Tag Archives: Henry Ford

May 3, 2019 · 12:41

The trivial and the not so

First the trivial, although $1.66 billion is no trivial matter, it is now one week that Avengers Endgame is in play (for a few countries 8 days) and it has made a staggering $1,664,151,786 so far, and it is now in 5^th position on the list of biggest box office successes in the world right behind Avengers: Infinity War, It will not surpass that before the end of the weekend I reckon, yet by Sunday evening it will surpass both its older brother as well as Star Wars, the Force Awakens, less than two weeks and it will be nipping at the heels of the 20 year standing record of Titanic, the movie is going that fast and there is no stopping it, people want to see it more than once (I would really like to see the 3D version) which was not available to me on opening night. At this point 50% of the top 10 most successful box office titles are all Marvel titles. It made me think back to a conversation I had with some director on how he thought that Fantasy movies had no place to go in the 80’s at the Rotterdam ‘Lantaren Venster’ film festival. That conversation is currently making me giggle, the man was sincere in his belief and that is fine, and just like the Deer hunter is not for everyone, neither is Monster Inc.; we all have different takes on what we call entertainment and what we want to see on the big screen, yet I never forgot his view and me being the eternal diplomat remarking at that point to him on how amazing the movie Krull was (I had a mean streak in those days), and with actors like Liam Neeson (Kegan) how could it not be? He was not stricken with a sense of humour, let me assure you of that.

I never had any doubt that Endgame was going to get where it was now, yet the speed at which it did blew me away, it still does. The fact that during the week, in what is usually regarded as the lull of movie incomes, Avengers: Endgame added half a billion like it was a casual shower moment for Scrooge McDuck inside the United States Mint.

As for the not so trivial we need to take a look at Tesla. The Guardian gave us yesterday (at https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/may/02/tesla-elon-musk-raise-money-stocks-bonds) ‘Tesla seeks to raise $2.3bn after concerns it is running out of money‘, even as the newspaper is giving us: “Company announced last week it had lost $702m in the first three months of the year and sold 31% fewer vehicles in the first quarter“, that does not mean that we should go all negative on Tesla. Yet the part that does give rise to concern is: “Founder Elon Musk has previously dismissed the idea of raising more money but in the last earnings call said: “Tesla today is a far more efficiently operating organization than it was a year ago. We’ve made dramatic improvements across the board. And so I think there’s merit to the idea of raising capital at this point.”” When I see ‘a far more efficiently operating organization than it was a year ago‘ I wonder what that is based upon. Consider the cost of being somewhere, why is Tesla in two locations in Sydney, have Sydney sales given rise to a second store? They did the same thing for Melbourne, Amsterdam the Netherlands and we could go on, but when you realise that these are premium locations no matter where you are in the city, having an American approach to locations in Europe, your logistical cost will go through the roof and that is what is happening. The same for Sweden, yet there the cost setting might differ considerably and having part in Täby might make sense, although there are alternatives near Solna as well, perhaps it was a good deal. Now there is a second part, are these Tesla ‘owned’ places or are they independent dealers? No matter what, there are larger costs to consider like displays, parts to show and other items, and many of these places are in expensive areas, now we can agree that there might need to be one, but two?

It goes further that; it is not merely about the stores, it is about awareness to a much larger degree. You see charging the car is still an issue and yes there are solutions. Some look at the home charging solution. Yet consider the amount of energy required, your electricity bill will skyrocket. Now, there are alternatives, first there are solar panels and there we see: “This is why pairing a charging station with a solar panel system is a great solution for EV owners and solar panel owners alike“, I am less optimistic. Depending on several factors you could need up to 70 panels (low end 1kWh a day panel), and when we start looking at the options, when we go for a generic 7kWh solution, we get an annual average of anywhere between the numbers of 20 – 29 kWh daily created. Now this is merely one third of your battery, the question becomes, so you need a 100% every day? When we go commercial sized (30 kWh) we see that the production get to be between 86-133 kWh a day, so basically that takes you off the grid and give you a daily 100% charge, yet the price is also there. At prices that go up to roughly $30,000 – $40,000, now this is not to scare you. Consider that the car ‘fuel’ is free from thereon after, also your house electricity bill is reduced to almost zero, even better you can sell your excess energy to the energy provider, so there is that, but is that what you were after?

Why does this all matter?

