- Видео 10
- Просмотров 12 190
Basileus
США
Добавлен 21 окт 2017
Technology, Finance, Philosophy or anything else. Curiosity. Follow the journey.
I knew Tesla would be worth $20Trillion in 2024, this video is the proof.
I know it sounds crazy... a $20 trillion dollar valuation when the biggest company today is around $3 trillion dollars in valuation. But hear me out-if everything goes well, it could actually happen. The biggest companies in the world revolutionized one or two industries: Apple with electronics, Nvidia with processing power, etc. But something like Optimus, at scale, revolutionizes nearly all industries-it essentially revolutionizes labor. Since the dawn of civilization, labor has been the most important asset a human being possesses. Selling your labor, qualified or not, gives you money. But what if that were to change? I think we are on the brink of radical changes in the way society is...
Просмотров: 941
Видео
Why Nuclear was always the Solution.
Просмотров 33514 дней назад
In this video, we delve into why nuclear energy has always been the solution to many of the world’s energy and environmental challenges. Using Germany’s “Energiewende” as a case study, we explore how a country with ambitious green goals ended up increasing its carbon emissions, facing soaring energy costs, and becoming one of Europe’s largest polluters. We address common misconceptions about nu...
How Starlink will Finance Mars Colonization
Просмотров 46814 дней назад
What’s truly holding us back from reaching Mars? Money. But SpaceX and Starlink are rewriting the rules, creating a financial lifeline for turning Mars colonization into reality. With over 7,000 satellites in orbit and a projected $6.6 billion in revenue for 2024, Starlink’s potential is reaching for the stars. In this video, we’ll explore Starlink’s financial power and how it could revolutioni...
Ich schreibe jetzt auf deutsch. Die Zahlen und Annahmen in diesem Video sind alles samt falsch. 1. der Ausstieg aus der Kernenergie wurde von der CDU/FDP (Konservativ/Liberal) Regierung beschlossen. Die Grünen waren nicht in der Regierung. Leider hat diese Regierung die einstieg in die erneuerbaren Energien, schlecht umgesetzt. 2. die Grafik „total energy supply Germany“, zeigt den gesamt Energieverbrauch an. Nicht nur den Strom sondern auch, heizen, industrielle Prozesse und Verkehr. In Deutschland gibt es keine Ölkraftwerke zur Stromerzeugung. Der Anteil der erneuerbaren Energien (Wind/Solar/Biomasse/Wasserkraft/Geothermie) lag 2023 bei 56%. Dieser wäre nicht höher gewesen wären nicht rund 50% der französischen Kernkraftwerke ausgefallen und deswegen die deutsche Kohlekraftwerke aus der Reserve ans Netz gegangen, sonst wäre in Frankreich die Energieversorgung zusammengebrochen. Der Anteil an Kohlestrom ist in Deutschland so niedrig wie zuletzt an der 1960er Jahre. 3. Kernenergie ist keine sichere Energie, sie ist auch nicht sauber. Die Regionen wo es zu einem Supergau kam sind für Generationen unbewohnbar. Alleine die Beseitigung der Schäden von Tschernobyl und Fukushima haben zusammen bisher 460 Milliarden Dollar gekostet. Immer wieder kommt es in Kernkraftwerken zu Störungen wo radioaktive Stoffe austreten. Wie erwähnt waren 2022/2023 50% der französischen Kraftwerke vom Netz. Entweder weil sie kaputt waren oder weil nicht genügend Kühlwasser zur Verfügung stand, weil Flüsse zu heiß oder ausgetrocknet waren. Die Sanierung aller französischen Kernkraftwerke kostet 100 Milliarden Euro. Der staatliche französische Energieversorger EDF ist bereits mit 70 Milliarden Euro verschuldet. 3. der Neubau von Kernkraftwerken dauert oft Jahrzehnte und kosten hohe zweistellige Milliardenbeträge. In der Regel immer das 3-6 fache der ursprünglich geplanten Summen. Daher werden die meisten Neubaupläne nicht verwirklicht. Auch nicht die SMR Reaktoren, sämtliche Projekte wurden wieder eingestellt . Wegen der Explosion der Kosten. 