QME
doyouwanttoknow?
2.6K posts
doyouwanttoknow?
@climateyupa
Tesla shareholder since 2015, FSD supervisor
Katılım Şubat 2021
456 Takip Edilen576 Takipçiler
@vasalex93 @kasthomas You are retarded
You where’s the electricity coming from? “No one is asking you to pay their utility bill”, sure, not directly, but if you think doubling the grid’s output doesn’t directly fuck all of our electricity prices, you’re retarded.
Not to mention the bigger picture
English
Notice how 70% is now the asymptotic limit to US approval/disapproval of anything, because 30% of the population is eating crayons.
The Calvin Coolidge Project@TheCalvinCooli1
🚨Report: 70% of Americans strongly oppose an AI data center being built near their home or community. People would rather live next to a nuclear reactor than a data center. Via: Gallup
English
@raines1220 Over the last 3 months, the majority of rides were still supervised
English
Tesla Robotaxi was at least ~1.81x safer than humans in April 2026. With the latest NHTSA crash report, and thanks to Robotaxi Tracker, I can finally report that Tesla Robotaxi in Austin surpassed average human safety in April 2026 (last month).
1. According to NHTSA, I estimate the human crash rate, including both reported and non-reported crashes, is ~249K miles per accident.
2. I collected all Tesla-reported mileage, as well as 7-day active fleet size from Robotaxi Tracker, and found the mileage is pretty predictable. This allows me to accurately estimate monthly Robotaxi mileage in Austin with <5% error.
3. Using the latest NHTSA crash report, I calculated the 3-month rolling crash rate, since Tesla sometimes has 0 monthly crashes. It clearly shows that in April, the 3-month rolling crash rate surpassed humans for the first time.
English
@CrystalEBentley utilitydive.com/news/data-cent…
PG&E estimates each 1 GW of demand growth reduces electricity bills 1%
English
I posted about the opposition to data centers because I was seeing it in my own community, and blasted all over FB and IG. Now that I’ve posted, I see more people saying the same things in the algorithm. Good to see. If anyone would care to point me to data I could use to counter arguments locally, I’d appreciate it. It’s hard to sift through the noise.
English
@SlBrandin The incentive for efficient siting is speed to power
English
Resorting to direct cost allocation for transmission network upgrades driven by large load growth is an acknowledgment that current transmission planning practices don’t work
If they did, new loads would be incentivized to site and behave in a manner which negates the need for direct cost allocation through maximally efficient utilization of existing and future network capacity
No central planning is required to effectuate a future where the public can rest assured that every new MW connected to their grid is likely to make socialized transmission costs less expensive per MWh-served instead of more expensive
Direct cost allocation chills new economic development through unnecessary friction limiting speed and affordability as prospective industrial consumers plan their fragile futures
Communities can capture economic opportunity from jobs and tax base growth while also benefiting from a more coordinated use of our shared systems
We can have it all
English
If a new transportation service comes to your town and we need to add a lane to the highway to accommodate them - do we directly assign the entire cost of shared infrastructure to them? No! They pay for their own driveway and parking, and the cost of shared infrastructure is shared
English
First, in the most literal way, the way to "require data centers to pay for their own grid upgrades" is...to have them pay for their own grid upgrades!
Directly assign the costs, or let those customers build their own capital assets to industry specs.
English
Whatever the recently invented "Transmission Security Agreements" do, they do not "require [data centers] to pay for their own grid upgrades" -- even though I have consistently seen them (inaccurately) characterized as such, as this headline has it🧵
English
this guy is giving major conman vibes
new carrot just dropped: IF spacex is successful (in 20+ years?), it will be worth “many orders of magnitude” more than earth’s GDP
incredible. maybe this is how he plans to entice tesla shareholders to sell to spacex for <2T?
English
Strongly disagree. The reason the earnings is only $3B is because it was decimated because Elon gave up on the car business prematurely because he thought robotaxi would make new models unnecessary. And with so much delay in Robotaxi revenue and no new models, earnings fell and stock volatility increased.
Investors deserve to be compensated for enduring lower earnings and higher stock volatility.
English
$TSLA & SpaceX merging topic is really heated right now and although everyone is on board for a merger one day, not everyone is board to have it merge sooner than later due to Robotaxi not being fully priced in...
@wholemars absolutely NAILS why this thinking is incorrect and will cost Tesla investors a lot more than we think.
We do this Spaces every Saturday with @piangfa @j_grieshaber @ShrimpTeslaLong @Smokehbear @FabAIQuantum and many others! Join us!
English
@MattBGilliland @AriPeskoe What is stopping utilities from charging large loads for the upgrades and a rate of return?
English
I'm not proposing any particular direct solution -- I mean that strategically from the data center developers' perspective it makes sense (in at least most cases).
The Averch-Johnson effect incentivizes the utility providers to capitalize the investment themselves and then fold the cost into higher rates, because it means they make more profit from the higher rate base, and the ways in which they can raise rates incentivize postponing maintenance/updates/upgrades.
So without heavy pressure either from legislation or from state utility commissions, in most cases the utilities can be expected to fight to *prevent* data center developers from paying for grid upgrades, even if they want to.
English
The issue is rate design. Utilities can design rates that require data centers to pay all costs utilities are incurring to serve them.
But they often don't do that and even advocate for rate designs that force ratepayers to shoulder costs and risks of the buildout.
