Climate

Tesla is trucking kidding itself

9F628627-5C36-47E9-9796-3885A63591A6

Tesla has bagged 55 orders for the semi so far. Although it is no surprise that no major truck hauling companies have signed up. Funny that. To expect trucking companies who operate under strict cashflow constraints (afterall they’re businesses not wealthy consumers) to give Musk a $200,000 upfront deposit (aka interest free loan) per ‘founder series’ truck is to put in Tesla lexicon – ludicrous. Truck companies, as CM wrote in its 30 reasons why Tesla is likely to be a bug on a windshield, are conservative. They want to see the technology proven in the field before just forking over $150-200,000 and hoping for the best. Were the technology or charging infrastructure to come up short then the whole economic proposition would come unstuck.

The Tesla trucks are roughly 30% to 70% more expensive than diesel trucks which have up to triple the range on full tanks. Many new 2018 diesel models are available now at $120k vs Tesla’s $150k (300mi range) and $180k (500mi range).

If we used the $60,000 more expensive Tesla Semi can to recoup the difference then it will need to be driven 240,000 miles using the $.25/saving per mile vs diesel Tesla number. Some estimates suggest payback in 3-4 years.

One former trucking company planner wrote,

I was surprised when I saw this “two-year” payback period quoted by Musk last week and repeated on the website. Two years? Really? He had just gotten through showing us an operational cost savings of $.25 per mile over diesel.

Well if I am going to pay back the truck I need those savings to equal the purchase price in two years. Well $180,000 divided by $.25 is 720,000 miles or 360,000 miles per year. That is not even physically possible. A truck would have to drive non-stop for 24 hours a day, 365 days a year at an average speed of 41 mph. Subtract out recharging time of 30 minutes every six hours or two hours per day and four hours per day for loading and unloading and the truck must average 54.7 miles per hour for every mile driven. It is impossible to do.

My big trucks ran long trips moving from coast to coast or north to south. I pulled out my records just for the fun of it and my trucks averaged 13,000 miles per month in summer months and under 10,000 in winter months because of weather and tougher loading and unloading conditions. Most trucks ran about 120,000 miles per year maximum even with driver teams. This was due in many cases to operational time limits of over-sized loads (half hour before sunrise until half hour after sunset is mandatory in many states for safety reasons).“

Whether the new Tesla Roadster or Tesla Semi this new deposit scheme is actually more telling than the vehicles themselves. This can be none other than a cash grab interest free loans to keep the thing alive. I salute Musk for his pioneering spirit but playing with the big boys is never easier done than said. Can’t wait to see the cashflow numbers in Q4 reporting early next year. If we get a worsening of this chart beware.

1Teltesla

Perhaps we can also find some amusement in Tesla’s competitor (Nikola) tweets

A54B9F8D-A66A-4275-9BD7-836997284A99.jpeg

The truth in bumper stickers

CE84AB5D-9983-41A9-AC00-BF4086D0D315.jpeg

Its often said that bumper stickers carry harsh truths wrapped in comedy. On the highway yesterday see exhibit A – “After you please to save the earth”. This is a good reference to human behaviour. How often we see that the people who preach the global warming faith often  don’t practice it. Gas guzzling SUVs continue to dominate new car sales charts and according to the IATA air travel is expected to “double” by 2030. After all when 50,000 climate alarmists fly to exotic locations half way around the world  every year to kneel at the altar of the UNIPCC and tell us why we must cut our environmental impact. Then again we only need listen to IPCC co-chair of a working group Dr Ottmar Endenhofer who in his own words said, “We [UNIPCC] redistribute de factor the world’s wealth by climate policy…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. T has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”

Tesla – terrible Q3

C9A694F3-416C-4A3B-B9FA-2B4010332AF6

Tesla’s Q3 2017 results came out last night and were in a word terrible with a capital T. Tesla reported an adjusted, non-GAAP loss of $2.92 per share, far worse than the expected loss of $2.27, which was more than double the $1.33 loss in Q2. The chart above tabulates the cash flow progression from the CMR report published Monday. While Tesla claimsit has $3.5bn cash in the bank it has more than $3.9bn in accounts payable liabilities! Tesla continued to burn piles of cash on the factory floor. Q3 cashburn was a record $1.4 billion ($16 million per day): much higher than the $1.2bn forecast.

