Tesla is now worth more than Ford, and what this indicates about the future of the green economy.
In a recent Electrek post, the news is delivered with understatement: Tesla now has a larger market capitalization than Ford Motor Company.
However, the article makes certain points that are worth thinking about before the enthusiasm gets out of hand: Namely that market cap is a measure of stock value rather than necessarily the fundamentals of a company, although those too are continuously increasing for Tesla as it builds out its Gigafactory 1 in Nevada, solar panel factory in New York, and various other facilities.
Ford remains overwhelmingly dominant compared to Tesla in its pace of manufacturing and delivery, and yet the news is a milestone in a trend that has been unfolding for years. Tesla has been continuously advancing its ability to produce, and despite occasional dips in stock price, the stock has kept well ahead of the shockwave.
A company that was not supposed to exist according to...well...everyone...now has a market capitalization of $45 billion, after a decade and a half of growth and hard-fought survival at times. But here's where the future interest comes into light: Tesla is no longer "merely" a car company.
Tesla is growing both up and down its own supply chain - expanding across its own entire industrial sector - entering the energy production, energy storage, and energy management industries that will increase the value of its cars. It is also creating an entire industrial science of the factory-as-product, rooted in designing whole factories as if they were single products limited only by the basic laws of physics.
A lot of OEM companies extend tendrils into their own supply chains, but these are usually just hedges - they maintain a basic capacity to serve their own needs if a major supplier has a serious interruption. And, of course, as leverage in negotiations with their suppliers if someone is trying to strong-arm them. That is not what Tesla is doing.
Tesla is out for conquest. Having watched this company evolve since a decade ago, and watched its vision evolve, I can say that it intends - over the longest term - to become the world's dominant producer of clean energy infrastructure, related systems, and the building and transport technologies that utilize it.
Disaster is entirely possible when ambitions are so grand, and Tesla has averted it so often that one has to wonder if Musk's genius is not mixed in with some strain of adrenaline-driven recklessness, but sooner or later you have to admit that the best guide to what someone will achieve in the future is what they have already achieved in the past.
Tesla has the tools, the talent, and the ambition to own the world. I think they will. They will change the energy and transport systems of the world, and possibly the basic way in which we manufacture on a large scale. Over decades, I think they will surpass all other automakers, and then surpass them all combined, beginning to then challenge companies like Apple and Google - who have themselves shown awareness of the danger by experimenting with entering the auto market. The world's first trillion-dollar company may be among us.
But knock on wood. Knock on it soundly.
Doesn't a such a huge market cap with a low market share scream overvalued?
Yes this is exactly what it is a substantial over evaluation based on faith .
Whether or not the leadership of Tesla can deliver remains to be seen but this kind of ridiculous over evaluation is not uncommon especially in the tech sector
Ford sells more cars per month than Tesla has sold in it's entire existence. I mean, I like Tesla, but that valuation is sheeeit, even accounting for Tesla's expected growth and diversification beyond just car tech.
And no profits.
Reading this title made me feel like I was peaking on mushrooms.
The thing is psychedelics zoom you out, so you can look at the maze top down and see how to get out of it.
Normal life is like being right in the maze, you can't see clearly from an objective 3rd person view and just end up being stuck in some cases.
Can relate. Had depression. Tried lsd, now don't have depression.
Edit: Everyone has a different brain chemistry, it is not safe to say this will work for everyone and clearly doesn't, just like prescribed medications don't work for everyone who take them. The brain is complex, there is no certainty in any drug.
Edit Edit: Thinking about doing LSD today maybe periscoping it or just making a YouTube video to show people the stages of LSD and to show that you really needn't stress going into it. Who would watch something like that?
so glad somebody else is pointing this out. one of the most poorly worded titles I've ever seen
I wish an annual brain scan was free as part of preventative healthcare.
Seriously, think about how much good this could do and how much data it could potentially generate if handled right/the logistics work out.
Add those to everyone's NSA file right on top haha
What color is my Psycho-pass?
So how can this be deployed on a large enough scale to say assist in the removal of mercury from the Great Lakes water ways
It can't. Not really.
They're just way way way too big, and a lot of the mercury is trapped in the silt at the bottom of the lakes. Little crustaceans and worms and insects and stuff pick it up from living in the mud, and that mercury eventually finds its way into fish where it becomes trapped in their tissues.
Trying to clean that would likely annihilate the whole ecosystem. Instead, just filter whatever you take out of those waterways for drinking and food prep, and don't eat too many fish.
I hate that "don't eat too many fish" is the only practical answer. We've screwed up our ecosystem so bad we can't eat what was once the main source of protein for a huge portion of our species.
Yup, generally. They test the waters if it's closed pond farming, compared to pulling random fish out of our plastic, Mercury, radiation filled oceans.
I wish more states would maintain emissions standards.
Many states do join California's more strict standards - states with a combined population of about 130 million people.