It matters as I went to see a Tesla a few weeks ago, merely because I was curious and the Black Men’s Corp Jacket looked appealing for the upcoming winter ($120, which I did not get), and the Models looked pretty cool too (so did the Roadster), yet when I looked into charging, there was a little vagueness (unintentional mind you) they showed the charging unit, and it got me to think things through. I got from more than one source relative the same results “the average petrol car in Australia uses 11.1 litres of fuel to travel 100km (Australian Bureau of Statistics). That’s a cost of $16.65 to travel 100km at $1.50 per litre2. Even a very efficient diesel vehicle (5 litres per 100km) will cost $7.50“, most sites were all about how much cheaper the electricity was, not how much it would cost, so I got one result giving me “the average price for electricity per kilowatt hour (kWh) in Australia is about $0.25 and it takes around 18 kWh to travel 100km in an average EV. So, it will cost approximately $4.50 in electricity charges to travel 100km“, now we have something to work with. If you take the average annual driver distance (20K and divide that by 100) we now see that you are facing an optional saving of $900, not something you can ignore, but we all forget the infrastructure and now my panel viewing becomes important. If we see the brownouts that are going on all over, the switch to Tesla means that the price of electricity goes through the roof at some point, a shortage will do that for you, when everyone needs more electricity, prices go up, and that initial 30 kWh solution now becomes a more interesting money maker, but overall it is not the only path or method to rely on. You see, when the price changes we suddenly see that the $900 savings become a mere $420 savings, yet on the other side your electricity bill rises steadily and with the panels you avoid that 100%, optionally adding income to your household. I do believe that for now the 30 kWh is overkill and as we might not need a full battery every day, we could start with the 10 kWh solution, or even better if they have the plus package (double paneling). The initial $10,000 will earn itself back over 3-4 years and more important it will aid in lowering the electricity bill as the panels can do more than just reload the car battery. More important the larger issue will be the 40 panels, so apartment owners are almost directly out of the race for now, more important, when you have a solution that sets the stage for a doubling down the road with minimum extra you would be looking at reducing the bulk of your electricity bill which is not the worst idea in summer (AC’s swallow electricity like sponges) and that is where we need to look at with Tesla, as we can use Tesla battery power in other ways, the solution becomes an actual larger solution.

They are all about the car and rightfully so, but when did you look around for a battery charge point? That matters, because when there are no options and it must be done at home, you need to have the proper electricity contract, even if that is not the case now, it will be in the future. In Australia, we see Energy Australia giving us: ‘first 10.9589 kWh of peak usage per day‘, then we see ‘Next 10.9589 kWh of peak usage per day‘ and ‘Balance of Peak usage > 21.9178 kWh‘, the prices are all the same for now, but when that changes, which it always does over time? When we see that those in the highest range are charged an additional 5-15 cents per kWh? That will change the cost of living picture real fast and real direct. Now the electrical car is another matter and there is no way that these fears are not with every consumer looking at an electrical car the day after they receive their energy bill, fuel is still more expensive for now; yet when we see it against the Tesla that starts at $112,000 and the highest performance model at $137,000, the math does not work for the largest extent of people. I got here the long way round because it is not the buying of a Maserati that breaks the bank account (for those who can afford it), it is the annual insurance and fuel cost that grab you by the tender spot and makes you regret the choice. Now that we see that and we see that a new 2019 Infiniti Q70 is a mere $48,712 and that is not even close to the cheapest solution, so there is a saving of no less than $63K, if you put that in your super and use the interest to pay for the insurance and fuel you’ll end up paying the cost and growing your fortune, and that by merely banking the additional cost for a Tesla. So no matter how ‘environmentally aware’ you are, the entire saving part becomes a myth and when we see that and we consider that Musk is running out of cash in a myth based created car need that shows that there is a market, yet not with the hardworking population that makes up for a little over 65% of all workers, Elon Musk has a car that is supposed to be for those who prefer high end cars, all whilst we see that the new 2019 Jaguar XF Starts at $50,960, we see that there is a market for people, but is it with Tesla? Consider the question ‘when was the last time you could afford to handover $60K for keeping environmental principles?‘ I met two last year, one was driving a Lamborghini, the other has a black Mercedes-AMG, I reckon they will not join the Tesla community any day soon.

So as I took you on the scenic route towards the drive that Elon Musk requires us all to take and the fact that he seeks $2.3bn, implying he might pressingly need $1.5B by quarter end is a matter for concern, not because of the innovation he created, that is clear and down the track he will be the first; where would Henry Ford be if he never created the Model T? Elon Musk might be the next Henry Ford down the line, yet when we see certain steps taken, we need to see that ‘a far more efficiently operating organization‘ sounds as nice as seeing an organisation grow by 100%, yet when the reality is that they grew from 4 members to 8, we need to seriously consider where we are at and that is where I see Tesla at present. It looks great, yet it is for the bulk of all of us too unaffordable and the bulk of those who can afford it can get the luxury Nissan (Infiniti) or a new Jaguar at half the price and that is where Elon Musk is stationed, in a small niche and in all this.

I do not see the market going his way and that remains to be the sad part, because if he pulls it off and creates a large enough market it will be a historic day for him and for America, they need a win like this in the United States of America where they are in a technology drought. They currently lack of true innovation in too many fields and they show a lack of true new technologies, not amendments or mere iterative steps from the old models that exist. Elon Musk has that one true new technology and I hope that the US can stage it to an actual large enough market, I truly do.

