How are the oil demand projections so high for the next 15 years if this really takes off?
Seems Saudia Arabia is preparing for the day of no oil. About to unless the largest IPO in the history of the world putting up a portion of its oil
Seems Saudia Arabia is preparing for the day of no oil. About to unless the largest IPO in the history of the world putting up a portion of its oil
It'll take a long ass time to get to point they producing enough of these to dent world oil demand .. Even with improvements in the gas guzzlers and increase in EV.. with middle class growing in China and India and other developing nations etc.. Us oil demand won't grow and likely will fall slowly going forward.. At same times Saudi knows they better start diversification process now.. They've been dependent on it for too long now anyway.. Dubai done a decent job of diversifying
Near impossible to say when world oil demand will start falling but doubt it's anytime soon.. But process has begun to ween off it.. Mankind has no choice if they want a habitable planet for the ever increasing population.. Predictions say world sea levels 5 feet higher by 2100.. 50 ft higher by 2400!! If we stay on this course of massive greenhouse gas emissions..
[h=1]Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.[/h][h=3]Watch Antarctica melt in these alarming projection models[/h]
Play Video1:15
According to a new study, high levels of greenhouse gas emissions could cause oceans to rise by close to two meters in total (over six feet) by the end of the century, and more than 13 meters (42 feet) from Antarctica alone by 2500. (Nature, Rob DeConto, David Pollard)
In a groundbreaking climate change study, scientists have found that by neglecting to include the melting of Antarctica, we have vastly underestimated the potential for sea level rise over the next 80 years — and beyond.
The most widely cited estimate of around three feet by 2100 includes sea level rise from thermal expansion (water expands when it warms) and the melting of smaller glaciers. It includes minimal contributions from Greenland and Antarctica.
Instead, this study published in the journal Nature suggests that we should actually double that forecast when we include melting in Antarctica: approximately six feet of sea level rise by 2100. Just as alarming is the projection that Antarctica by itself could add 50 feet of sea level rise by 2500.
What does that even look like?
[Antarctic loss could double expected sea level rise by 2100, scientists say]
The 50-foot estimate is hard to imagine. The study essentially concludes that we could alter the face of the Earth over the next 100 to 500 years.
In the study’s projection for 2500, almost the entire state of Delaware would disappear. Much of Manhattan and Brooklyn would be reduced to just slivers of their current selves. The southern coast of Florida would end north of Lake Okeechobee. California’s Central Valley would flood from Modesto to Colusa, and the state capital of Sacramento would be entirely under water. And this says nothing about the millions — billions? — of people who could be displaced around the globe.
It’s a little easier to picture the 2100 projection, which, if this study is correct, would significantly change coastlines in the United States.
Each of these maps was created by the research team at Climate Central. You can explore more coastlines in the interactive viewer. Climate Central used the highest resolution elevation maps available to create these projections. The researchers take into account the mitigating effects of levees, under the assumption that all levees will be able to withstand the pressure of rising seas (despite the fact that only 8 percent of the monitored levees in the United States are considered in “acceptable” condition).
The outcomes range from dire in places such as Miami and New Orleans to avoidable with mitigation strategies in Washington, D.C. Most important to remember when scanning these images is that they still do not include the potentially significant sea level rise from Greenland.
[h=3]Miami[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in Miami. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
[h=3]New Orleans[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in New Orleans. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
[h=3]Tampa[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in Tampa, Florida. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
[h=3]San Francisco[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in the San Francisco Bay Area. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
[h=3]Boston[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in Boston. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
[h=3]Washington, D.C.[/h]
What two meters (around 6.5 feet) of sea level rise would look like in Washington, D.C. Areas covered in blue are considered below water level. (Climate Central)
These sea level rise projections were created using the IPCC’s “business as usual” scenario, though there is certainly a caveat to this assumption. It seems unlikely we will be able to maintain everything that comes along with the business as usual scenario: high population growth, little improvement in energy efficiency, no policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and a continued, heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
[The science behind projections of much higher seas in this century]
However, none of the scenarios — low or high emissions — take into account things that are not well-understood, such as the effect of melting permafrost, which in itself has the ability to inject large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
The portrait it paints is a worst-case scenario for how our planet could look if we continue today’s actions and policies unabated — or if we have simply underestimated how much greenhouse gas is entering the atmosphere. Either way, it’s an important potential outcome to examine, if only to serve as motivation to reduce fossil fuel emissions sooner rather than later.