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias
Adding a big new source of demand like a data center absolutely COULD reduce consumer electricity prices (by spreading fixed costs across more customers) but this game of telephone is losing the thread on whether that’s actually what’s happening in any given case.
English
Would we do the same for EV chargers? Manufacturing facilities? Other price sensitive loads that aren’t data centers and can theoretically be hundreds of MW?
Or are you proposing that only data centers get that treatment of paying for all the upgrades? If so, does it apply to all data centers, including non hyperscaler/AI?
English
@climateyupa @AriPeskoe While this is common and it isn't fair for the data center to pay for all of it, strategically it probably makes sense for the data centers to pay for it. But it's a big coordination problem, with providers pushing back.
English
@AriPeskoe @brian_lloyd In practice it’s hard to determine what work utility would do anyway beyond a year or two, which is why the general treatment for work on networked assets is through the rate base.
English
@brian_lloyd @climateyupa Maybe but 4 GW of new data centers is orders of magnitude greater than those examples.
If the utility was not planning on replacing the lines already, I'm still not convinced that the data centers shouldn't pay for it. That said, I appreciate that there can be close calls.
English
Can’t unduly discriminate against different types of loads.
Really the crux of the issue here is there is infrastructure that needs to be built that only serves the loads, and there is also infrastructure that serves the broader network that needs to be upgraded to maintain reliability when the new load comes in, and likely would have been upgraded anyway at some point. Those two categories of infrastructure investment should probably have different allocations.
English
@AriPeskoe @climateyupa New stations and some other stuff but few new line miles - mostly rebuild.
It all serves a network. Would you do the same thing for a EV charging depot/electrified manuf process that adds new load/a new residential subdivision when those things trigger network upgrades?
English
Utilities use cost of service methodologies so adding new fixed cost (which I am calling incremental) most commonly does have downward rate pressure. New incremental cost increases the size of the pie, but the new usage from a new load changes how that pie is allocated. Most often, the usage from data centers and such is so high that the allocation of existing fixed grid costs being assigned to the new load is so high that it overwhelms the increased fixed costs and is on net better for ratepayers. Basically the pie gets bigger but new loads eat more of the pie and existing loads pay less per unit of usage.
That is also why we see repeatedly the data shows that areas with more load growth had less rate growth.
English
@climateyupa This logic doesn’t even seem to fit the current example because the new demand comes with the need for new (and in some cases large) fixed costs
English
If people are suggesting that big demand increases reduce prices as a general matter, they probably have a dog in the hunt
Matthew Yglesias@mattyglesias
Adding a big new source of demand like a data center absolutely COULD reduce consumer electricity prices (by spreading fixed costs across more customers) but this game of telephone is losing the thread on whether that’s actually what’s happening in any given case.
English
@AriPeskoe It’s actually near universal across utilities. Our transmission infrastructure in the US is quite old generally. I suspect this will be a very common occurrence where older transmission lines will need to be rebuilt to accommodate large loads.
English
@wholemars I think it’s fair for shareholders to begin to signal the ballpark of terms they would consider acceptable for a potential deal that may be proposed prior to the deal being proposed
English
No, and I think it’s ridiculous to stoke fears about a deal that hasn’t even been proposed claiming the terms will be bad when you haven’t seen them.
Pejjy@CuriousPejjy
Do you think $TSLA investors will be getting robbed if it merges with SpaceXAI next year? 🤔
English
doyouwanttoknow? retweetledi
$TSLA investors should be actively involved in publicly debating a SpaceX merger.
SpaceX and Tesla want the proposal they put forward to pass.
Help them read the room. Let them know what terms we expect.
It only helps.
Anyone discouraging this debate has additional incentives.
English
@technoking_420 If a fair price isn’t offered for Tesla, I will vote no and so will many others. It is that simple.
And no, +20-30% from current levels is NOT a fair price for TSLA
English
These people aren’t looking out for Tesla shareholders’ best interests. They manage funds and actively trade the stock. If SpaceX and Tesla announce a merger, whatever the Tesla Board and Elon offer IS the BEST OFFER for shareholders. You either vote YES, or you will see the biggest rug pull in history as Elon walks away from a company that doesn’t support his vision. Look at OpenAI example, and the past 5 years without a 2025 comp plan in place.
Tesla was not founded with dual-class shares, so a merger is the only way for Elon to secure permanent control of his companies. If you’re a long-term shareholder, you’ve stuck it out through the Twitter drama, DOGE drama, Trump feud drama, the 2018 comp plan re-vote, the Texas relocation, and the 2025 comp plan. Voting NO on the merger is the same as voting NO on all of the above.
Wake up, people. Now is not the time to get distracted by this stupid fight among the community. If you really back Elon, stand with him 100%. Or just sell your shares. There is no compromise in Elon or his companies. This stock is not for you—there are plenty of other stocks without this level of drama. Haven’t we all learn?
@CernBasher @TeslaBoomerMama @TeslaLarry
English
We don’t get to vote on the price, only if the proposed price is accepted. That is what he means - the die that is cast is the price.
And if the proposed price is too low and the merger doesn’t go through, TSLA stock will suffer for the short to medium term, hurting shareholders.
English
@grant_melson no… the die will not already have been cast. People will vote after seeing the terms.
English
"You'd have to be a moron to question a SpaceX merger"
Whole Mars Catalog@wholemars
Moron: Tesla is not getting the fair value for Robotaxi in the SpaceX merger!!!! Me: Really? What valuation have they been given for it? Moron: I don’t know, but I know it’s not good Me: Alright then
English