Im our report we said that production issues were the one area that will catch Tesla out. In the car game, production efficiency is everything- the promises to make 5,000 Model 3s every week by December is now a goal likely pushed out til March 2018 at the earliest as “production hell” bites.

Musk blamed suppliers for having to push back the delivery schedule again, He said,

to date, our primary production constraint has been in the battery module assembly line at Gigafactory 1, where cells are packaged into modules. Four modules are packaged into an aluminum case to form a Model 3 battery pack. The combined complexity of module design and its automated manufacturing process has taken this line longer to ramp than expected. The biggest challenge is that the first two zones of a four zone process, key elements of which were done by manufacturing systems suppliers, had to be taken over and significantly redesigned by Tesla.”

The amusing thing about this quote is that Tesla is somehow telling (presumably Panasonic) how to do mass manufacturing. That is telling in itself – the rookie telling the amateur.

Also in our report we noted that no single mainstream auto supplier is on Tesla’s deck which tells us how little faith they have in the company. Auto suppliers run on the smell of an oily rag and after so many bad experiences won’t accept dealing with auto makers who may jeopardize their own future. Recall how many auto suppliers almost went to the wall (many were in Chapter 11) after the tech bubble collapse at the turn of the century.

Tesla expects capex of $1 billion in Q4 which is mainly for milestone payments on Model 3 production equipment and Gigafactory 1. So cash burn continues.

Tesla promised to redirect “our best engineering talent to fine-tune the automated processes and related robotic programming…and we are confident that throughput will increase substantially in upcoming weeks and ultimately be capable of production rates significantly greater than the original specification.” What??? Why weren’t the engineers working on that before. The whole point of mass production is to stamp out the bugs before a conveyor belt is turned in anger. Tesla, true to rookie form is doing everything back to front.

Are investors starting to see through the charade? Shares were pounded 5% after market. Although some may draw comfort from better Tesla S & X production, Model 3 looks like a nightmare of Halloween. Maybe the next capital raising can be called “trick or treat”!

Zero CO2 emissions at Tokyo Olympics for 4 days during ceremonies

A9AE017D-32C0-424E-AE2F-5E21472735F0.jpeg

Fresh after her drubbing in the elections over the weekend Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike is proposing zero CO2 emissions during the 4 days of 2020 Tokyo Olympic/Paralympic ceremonies. Presumably the trains to transport passengers to the stadium will be shut down as they’re powered by gas fired electricity while hepa filter gas masks will be distributed to every foreign visitor and Tokyo resident to ensure the goal can be met. People won’t be able to drive nor eat in restaurants that cook with gas or electricity and diners mustn’t eat because they’d be breathing CO2 between bites.

Hang on how is she going to justify the Olympic flame? Or the fireworks at the opening and closing ceremonies for the Olympics and Paralympics? More CO2!

More green madness.

For a supposed populist right winger she’s leaning to be a lefty in pretty short order. That is a great shame and for all the antiestablishment rhetoric she’s more mainstream than the establishment.

Sloppy senators who snigger at the seriousness of the situation

Regardless of whether one believes in climate change or not, surely even deniers should get access to transparent data, especially from taxpayer funded bodies. Just being told the science is settled is not acceptable. Indeed if the science is settled, what is there to hide? Allow all the ‘raw’ and ‘homogenised’ data to be independently scrutinized. Surely it will corroborate the facts and convert the heretics.

The argument that I am not a scientist is irrelevant. 99% of the people who are alarmists are not either. Yet, should one be vilified for questioning so many blatant acts of  fraudulent behaviour? As often in the world of ‘settled’ topics, the contrarian opinion is often laughed it. Yet, if 99% of people tell you one thing are you not curious to the counter arguments? So often the conventional wisdom has often turned out to be false.

What Senator Dastyari here has done is take allegations of data manipulation by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) as just a joke and an opportunity to cheap shot one of his fellow senators who is absent. It is willful behaviour to undermine a serious hearing. What is the constant faith that we are asked to put in government bodies that somehow they are above the law and beyond the scope of audit because we should trust them? That is like leaving candies on the table in reach of your kids but telling them they mustn’t eat any. The crack and eat some but when questioned swear they didn’t even though the blue M&M stain on the tongue proves they’re lying.