Play Video1:15
According to a new study, high levels of greenhouse gas emissions could cause oceans to rise by close to two meters in total (over six feet) by the end of the century, and more than 13 meters (42 feet) from Antarctica alone by 2500. (Nature, Rob DeConto, David Pollard)
In a groundbreaking climate change study, scientists have found that by neglecting to include the melting of Antarctica, we have vastly underestimated the potential for sea level rise over the next 80 years — and beyond.
The most widely cited estimate of around three feet by 2100 includes sea level rise from thermal expansion (water expands when it warms) and the melting of smaller glaciers. It includes minimal contributions from Greenland and Antarctica.
Instead, this study published in the journal Nature suggests that we should actually double that forecast when we include melting in Antarctica: approximately six feet of sea level rise by 2100. Just as alarming is the projection that Antarctica by itself could add 50 feet of sea level rise by 2500.
What does that even look like?
[Antarctic loss could double expected sea level rise by 2100, scientists say]
The 50-foot estimate is hard to imagine. The study essentially concludes that we could alter the face of the Earth over the next 100 to 500 years.
In the study’s projection for 2500, almost the entire state of Delaware would disappear. Much of Manhattan and Brooklyn would be reduced to just slivers of their current selves. The southern coast of Florida would end north of Lake Okeechobee. California’s Central Valley would flood from Modesto to Colusa, and the state capital of Sacramento would be entirely under water. And this says nothing about the millions — billions? — of people who could be displaced around the globe.
It’s a little easier to picture the 2100 projection, which, if this study is correct, would significantly change coastlines in the United States.
Each of these maps was created by the research team at Climate Central. You can explore more coastlines in the interactive viewer. Climate Central used the highest resolution elevation maps available to create these projections. The researchers take into account the mitigating effects of levees, under the assumption that all levees will be able to withstand the pressure of rising seas (despite the fact that only 8 percent of the monitored levees in the United States are considered in “acceptable” condition).
The outcomes range from dire in places such as Miami and New Orleans to avoidable with mitigation strategies in Washington, D.C. Most important to remember when scanning these images is that they still do not include the potentially significant sea level rise from Greenland.
[h=3]Miami[/h]
[h=3]New Orleans[/h]
[h=3]Tampa[/h]
[h=3]San Francisco[/h]
[h=3]Boston[/h]
[h=3]Washington, D.C.[/h]
These sea level rise projections were created using the IPCC’s “business as usual” scenario, though there is certainly a caveat to this assumption. It seems unlikely we will be able to maintain everything that comes along with the business as usual scenario: high population growth, little improvement in energy efficiency, no policies to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and a continued, heavy reliance on fossil fuels.
[The science behind projections of much higher seas in this century]
However, none of the scenarios — low or high emissions — take into account things that are not well-understood, such as the effect of melting permafrost, which in itself has the ability to inject large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
The portrait it paints is a worst-case scenario for how our planet could look if we continue today’s actions and policies unabated — or if we have simply underestimated how much greenhouse gas is entering the atmosphere. Either way, it’s an important potential outcome to examine, if only to serve as motivation to reduce fossil fuel emissions sooner rather than later.
I doubt that Lithium batteries will stay as the dominant force. I use nickle metal hydride for most purposes (NiMH) and silver oxide are very good for other purposes
Since it's a trillion dollar industry someone is going to come up with a simple solution, especially since most journeys on the planet are less than 12 miles before you get home kinda thing
In the USA driving huge distances is second nature(Australia too) but this is not the case in much of the world
Battery swapping stations are the obvious solution
Since it's a trillion dollar industry someone is going to come up with a simple solution, especially since most journeys on the planet are less than 12 miles before you get home kinda thing
In the USA driving huge distances is second nature(Australia too) but this is not the case in much of the world
Battery swapping stations are the obvious solution
Those "cool" days could be long gone starting 2017 when Model 3 rolling out. For years owning a Tesla is like dating a hot chic in town despite there are many unresolved issues w/ prev Tesla models. Musk cult members are willing to turn a blind eye on those issues because Tesla is still a "special" chic. It will be a different story for lower-end quality vehicles for lower-income population. The people who buy a Tesla and they expect it to be a Toyota Camry or Honda Accord, tax credit phasing out, Tesla production capacity and suppliers problem....etc....those chronic issues will resurface as soon as Musk stop updating Model 3 order tally on twitter.
