"People who contract the novel coronavirus emit high amounts of virus very early on in their infection, according to a new study from Germany that helps to explain the rapid and efficient way in which the virus has spread around the world."
"The researchers found very high levels of virus emitted from the throat of patients from the earliest point in their illness —when people are generally still going about their daily routines"
"EV sales make up just 4 percent of overall passenger vehicle sales of 23.7 million units, according to the China Association of Automobile Manufacturers."
Yup, definitely sounds like a bubble.
Smog is their main problem, and EVs are the solution. Exponential growth will continue. And I'm tired of these anti-EV/anti-Tesla articles from Bloomberg.
It's an investment bubble, not a market share bubble. Bloomberg is making the simple point that there are an awful lot of EV companies currently and that there are a lot of investments locked up in these companies. The consequence of this market consolidating to a few successful players means that a lot of these investments will be wiped out.
However, I disagree that this is a huge problem though because I assume the likely survivors of this would be comparatively well funded meaning that the size of the investments that will be wiped out is much less than the full 18B. Also, 18B is not actually a lot in a market that is probably going to be worth hundreds of billions. Arguably it's not actually enough for China to dominate here. E.g. VW is easily matching this with their own 50B worth of investments that they announced in the last years.Finally, companies with decent in house technology or some other edge are not worthless and might end up being acquired; meaning investors get some kind of return on investment. It's the weaker players without interesting technology or enough funding that are going to be wiped out first. If you invested in those, yes you will lose your money.
I'd be more worried about the ICE bubble of manufacturers that are failing to adapt to EVs. E.g. BMW seems to have a problem here and Toyota has been dragging its heels rolling out decent EVs as well and instead continue to invest in dead ends (in my view) like hydrogen or hybrid. There's a lot of captial locked up in companies like that as well as their suppliers. That's a much bigger bubble and I think countries like Germany where I currently live are going to have a very rough decade where lot of traditional companies are either going to scale down or disappear entirely. EVs seems to have been growing more rapidly than some of these companies hoped and this is already hurting them. In Germany there are thousands of companies employing hundreds of thousands of people that are going to be affected by that.
I've heard of market saturation, but market share bubble?
Bloomberg is not making a simple point. The article is titled as if there is, without a doubt, a bubble. When a bubble pops, everyone loses money and only the strongest companies survive. Many new entrants into a rapidly growing market, some of which get shaken out or acquired as the market grows and consolidates, does not constitute a bubble.
Your second paragraph is an argument against this being "an investment bubble".
> Smog is their main problem, and EVs are the solution.
They are not the solution. They represent a specific way to mitigate the problem by reducing the output of a very specific type of emissions.
I'd argue that setting up a functioning mass transit network in urban areas does more to lower emissions than switching powertrains in personal vehicles.
They are already doing this. And building cities out so people down have to travel as far or come downtown. The busses are the main cities are mainly electric and more and more cities are betting metro lines.
Most people use bikes or electric bikes to get to the metro or for short journies (probably at a ratio of 2 to 1) but people still want cars.
In Shanghai and Beijing, you can get an EV instantly but there is a quota for how many new ICE cars are added each month which means you go on a waiting list.
The solution as it relates to poor air quality from the toxic gases emitted from internal combustion engine vehicles in densely populated urban areas. Better?
Mass transit will help, but people are going to buy cars and drive regardless. EVs are clearly the solution to this problem.
Everything is easier on a large display: navigation, browsing through music/podcasts, changing settings. Speed and range are really the only "gauges" you need and take up very little real estate. Doesn't make much sense to have multiple small screens you have to glance around at. Just makes everything more difficult
The middle class can buy Model 3s and get the tax credit as well. And the top 25% paid 85.97% of total income tax in 2016. So I think you have it backwards.
The entire video is Autopilot in city driving. Autopilot, at this time, is only for "driving on dry, straight roads,
such as highways and freeways. It should not
be used on city streets."
So the wipers are on due to rain but the "autopilot" is not so smart to know that it's raining? Why can people activate it if it knows that these are not the right conditions for it to work?
This crash occurred in circumstances that met all these conditions: the road is a divided highway, straight and flat. The surrounding landscape is almost featureless, and there are no overhead light gantries or signs. The crash occurred two minutes before the start of civil twilight, but the weather was dry and clear - in other words, almost the perfect conditions for spotting a truck right in front, so there are problems with its performance even in its natural environment.
Completely agree, but then if users followed Tesla's instructions about AP then we would not be here.
There is precedence that "it's up to the user" is not sufficient as a societal standard for what is legally allowed. (For example seat belt laws). It is reasonable to ask: "Should we allow such a feature in cars on our road?" For example, what if the car had struck a cyclist rather than a truck and the fatality went the other way?
What precedence? If "it's up to the user" is not sufficient, then all vehicles should be speed capped at the legal speed limit and prohibited from moving if seat belts are not on. Clearly that's not the case. Unfortunately, freedom includes the freedom to do dumb shit. Some people do dumb shit and are responsible for the consequences.
> Unfortunately, freedom includes the freedom to do dumb shit.
You are not legally free to do all dumb shit. For example, you are not free in many states to ride around without a seatbelt on. Car makers are not free to make cars without seatbelts.
That's exactly my point. Seat belts are required by law. Obeying the speed limit is required by law. But users are not forced to obey these laws by restrictions placed on the vehicles by manufacturers. If the user disobeys the law, they are responsible. If a Tesla driver disobeys Tesla's Autopilot warning, they are responsible. Are you proposing that we need a law that makes Autopilot illegal to use on city streets? Or highways as well?
Which, no matter how much you might like it, does not make it anything approaching a luxury car, no matter how Elon tries to spin it.Even Model S doesn't quite cut it as a luxury car, unless you consider a $30K Hyndai a luxury car. But then, Hyundai is much better build...
"The researchers found very high levels of virus emitted from the throat of patients from the earliest point in their illness —when people are generally still going about their daily routines"
https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/09/people-shed-high-levels-...