Former US Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan regularly spoke to the US Senate House Banking Committee. With the exception of Ron Paul, pretty much all other members used to hang off every word, not questioning anything that came from his mouth. It was nauseating to watch them heap praise on him. He was not held to account. Ron Paul used to ask questions about rampant monetary supply growth, asset bubbles and extreme borrowing to income ratios but his fellow law makers would gang up on him for having the hide to interrogate the ‘Maestro’. It is this type of unwillingness to question group think that is much more worrying. To all of the questions asked of Greenspan by Paul, we still got GFC – avoidable if the group thinkers in the Senate were prepared to challenge.

As CM has written frequently – so many bodies have been busted for data manipulation – the UNIPCC, NASA, NOAA and the BoM to name a few. Yes, even NASA, the people who have the brainstrust to launch man to the moon. Human greed is the issue. This discussion with President of the Sierra Club Aaron Mair who tells Senator Cruz there should be no debate as the science is settled yet can’t reliably argue his position even with a bench full of his flunkies pushing the same garbage.

In all seriousness, Dastyari wants to copy Aaron Mair. Shut down any plausible debate and avoid scrutiny that might upset his own constituents. People often use the argument that investing in renewables is like insurance. That we take it on the off chance we’re wrong. Well, in a sense what many scientists are doing is insurance fraud. Then again it is also an unanswered question. Why is it bankers get thrown into jail and fined exorbitant sums yet scientists riddled with conflicts of interest and deliberate ‘forgery’ of data to fit narratives escape scot-free even if caught.

Why haven’t climate scientists been jailed for fraud?

IMG_0637.JPG

Evil banksters have been burnt at the stake over the last 30 years. Some would argue that not enough of these swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell. Maybe. Still many have faced multi million dollar fines, two decade prison terms and barred from ever operating again in the financial industry. Yet time and again climate scientists who receive millions in funding to scare us with fraudulent reports never face any repercussions. In fact many end up suing for libel believing their reputations have been tarnished by exposutenof the truth.

In a sense the taxpayer money used to bailout the financial system is not much different from the billions being plowed recklessly into energy policy based on wonky research. Even government sponsored climate organizations (NOAA, NASA, BoM, UNIPCC) have fallen for the sins of huge grants and recycling updated bogus studies by fiddling previous data to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Junket travel has been a big feature in the recent exposures of NASA and BOM. Can’t be seen missing the conference in the Maldives!

So again, why haven’t any scientists “busted” for manipulating data been charged for fraud? If it is ok to send bankers to jail for white collar crimes, why not scientists? Because they can wrap their malfeasance inside models that are sold as well intentioned studies to saving the planet! Who can prove their did predictions might not come to pass?

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff got 150 years, Stanford got 110 years jail time.

Will whistleblower scalps found guilty of fraud be charged, fined and jailed? It is highly unlikely. They’ll claim anomalies in data and forecasting is indeed difficult.

In any event if there was a Climate Science watchdog that monitored fraud (not to mention massive conflicts of interest which are mentioned in previous pieces) like the SEC how much fraud would scientists try to get away with? Why not have a body which mandates funding sources to check for potential conflicts of interest? That way dishonest scientists would be restricted in their movements and those with legitimate findings wouldn’t see their work drowned out by the rogue elements,

Interestingly most of the court related activities in the scientific fields have been exposed scientists looking to sue for libel after emails proving the fraud were leaked.

Yet scientists don’t have to worry. The media has little interest in chasing something that might ruin their narrative. Even worse they’ll cite scientists (Australia’s former climate commissioner Tim Flannery comes to mind) who have made countless dud predictions (in many cases the complete opposite has occurred ) and act as though it’s gospel.

Once again climate science is a religion. No wonder it’s got so much protection. Hence the vows of silence in the halls of the scientific church. They’re untouchable. However that by deduction makes me a heretic.

Bureau of Meteorology also in on the junk(et) climate science

IMG_0634.JPG

Below is a piece from The Australian today on the woeful behaviour at the Bureau of Meteorology. The work of yet another one of these venerable institutions (e.g. NASA, NOAA) which we are told to respect without question. Turns out that last year the BoM spent $7.8mn on travel expenses or just shy of $5,000 per head. No doubt flying on taxpayer coin to exotic locations to fight the cause of global warming. As written yesterday a whistleblower at NASA claimed that climate change junkets are more important than the science. Why wouldn’t you fly around the world promoting baseless fear in order to keep your frequent flyer miles up?

