That was a policy decision, not a necessary decision. They printed money to pay workers in Rhineland and because it was a calibrate choice by them in order to force a revision WW1 settlement.
5,493 karma · joined July 29, 2010
In 2009 inflation actually collapsed for example and that was a supply side collapse far bigger then this year.
> The fed has been "helicoptering" money for years
They have also enacted major counter measures and the pure amount is no longer really a good description of policy. Around 2009 or 2010 they started paying interest on reserves. The CB has a number of tools.
While conceptually it is not false, many of the conclusion this school builds on this is not very accurate.
It is much better to separate fiscal and monetary. The monetary policy has one job, the fiscal policy has another.
The monetary policy should be based on rules and targets, and not just be in the hands of politicians to crank up spending whenever they feel like it.
There is a reason this was separated in the first place.
The reason we mainly use PWR is because the military wanted them for submarines and the government and industry had a massive program them into commercial use. From there we got a large amount of legacy, knowledge and infrastructure around them.
After 3 Mile Island the nuclear regulatory system changed and regulation were made technology specific. So even if you wanted it would be practically impossible to get a license for anything else. Thankfully this has now been realized and they are changing their regulation to make them less technology specific.
The main thing is actually learning effects, the second thing is 'mass production'.
If you have teams that have build reactors before, they will be much better. Once you have people on their 3rd reactor, they go fast.
Its kind of like other massive infrastructure projects like bridges.
Basically nuclear reactors are large civil engineering projects, and you need experience to do it.
The second is that some parts, like the core reactor vessel are insanely complex high pressure and the production of these needs special facilities that basically only exist in like 3 places. They managed in the 70-80s to kind of 'mass' produce these but today its totally costume.
Another things is, France totally failed by themselves to build next generation plants. Its borderline crazy that we are still building PWR type reactors. All attempts at next generation reactors have been terrible.
I am really high on what's going on in Canada, real next generation reactors are FINALLY really seriously going threw real internationally recognized nuclear validation from a first class regulator.
If you really go into nuclear today you would try to use something like Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt reactor or something like that.
- Nuclear kills less people, that is worth some tiny risk
- Nuclear waste is actually a resource for the future. You can get things like nuclear batteries, medical isotopes and so on. Not to mention reusing the fuel in next generation reactors.
- Nuclear plants take ages to build because they are big, next generation reactors are 10-20x smaller
- Next generation Nuclear reactors are built underground and have a very strong defense on top. In war time you could reinforce that. That said, for most nation that matters, this is not a huge concern.
> I cannot fathom why nuclear is preferred to a safe, distributed, clean grid of solar panels.
Because its reliable and produces energy even if a vulcano covers the sun and you have a few days without win. It gives you power when and where you need it, no need for a gigantic storage and transmission infrastructure. Maximum reuse of existing infrastructure.
> Maybe one day when humanity is a space faring race we could look to nuclear to support us then, but using nuclear on earth today is a bad decision.
That crazy. Just based on first principle nuclear is the best and most dense energy source. We can use it with 60s tech, and we could do much better today. Why would we only use it in some far future when the technology exists now.
The cost of waste storage is tiny.
By far the best would to join with Canada on next generation nuclear.
> I think GM and the new Hummer has the best chance of breaking into the market in this regard.
The Hummer is instantly expensive, far to expensive to reach any real volume.
Tesla is literally building a gigantic factory that they have already invested billions into and they literally have about a million people who have put money down to get a pre-order (even at 10% conversion rate that is a lot) and somehow its but somehow its not going into production? Total nonsense.
> None of those legacy manufacturers have released "real" EVs yet.
This is simply not true. ID3, ID4, Mach-E are very real, BMW, Mercedes have also released vehicles of that class. Including from China, Geely (Volvo, Polestar) BYD, Xpeng and so on.
These are all build on competitive platforms that the manufacturer hope to reuse the next few years.
Its just that in the US, many of these are almost not sold so in the US Tesla has a huge market share. In Europe Tesla market share is already far lower.
I would bet being pouch style cells using NCM811 or a further evolution there-off.
> LFP doesn't require cobalt or nickel, so it can be produced in higher volume than chemistries that do without running into resource bottlenecks.