The real interesting test will be if the GOP stands by the states rights it oftentimes worships or if that sweet, sweet oil industry money is more important and they try to put the kaibosh on Cali's efforts. I know where I expect them to land.
It's all you need! Car manufacturers can't afford to miss out on 130M person market or make 2 versions of the same car. Very happy for CA regs.
I think he is referring to relatively expensive slate or terra-cotta roofs. His roof will be cheaper initially than those which is awesome! But in terms of an asphalt shingle roof it will be ~3-5x more expensive initially.
The specific quote in the article is "less than a normal roof". A terra cotta roof is not a normal roof.
Sounds like sales are going to go through the roof.
Interesting. A typical shingle roof lasts about 18 years, architectural shingle 25 years. So the Tesla roof lasts about 2-3 three times as long. It also generates electricity for 'free' for 50 years. It should also add to the resale value of the house.
Toss in a Powerwall 2, or two, and a nice Model 3 and all of sudden you are living in the future.
This is incredibly misleading at best.
The article is saying how great it would be if we could do it. The truth is: we can't. Not unless North Americans and Europeans want to see a drastic reduction in quality of life. Of course, there is also the third world which won't be halving their emissions on the scale of semi-decades.
It feels like this piece is just fluff designed to get clicks.
EDIT: The more I look at this, the worse it looks. It seems like baseless reporting by The Guardian in order to drive traffic to their site. You could say "New plan calls for complete elimination of fossil fuel usage in a decade - a simple but rigorous roadmap to tackle climate change." Yeah, that roadmap would be simple and rigorous as well. Not to mention just as impossible to implement as this.
I don't use the report button much but I did with this article. If we start allowing "plans" or worse - media summaries of "plans", the value of this sub takes a nosedive.
This sub in a nutshell
Hahahahaha. So THAT was the problem, the emission and climate targets weren't "simple and rigorous" enough!
Also, I have another solution. Let's try a Moore's law for world hunger. Every ten years we simply half world hunger and then we fix world hunger! It's so easy!
Weird invocation of Moore's law. Moore's law is an observation of a logical progression in reality. This is an optimistic assumption of what might happen if we did something which would be very challenging.
Also Moore's law is exponential and this would be logarithmic, it's still wildly innacurate, but comparing it to an inverse Moore's law would be closer.
Edit: what is grammar?
For anyone worried about autonomous vehicles safety keep in mind that there is a whole polpulace of almost blind disease riddled 60+ year old licensed humans who drive on the roads with you today. The last one I recall stepped on the gas instead of the brake and ran over a bunch of people at a farmers market in LA a few years ago.
Edit: Sorry Reddit, I did not intend to single out the elderly as the only bad drivers out there. I just wanted to point out they exist and do cause many accidents. My point is that I agree with this article that autonomous cars will be waaaay safer than drunk, young, old, inexperienced, medicated, overconfident, reckless error prone humans. Let's keep moving forward making policy decisions based on science and data instead of irrational fear.
As someone who rides a non-automatic motorcycle, I think this is wonderful.
I saw one stop in the middle of an intersection without correcting herself the whole light.
Tesla analyst? So not even a Tesla executive is saying this. Why should we believe it?
Serious question: when building all the way out there, isn't there a lot of current in the sea to harvest as well?
Tl;dr :No, unless you make a very very wide island. I have some experience designing such a project on the Atlantic coast of France. It would have created a berm on the sea floor about 2 miles out at sea to increase the tidal current, and behind that berm there would be an array of hydro turbines (modified Kaplans, like those used on dams). It failed almost immediately when we calculated that a ~3 mile wide array would yield around 2 MW at a cost of 18-20 million $. To give you an idea, damming a small river would get you those 2MW at 2-3 mil, and a typical wind turbine would get you ~5MW at roughly 5 mil. And you could fit about 4-5 of those 5MW turbines on that 3 mile stretch. Edit: Even worse, you need tidal currents for those underwater generators to work (10-12km/h of water speed). Normal ocean currents barely reach 2-3 km/h.
Middle East: Reclaims sea to sell mansions to billionaires.
China: Reclaims sea to build military bases.
Europe : Reclaims sea to build Windmills.
Who knew stereotypes could be so accurate?
And cost is lowering the more we produce, and turbine sizes are growing. Invest and buy now while the market is hot!
And I'm totally not an Engineer from Denmark who wants to prosper from the growth of Vestas. Not at all.
"Climate security", I like that word. Maybe if we put the word security in there more politicians will consider it important.
Maybe if we start calling it climate terrorism.
The WAR ON CLIMATE change
It really needs to drop to zero. These plants will be in use for decades if built and there is absolutely no reason to keep using coal for that long. We are already on the brink of disaster.
Edit: good lord the comments on the article are toxic. Part par for the course, I guess.
Edit edit: yes I know the saying, sorry for the typo