4. die Entsorgung des Atommülls ist bei weitem nicht gelöst. Auch durch Transmutation kann man nur einen Bruchteil des Mülls entsorgen. 5. der Anteil der Kernenergie geht weltweit seit Jahren zurück. Inzwischen liegt der Anteil an der weltweiten Energieerzeugung bei nur noch 9%, Tendenzen weiter fallend. Selbst in China, reichen die geplanten Kernkraftwerke nicht mal um die Alten zu ersetzten. 6. das dafür benötigte Uran kommt in der Regel aus politisch instabilen Ländern, Kasachstan, Niger und Russland. Sind die größten Lieferanten. Deutschland will von diesen Ländern unabhängig werden. Abgesehen davon sind Uranmienen eine Umweltkatastrophe. Der Abraum, verseucht ganze Landschaften, vor allem das Grundwasser. 7. keine Versicherungsgesellschaft der Welt versichert ein Kernkraftwerk. Die Summe dafür läge bei 72 Milliarden Euro im Jahr und Reaktor. Zitat von Joe Kaeser, ehemaliger CEO von Siemens und jetziger Aufsichtsrat von Siemens Energy „Es gibt kein Atomkraftwerk auf der Welt, das sich ökonomisch rechnet.“
We are doomed 😢
Well it's not 20 trillion so you're a liar.
Be patient wait for the 2030’s and come back to this video in 10-15 years when you’ll see the 20T market cap and you’ll respond to this comment saying I was right.
@Basileus.s Tesla won't exist with Elon deportation in January.
Hahahahaha keep dreaming Tesla is already overvalued, just look at P/E And don't get me startet on cashflow... Tesla cashflow YTD: 3,6 billion AMZN: 42 billion NVDA: 56 billion MSFT 72 billion And I could go on. Is Tesla fair valued? No its too high.
Did you see the video ? I cover the PE ratio and it’s this prediction is not based on current sales but on Optimus which isn’t yet in production
Clarification of the title: in 2024 (now) I know that Tesla will be worth 20Trillion likely in the 2030’s it’s my prediction. History will prove me right and this video is the proof.
People doubt but i actualy think the same, im observing all companies that will go big on humanoid production. Xpeng also looks interesting.
Yeah very underestimated
Humanoid robots are pointless. Human anatomy has so many flaws when it comes to manual production. Robotics and automation already exist as work cells and it’s only growing. You don’t make a complete human robot to do manual human like tasks. You automate the machines themselves. Why do you think we have things like Roomba instead of the Jetsons robot maid pushing a vacuum cleaner around. Even robotaxi completely contradicts the Optimus usage case. Optimus and other humanoid robots are a gimmick.
will see my man, will see.
But it's worth 1.5T in 2024...so you're 20x off lol
Patience little grasshopper, patience…
What I mean is that in 2024 now, I know that it will be worth 20Trillion likely in the 2030’s
I disagree. I think Robotaxi will underwhelm and has competition. Optimus is a complete gimmick. Tesla won’t be 20T by the 2030’s. That’s absurd.
@@tomw485 check back in 2035 - but do, don't disappear into oblivion.
@@ricmrodrigues If in 10 years Tesla is 20T you are welcome to come back to this thread to gloat lol
Co2 is good for nature ...
Ahah sure to a certain extend not what is emitted at the moment
Talk about Gen 2 reactors
Well, you forgot to factor in the nuclear waste because other than oil only creating CO2 emissions, nuclear power plants are using uranium until it is not usable anymore, then you have to store the nuclear waste SOMEHOW SONEWHERE, which is a global problem because no one wants nuclear waste near their home, which could just poison the entire water for towns years to come...
The waste as it's mostly buried
Watt for Watt a Nuclear plant is cleaner than any other method.
ask people in fukushima ore chernolbe of there opinion.
Fukushima happened due to the Tsunami. and Chernobyl was caused by soviet incompetence.