I don't think raw resource availability is the major problem. Lithium refinement and cathode and anode production is more likely to cause issues.
> Tesla's approach is fine if you want to make a million cars.
Not sure what you are referring to here. Tesla uses the second most LFP cells as far as I know.
Tesla already uses NCA, NCM and LFP and they are buying from the 3 largest suppliers, Panasonic, CATL and LG. In addition to that they will also produce their own cells with their own high nickel, and nickel-manganese chemistry.
They are absolutely thinking how to make many millions of cars, be diversifying suppliers (including themselves), diversifying chemistries while trying to unify the format.
Yet other predictions did come true. Tesla has managed to keep up its growth up for quite a long time even when people made fun of them for their claims.
Self-driving is fundamentally different to scaling manufacturing.
They are still globally outselling VW by 2x in terms of BEVs and GM and Ford are not close.
In my opinion neither F-150 or Cybertruck will have a demand problem for years. So it really doesn't matter what the performance-vs-price is 'at launch'. Overall the Cybertruck is very competitive.
Why? Cybertruck is positioning itself as 'tough' even more so then F-150. Its price, and capacity for load and towing make it really good work truck.
While many people use F-150 for lifestyle.
In my opinion these are basically the same thing for both markets.
Its really more about what design you prepare.
The Dragon however is more expensive then the rocket itself.
I would be shocked if it was less then $150M.
If you want Leaf because you want lower price, feel free. No problem with it.
But if you think the electronics or architecture in the Leaf are superior in any you are simply wrong.
> I really really really want to like Tesla, but this is beyond insane.
You are simply wrong on your assumptions about how Tesla works.
Yes Tesla has unified a lot of functionality into one core system, but literally every car maker is copping that strategy. In fact the older 10-100s of chips distributed system talking over buses was actually much, much more prone to bugs.
Even if that main system fails, the Tesla can still drive, this has been shown often by many people who rebuild Tesla or had issues with the core computation.
> I sincerely hope that SpaceX avionics are not designed this way.
Go look at the teardown and analysis of Tesla. Seriously, I highly recommend Sandy Munro. They do incredibly detailed teardowns of cars including Tesla. They have been doing it for decade and their business is selling that information to other car makers for (50k a pop).
Its actually the other way around. Tesla cars are designed more like SpaceX rockets or fighter jets in terms of electronics.
You can actually get their documents of the BMW i3 for just 10$ and you can basically rebuild the car yourself.
And literally everything they said about Tesla in terms of electronics was positive and well ahead of industry standards.
> It also has a 12V lead-acid battery that can power all the electronics if the main power system totally eats itself
So does every Tesla except new generation Model S. They have a 12V LiIon battery instead. And it has the same function as in a Leaf.
Elon has for a long time wanted to switch to 48V systems but they have not managed it yet. I hope they will get it with next generation Y or the Cybertruck.
Sometimes a singular vision leads to something great. Something it doesn't. Sometimes a single vision contained by bureaucracy leads to something great. Sometimes a vision helped along by others creates great things. Sometimes nobody has any vision and they somehow end up with something amazing. Sometimes you have a bad vision and others turn the core of your idea into something awesome.
There are literally tons of examples for all of these. We have 10k+ years of human history of art.
You are still playing with low 1000s of units, and this has been the case for a decade. The AI is also not really much better.
Even on strategy map level it has been simplified.
However, if you want, you can play very war like, or avoid war quite well. Snowballing early with a push is a viable strategy.
Rushing tech to get the first cannon and pushing then as well.
It depends on what civilization and what special units and buildings you have.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgAaB7fsSbo
Safety can and will be improved quite a bit even of current batteries.
And newer chemistries will do better anyway.
> Then the real truth that no one wants to hear, is that there is no need for so many different types of passenger vehicles.
Good that we have you to tell us what vehicles people should drive.
And Nio does in China.
> it'll make sense to just designate the last 10% of battery as "reserve" and not count it in the battery level indicator.
Very questionable? Why would you do that?
We don't do that for gas cars either.
Fundamental research into next generation technology that is also open source seems like the exact kind of thing governments should be doing.
Legless lizards and snakes some to convergent evolution. But its of course possible that other legless lizards existed before that.