects aren't subsedised anymore.
    1
  113. It is though.
    1
  114.  @robertlee6338  they can produce what they need if noone wants to sell to them...
    1
  115.  @robertlee6338  i don't think you understand the concept of food security. At that point it no longer matters what you want to eat lol.
    1
  116.  @robertlee6338  what does china have to do with anything again? You are making no sense.
    1
  117. ​ @karenwang313  there is still so much energy that is just wasted and could be saved trough industrial design. We could easilly cut our energy consumption by 30 to 40% if we wanted. And often also save on initial investment as well. But industries are so extremely set in their old inefficient habbits that doing anything unconventional is frowned upon and percieved as a risk. We have all the technology and know how we need to solve the global energy problems. The pushback is just enormous. Mostly because of ignorance and interference by incumbant industries that are afraid to become obsolete in our future and are spending big to prevent it.
    1
  118.  @scottkludgedorsey4805  you are comparing tesla with one of the most iconic, not to mention simple and cheap, cars in history? Not even going to waste time on that kind of coping.
    1
  119.  @lkrnpk  the supercharger network is a capital hog. Capital they should be spending on development. There is a reason car companies don't own gas stations. At the start it was a good idea and a big part in their growth, as the market comodifies and consolidates further it will become just another unnessesary cost as well as an capital oppertunity cost. You just can't compete with companies for whom exploiting this infrastructure is their core business. Subsedising fuel to sell cars really isn't a viable longterm strategy.
    1
  120.  @lkrnpk  sure, they are a bit more efficient. How many people base their car purchase based on fuel economy? How many people drive the most fuel efficient car on the market? Fuel economy is one of those things that just needs to be good enough. If people like one car more then the alternative they aren't changing their minds because it uses a liter extra in fuel. If they did people wouldn't be driving these masive hunks of steel with these huge engines. Seriously, have an objective look at the car market and what actually has driven sales over the last half century. Instead of trying to pretend the advantages tesla's holds somehow now have far more importance to consumers then they ever had before. All these things aren't what get's the general public excited or what fills showrooms. Things like the cybertruck does, because it looks cool. That's what people care about and that thing should have been been developed and on the road 2 or 3 years ago. It would have been the image builder they very much needed and yet it only get's delayed further and further allowing competition to come in and take their market.
    1
  121.  @rainerzufall9881  european manufacturers have been consolidating already. There is psa, vag, stellantis, daimler-benz and bmw. Gm already left. Most have many brands enabling them to spread cost and use economies of scale. Independent automakers haven't been able to exist for decades already. And the chinese will carve out their part of the market for sure. Just like the japanese did in the 70s and 80s based on cost. In the end it will only make european car manufacturers stronger. They have been building cars for a very very long time, they still hold many advantages over foreign competition and although they are slow to change direction, once they do they do in a big way with massive capital backing them and with economies of scale in their favor. For consumers the chinese competition will be a good thing. The japanese entering also in the end turned out very favorable for consumers. The automotive market is still a concervative one that has shown to be able to adjust to changing market conditions. And it will be just fine until true self driving cars enter the market, at which point it wil seize to exist alltogether.
    1
  122.  @bobmorane4926  are those european?
    1
  123.  @nvelsen1975  aren't iphones for seniors nowdays? I know 1 guy who is still using an iphone and he has been since they came out, everybody else is using androids from one asian brand or another. I only see old people use iphones pretty much. And you will see the odd apple laptop here and there, but pc's/laptops seem to be going out as well as most things people do can be done on a phone nowdays.
    1
  124.  @nvelsen1975  ok, i thought the apple thing was kinda over. never hear people talking about it anymore or see much about it. But apperently they do still sell loads of phones. Good for them i guess, veriety is always a good thing. Perhaps in some places they are more popular then others.
    1
  125.  @lkrnpk  that would actually be the best option. Sell the car devision to GM, spin off the charging infrastructure and licence their technology to OEM's and become a OEM supplier for drivetrains. That's where their strengths are and the tesla car brand has a much larger chance of succes under the umbrella of a larger auto manufacturer where it can bennefit from economies of scale and share R&D acros many brands and models. Independent car manufacture has become pretty much impossible because all competition are able to bennefit from scale to such a degree that competing is just not possible for anyone else. That is what rescued every brand now combined into stellantis. Combining all these groups together has enabled them to also reach the scale needed and it is showing in their recent performance and the models they put out. It would be a shame if tesla as a car brand would die a slow death like all other independents have in the past, they are a breath of fresh air in the industry. But that isn't going to magicly happen like it has in the past. That extraordinairy situation it was in is now rapidly ending.
    1
  126.  @HermanWillems  glad you are having fun, enjoy 👍
    1
  127. You either have very cheap electricity or you need to shop around a bit. Solar is very competitive nowdays.
    1