DVD player and a library card

The max, spend it once buying bonds, live on the interest.

there’s no such rule

Syngas, a mixture of CO and H2

It’s university press department stuff. That’s always shitty pop-science communication.

Then again, it works, as people post that to fora, instead of the actual research. And popularity, not quality, of work brings grants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetogen is a more promising technology in my opinion. It also does not require high pressures or temperatures, has been proven to scale to tons of co2, and uses much less energy than this paper.

This paper has the advantage of not needing a high concentration of co2 in the air. But on the other hand, such sources are readily available as a by-product of industry.

Depends on your personal connections.

Aand, it’s gone.

the EU would contribute €50 billion with the rest pledged by “providers, investors and industry.”

make our own production more competitive and enable better salaries overall.

That’s the topic of this post: due to it’s central steering EU became technologically (and in a few decades economically) irrelevant. It doesn’t know how to make 21st century things. Tarrifs don’t help with that problem, au contraire. Nor does a national social security system. The latter does make sure that everyone’s quality of life degrades about equally fast.

That I know, I live in Belgium.

I wonder what successful capitalisation of that would look like?

That’s something EU countries are better at than the US and on which it should capitalise

What does that look like?

That, I think, is a symptom not a cause.

The cause is societal: the EU thinks that innovation should come top down. By giving established corporations subsidies, and a large administration that steers everyone every step of the way. To make sure nobody does anything out of the ordinary.

That works if you want to improve car crash safety by 5%. But, ofcourse, that doesn’t work for true, novel ideas. Concensus being antagonistic to novelty.

And it’s not solely a “bad politicians” problem. A majority of Europeans are simply afraid of change, want their 9-to-5 job to look exactly the same for their whole life. The elected reflect their electorate.

Too bad the world changes regardless of you participating.

Ah yes, politics as a driving force for technological innovation. This time it’ll work. 😒

How does the first exclude the second? That’s like saying: how can I trust train travel if F1 cars drive 300km/h. They’re different things.

Value investing is basically dead, isn’t it?

You’re looking at a too short time frame. The famous tulip bubble lasted for a decade, too.

I guess the issues arise if Tesla just pockets the subsidy without passing on the savings to savings to people buying EVs

This report shows that they do just that: without the emissions credit system they would operate at a loss. In other words: they sell cars for cheaper than the cost of manufacturing. Coincidentally the same thing the US and EU claims China is doing, as motivation for mercantillist tarrifs.

Which means the system isn’t working. Surplus credits should come from improved efficiencies, not excessive allotment.

Total number of credit goes down over time. That mechanism ensures an adapt, die or emigrate pressure for large polluters, and a financial stimulus for small-polluters.

Bill Gates is famously shorting TSLA (1)

Net profits $2.3B. “Poor financial results”. How does one reconcile these two things?

That’s 2.3B USD on a 1.29T USD valuation, or 0.17%.

Valuations should be reflective of expected future profits. Multiples of ×20 yearly profit are possible for risky (tech or biotech usually) companies, with large potential profit. But the ratio is ridiculously off the charts for tesla. If it does not improve, it will have turned out to have been a very wastefull use of capital.

goo-goo g’joob