How much for just the planet?

This is at the core of what is currently wrong. It is however a serious view that we all must face and we have to face it sooner rather than later. This train of thought started a while ago. I initially saw it on TV, the ‘movie’ was called ‘AFTERMATH, Population Zero‘.

It was a fascinating view to behold. The story is purely fictive; it was all based on the premise that from one moment to the other the global population would suddenly vanish. What would be the consequence? (at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqHECc5rPo&index=28&list=WL)

It is well worth watching it. So if you have seen the movie the next part will make a little more sense. You see, it is all linked to a few items that have been all over social media and the internet in general since late 2009. It was raised again in February 2013 with the story ‘Nestlé’s Peter Brabeck: our attitude towards water needs to change‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/nestle-peter-brabeck-attitude-water-change-stewardship). I once made a prediction that we have 8 generations left, a concept that was not even conceivable when I was in primary school. Yet, now it is a reality that the older generation no longer needs to worry about, but our children will feel the brunt of that idea and it will become a reality for our grandchildren. The article gives us the following: “We’re talking about running out of oil; well it happens that we have 120 years of proven oil reserves“. That could be the case, I made a simple calculation half a decade ago, the calculation gave me the approximation that the amount of crude oil used could fill a cube of 15 by 15 by 15 miles, well over 75% had been used in the last two decades. So, yes, it is extremely likely that we have 120 years of oil left, but the ‘proven’ part is not a guarantee, the growth of oil needed, especially if the price keeps on going down, as fuel becomes cheaper, more people will be willing to drive longer to get a decent job, making the population at large a lot more mobile than ever before. Also, as oil becomes cheaper and cheaper, some will stop delivering and wait for better times. That is not a given reality, but it is a possible one. Yet, the idea that oil will run out in no more than 100 years is not too far-fetched either. The second part is an issue for me “we have 240 years of proven gas reserves” If that was so, than the rush for ‘shale gas’ would not have been so strong. The rush for fracking is not a view that comes from a 240 year reserve; it comes (as I see it) from a proven reserve that is a lot less than 240 years. Then there is coal. Yes, there might be a longer reserve in stock, but with coal comes pollution and lots of it.

It is the last part that gives the most fear “we have thousands of years of proven Uranium reserves and we are running out of water today“. It is all about the water. When we look at water, we see that the planet is 70% water, yet only 2% of that amount is good for consumption. Water is running low, there is no denying that, the issue linked here it that the planet has 7.2 billion people this implies that no less than 12 billion litres of water will be needed EVERY DAY to sustain a population. Several sources give the following: “At the moment, around 1% of the world’s population are dependent on desalinated water to meet their daily needs, but by 2025, the UN expects 14% of the world’s population to be encountering water scarcity” (at http://www.globalwaterintel.com/desalination-industry-enjoys-growth-spurt-scarcity-starts-bite/), so as we see the cost of drinking water to go through the roof within the next decade, the approach of Nestle makes perfect sense, although the implication is not a humane one. All these events give now more and more way to the story Make Room! Make Room! by Harry Harrison, a story written in 1966, it would propel Charlton Heston even further as the story became the foundation for Soylent Green as detective Frank Thorn. The movie is nothing like the story, which was about overpopulation, however Harry Harrison, passed away on August 15^th, 2012. As I see it, he likely passed away with the knowledge that both his story and the movie based upon it could become a reality. The story ends with “The story concludes with the Times Square screen announcing that “Census says United States had biggest year ever, end-of-the-century, 344 million citizens”“, consider that the current US population is almost 319 million, that is not so far from the expected number in the book (which was set in 1999), Harry Harrison seems to be off by only 2 decades. The movie gives us another need. The movie is about the unaffordability of food and water, the movie is set in 2022, now we have a ball game. Now we get close to what reality is showing. If water is set to become a product for those who can afford it, then water becomes a luxury, no longer a basic right. This is at the foundation of what Nestle is trying to achieve. As politicians are hiding behind the ‘security’ of desalinisation, we must admit that this will shift the timeline, but the massive need for water to be produced will bring with it an increasing need for a fuel source. Which one? Oil? Coal? Consider that over the next decade the need of growth of desalinisation also implies a growing need for power. The power needed to fuel the need of that what was once regarded as a basic right and plentiful available, an implied growth of 1400% over a decade. Suddenly that 120 year oil reserve does not look that clearly set, does it?