35k and up is not lower end... Increasingly poor middle class and below will continue to drive around old cheap gas guzzlers for a long time going forward... Assuming no more 4 dollar gas days I guess.. And oil will still reign globally for a long time as well this just the beginning/one tiny step of the process to ween ourselves as a species off hydrocarbons..
now upper end of middle class can join in at this price point should they choose so.. Vs the uber elite before..
havent really heard of any major issues with previous models as far as performance... Been Production issues delays etc..
will be interesting to see if they can produce at a decent clip and also not lose their asses at this price point... Chances are there will be many bumps on the road along the way as they try to roll this out no doubt.. I definitely would not be long tesla at current prices.. That said people are gonna be way more about getting a model 3 vs a bolt at same price point.. Unless gm does a clearly better job on the performance
now upper end of middle class can join in at this price point should they choose so.. Vs the uber elite before..
havent really heard of any major issues with previous models as far as performance... Been Production issues delays etc..
will be interesting to see if they can produce at a decent clip and also not lose their asses at this price point... Chances are there will be many bumps on the road along the way as they try to roll this out no doubt.. I definitely would not be long tesla at current prices.. That said people are gonna be way more about getting a model 3 vs a bolt at same price point.. Unless gm does a clearly better job on the performance
I don't think model 3 gonna hurt the brand.
Company reminds me a lot of apple during the Steve Jobs days.
Yeah, plenty of people to sell to, demand likely won't be an issue.
Seems like affluent gen X/Y crowd is really driving a lot of the demand, and I think the reason that is happens to be because people are starved for something tangible and real, a breakthrough that doesn't have to do with bits and internet. Most of the new products for awhile now have just related to internet, communication and then improving upon those fields.
People are just dying to try something different which is pretty cool. In some way, I see the demand as a referendum on something like facebook being the innovative company of our time.
Here's global car sales which are growing at a steady clip 2016 74.3 mil
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/
tesla will be lucky to be churning out 500k per year in a few years ... add say another 500k from everybody else as far as 100% electric.. Just making up numbers but.. That's a minuscule 1.3% of annual car sales..
http://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/
tesla will be lucky to be churning out 500k per year in a few years ... add say another 500k from everybody else as far as 100% electric.. Just making up numbers but.. That's a minuscule 1.3% of annual car sales..
They're banking on $7.5K Fed tax credit - major selling point of Musk but a lot of them is not aware that the credit is capped at 200K vehicles per manufacturer. GM & Nissan is half way to the credit limitation, each company has sold approx 100K EV, Toyota & Tesla is selling less, est 50K - 60K each respectively. Assuming people who reserved Models 3 will follow through with their orders, half of them will be locked out of max Fed tax credit and they wouldn't know that until they got the adjustment letter from the IRS - you're not eligible for the credit because it's phased out, sorry. Oops! $35K and add-on options, title fee, sales tax...etc....the final bill could end up hitting $50K/vehicle. They thought they would have a good deal - maybe not.
Model S already hurt the brand. It has been plagued with quality issues that forced ConsumerReport to pull the "buy" recommendation last year. Model 3 will take the "cool" factor down one or maybe two notches. No doubt about that.
Musk is the best showman since Steve Jobs - he is a GREAT car salesman. He just got his company a $250 million loan w/ no interest for the next 2 years. Excellent!
The features on the basic model are pretty nice though, can probably get the thing for 40 and under. Yeah, that sounds like a lot but for someone who is already into purchasing new cars, it really isn't. Camry or Accord cost like 25-28 these days.
I would think they don't sell more than a few hundred K of these, so everyone probably gets the tax credit. In future years, not so much, so they will need to get the price down even further. Those reservations are refundable, so not all of those people will want to purchase the car. Musk always said the goal was 500k by 2020. So probably won't be more than 300k or so by then.
I would think they don't sell more than a few hundred K of these, so everyone probably gets the tax credit. In future years, not so much, so they will need to get the price down even further. Those reservations are refundable, so not all of those people will want to purchase the car. Musk always said the goal was 500k by 2020. So probably won't be more than 300k or so by then.
Fallout will be interesting especially for the banks that were involved in these dealings... Credit Suisse and hsbc the two big names I've seen so far..
its who u might expect... lot of ME guys that US in bed with(Saudi, Jordan, Iraq etc).... Africa, Russia, South America, China. Even Iceland PM (protests for him to go starting there already)
market complacancy thick barely down.. Just keep printing global central banksters ...nothing to see here.. Fiat ponzi alive and well..
its who u might expect... lot of ME guys that US in bed with(Saudi, Jordan, Iraq etc).... Africa, Russia, South America, China. Even Iceland PM (protests for him to go starting there already)
market complacancy thick barely down.. Just keep printing global central banksters ...nothing to see here.. Fiat ponzi alive and well..