Maurice Newman writes,

“Enough is enough. The Bureau of Meteorology yet again stands charged with fabricating temperature records.

This time, thanks to the diligence of scientist Jennifer Marohasy, the bureau has been caught red-handed regulating temperatures to keep them above a predetermined minimum — at least for two NSW automatic weather stations, one located in Goulburn, the other at Thredbo.

The BOM initially admitted it had set an arbitrary limit of minus 10C for the Goulburn station, but then changed the story to the equipment being “not fit for purpose” — because it got too cold — even though the same instruments are used in the Antarctic. The actual temperature measured was a record July low for Goulburn, at minus 10.4C, so why, if the equipment was faulty, didn’t the bureau leave a blank instead of rounding up to minus 10C?

Allowing the bureau to defend itself, Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg called for an internal review.

In 77 pages, it acknowledged that, indeed, Goulburn and Thredbo were governed and, minimum limits were set. This was blamed on a filter being installed into these weather stations 15 and 10 years ago respectively. No limits were imposed on maximum temperatures. Yet implicitly, we are asked to believe that the historical temperature record has not been compromised.

Before filters were installed, Goulburn recorded minus 10.9C in August 1994 and, in that cold winter, Thredbo went down to minus 13.6C and nearby Charlotte Pass to minus 23C on June 29, a record low for Australia. Charlotte Pass weather station was decommissioned in March 2015.

Ironically, the bureau’s newest location, near White Cliffs in NSW, home to some of the nation’s hottest temperatures, last August recorded minus 62.5C, due to a “hardware fault”.

A BOM-friendly technical forum, part of former minister Greg Hunt’s plan to buy time and “kill off” a proposed Abbott government probe, has foreshadowed “the need for a major revision of the dataset”.

Predictably, though, it did not address specific claims by Marohasy and others, and seems satisfied the bureau’s dataset is well maintained. Really? This may fool ministers, but for a sceptical public, time has run out.

British author and journalist Christopher Booker says: “When future generations look back on the global warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records — on which the entire (global warming) panic ultimately rested — were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.” He says this practice has been observed by experts around the world and “raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface temperature record”.

He is joined by John Theon, retired chief of NASA’s Climate Processes Research Program and responsible for all weather and climate research, who testified before congress that “some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it.”

Take the article NASA published in 1999 showing 1934 was the US’s warmest year. Across the ensuing decade, by cooling the past and warming the present, 1998 jumped five places to become the warmest. Whistleblower John Bates, recently retired principal scientist at US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, described how his agency manipulated data to manufacture a non-existent increase in global temperatures.

Why should Australia be any different? We remember the Climategate emails from despairing programmer Ian Harris: “Getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data, so many new stations have been introduced, so many false references”.

Science writer and blogger Joanne Nova has raised scandal after scandal concerning the BOM’s record-keeping.

She refers to historic data being destroyed, and the influence of adjustments on Australia’s warming trend. She reports private auditors advising the bureau of almost a “thousand days where minimum temperatures were higher than the maxes”.

Taxpayers outlaying $1 million a day for reliable temperature data deserve better than this.

When Australia’s bureau transitioned from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors more than 20 years ago, to ensure readings from these devices were comparable with the old thermometers and complied with World Meteorological Organisation guidelines, parallel studies were undertaken at multiple sites.

A key conclusion was that readings from the new electronic sensors needed to be averaged over one to 10 minutes. However, rather than implement practices consistent with their finding, the bureau records one-second extremes (or noise), which can be announced as new record highs.

Inherent inconsistency aside, this calls into question whether Australian data is WMO compliant. Marohasy discovered this as part of her investigation and believes it is more damning than even the imposition of minimum limits, as it affects the recording of temperatures from all 695 automatic stations.

Marohasy is a respected scientist, known for her forensic work. While attempts will be made to dismiss her evidence as an arcane academic skirmish over recording methodology, it is a smoking gun that threatens the integrity of global temperature records.

It affects every Australian. It strikes at the heart of renewable energy policies. Globally, trillions of taxpayer dollars are at stake.

The government has a duty to inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, should it have sufficient grounds, that the bureau is not complying with WMO guidelines. Sooner or later, closed eyes must open.

Now, with Marohasy’s evidence adding to the credible findings of other experts, there can be no confidence in any future official assurances. Further delay of a proper independent audit, which includes dissidents, can be interpreted only as a cover-up. One way or another, the truth will out.