This shows my earlier statement, your children will see the shift (a decade from now), your grandchildren will see the need and the pressure on the cost of living. To survive they will need an income for rent, water and fuel as a major expense of their income. A reality we luckily might not face and over all this we see not Nestle, but we see Financial Institutions as the anchor killing us. That part is seen in the article ‘PwC chief misled us over Luxembourg tax avoidance schemes, claim MPs‘ (at http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/06/pricewaterhousecoopers-boss-kevin-nicholson-misled-mps). How did I get to that part?

Consider the following three quotes “The Guardian’s investigation into PwC’s activities in Luxembourg was made possible by the leak of thousands of pages of confidential tax rulings secured by the accountancy firm, which found their way to the ICIJ“, and then there is “But PwC Luxembourg remains furious at what it calls the “theft” of its documents. Criminal charges have been brought against two former PwC staff members after it complained to prosecutors” and last there is ““Shire has arranged its affairs so that interest payments on intra-company loans reduce significantly its overall tax liabilities … The ‘substance’ of Shire’s business in Luxembourg, used to justify these arrangements, consists of two people … One of Shire’s Luxembourg based staff holds 41 directorships of other companies”“. So, the link here is sizeable reduced taxability. So as these taxations are not achieved, how will desalinisation plants be built? On another credit card? Who pays for that bill and how will that affect the price of water and the subsequent additional taxation?

The final view is given from a Canadian site called Global Research. the quote is “His statements are important to review as we continue to see the world around us become reshaped into a more mechanized environment in order to stave off that pitiless Nature to which he refers” (at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-privatisation-of-water-nestle-denies-that-water-is-a-fundamental-human-right/5332238). The fact that we let our lives be ruled by politicians who seem to put their own needs first is a massive blow to our chance to survive in an age of humanity. That part is seen as the bulk of nations cannot keep a budget and the overwhelming need that is greed based. So as nations have even less tax revenue, more costs and a slowly but surely growing number of unaffordable needs, we see an escalation into chaos and extremism.

The way we live allows for the approach of Nestle which turns a bad James Bond premise into a reality. The political approach of ‘shove it forward’ will be cast upon our grandchildren, turning their lives into one of working, so that they have a possibility of life. Until we change many ways of our lives and until we change the acts that we consider to be acceptable, we will only end up getting by with less, whilst food, drinks and luxury is left to less than 5% of the population. As time goes buy (pun intended), we see a change of interpretation, we will see politicians to be extensions for whatever, proclaiming on what is ‘actual’ a right and what is not.

So how does the title ‘How much for just the planet?’ and the movie ‘AFTERMATH, Population Zero’ make sense? Consider what is made extinct on a weekly basis for well over a decade? The movie shows that the planet will repair itself over a millennium, so how will the path of our world change if we are willing to get rid of 92% of our global population and impose a stringent rule of population control through birth control? An idea launched in 1966, whilst also demanding existence through sustainable energy. For now, everyone will shoot, scream and give all kinds of emotional response how such inhumanity should not be allowed, which is fair enough, but as Nestle gets a grip on what we regarded as a basic right. So, the emotion of a population will push it forward and will force our grandchildren to make a ruling on getting rid of 95% of the population, very political and what seems to be humanely decent, is in actuality one of the most inhumane acts ever, because this is all for the most due to a cowardly, non-acting generation that started with our fathers, ourselves and our children. A reality ignored within 3 generations, fuelled by greed of big-business and by the acts of all others by playing possum or burying their heads in the sand. Consider that the US consumes 50 billion eggs and 8 billion of chickens each year. They only represent 5% of the global population and this is not including the need for Fish, Meat and vegetables. So how much food is needed and how soon will it run out, because the one part everyone ignores is that meat products are created using water and food.

So, are these thoughts so far reached? Perhaps the next invention is only a year away, an invention that will change everything. This is the hope too many have whilst our lives are no longer driven by innovation, but through iteration for the need of maximising profits. That approach is nice for a boardroom and their needs, but it does not drive forward true technological advancement, that part will slow down more and more. No matter how much we want some cheap and easy solution that does not offend anyone, the chance of finding it becomes less and less likely. Bad News management from governments and big-business alike as well as derived profit through non-taxability from Big-Business, whilst governments are vying for their manufacturing plants and offering too many subsidies offsetting the cost of a labour force. In this environment these governments need to unsuccessfully balance a budget and soon, if the numbers hold true, find ways to produce the one element most never had to produce before, a basic substance always available. I let you work out the math, feel free to be slightly less happy after reading this, but also remember it only takes one mind to come up with that golden idea that will sustain a nation. This has been proven in several cases, for the Dutch Gerard Philips and Frederik Philips stand out, in Sweden there was Lars Magnus Ericsson, Henry Ford in the US and the list goes on a little longer, they shaped industries that would span generations. I have no idea who will be the next name that changes the way we think and live, but as we see the facts, that person better come sooner rather than later.

Tag Archives: Henry Ford

The trivial and the not so

How much for just the planet?

Recent Posts

Archives