@@TuorTheBlessedOfUlmo even as far as chernobyl is concerned, it was THE perfect set of circumstances for the accident to happen, and whilst many problems were known beforehand and covered up, under most conditions they were manageable. combine a shift change with a rude chief engineer, poorly designed reactor, lack of containment structure, changing tapes in the SCALA system which prevented up to date information regarding a coefficient from being calculated frequently enough, specialist engineers going home at said shift change, xenon poisoning caused by the Kiev grid controller needing more power (reactor was supposed to be shut down but was not allowed to reduce power below a certain point), and countless violations of operating procedure and you get a pretty nasty scare. some other issues had to happen as well for the accident to happen. TLDR: Chernobyl was the perfect storm, a freak accident due to many, many small things snowballing beyond reasonable prediction. 'The Chernobyl Guy' has some very good content on his channel which explains in great detail (including a 3 part epic detailing everything that happened, as an almost second-by-second documentary), and also explains some other incidents that happened at other similar reactors, such as the leningrad, ignalina, smolensk and '81 chernobyl unit 1 accident. I'd reccommend watching them, they are most insightful.
Im happy burning coal.
You guys know, that they are insanely expansive to build so much so, that the only entities financially ensuring the building of reactors are nation states .. right? And they are also produce the most poisonous substance to mankind, which we have no other way to get ride of aside from dig a large hole dumping the sh... in there and hope no one in a 100.000 year digs it up by accident. This is a Dead End ... And I have even mentioned the amount of CO2 building these things produces... not running, building
Tiny but dangerous for generations
This is why we should should develop THORIUM based nuclear reactors. The waste issue virtually disappears using THORIUM.
The waste issue is hardly an issue It's oil barons and primitivists fear mongering Not that we shouldn't develop thorium too
Its all fine as long as the power stays on. If there is a sustained break in power due to a war say, then the spent fuel cooling ponds will boil off and the fuel will melt down in every pond across the planet poisoning the atmosphere with radiation for a very long time.
it is for this purpose large Diesel generators are employed to keep coolant pumps running, at least until power from turbines can be re-routed to power internal machinery, or in other cases they are used to keep ECC pumps running for a few hours, which can cope with keeping a reactor cool when it is not operating, as some heat is still given off. in a modern plant, it would be very difficult for radiation, or radioactive material to escape due to containment building, and the fact that most modern plants use heat exchangers so that the water running through the core is not the same water as the water vapour that runs the turbines, keeping all radioactive material within the containment structure.
If it's so cheap and green why don't you build your own reactor without government subsidies?
Because it's heavily regulated? Dumb comment
You got the hook up on Urainium - 235
People's perception of nuclear is simply very outdated and think Chernobyl is the standard. The problem is the initial upfront cost and the long construction times. Nuclear Waste Management can be solved. Safety Concerns can be solved. Water Usage could be a problem depending on location. Decommissioning them could be a political and expensive problem. Gathering Uranium could become a complex problem involving politics, but manageable. The only reason why we are not building is because politics hinder us to justify the big initial costs DESPITE the long-term yields of it being much more efficient. We should have expanded mainly to nuclear like 20 years ago so we can deconstruct other sources, but then again we would also kill jobs of other sources.
Also the economics since they are power generation industry responsible for managing the most of their waste products All of the others either let it fly away or leave it to Congolese children (not that Uranium doesn't, but still less than cobalt)
It is mostly safe and mostly clean (ignoring mining and construction) but its uneconomical if you look at the full picture. This is because despite the highly toxic waste making up only a small fraction the safe storage for 5times the half life is longer then our current history and hence every company was allowed to keep the profits but disperse the waste problem to the community aka taxes. If a company would have to pay for the safe storage or even 'just' transmutation, it becomes the most expensive energy source by far and hence is not economically viable for a private company.
I think one of the major problems is where you would get the fuel. And there's also CO2 emissions in the mining and refining of nuclear fuel, which I'm not sure is always accounted for. (But that's besides the point) Not every country has viable ways to create their own nuclear fuel so they need to import it. Which again increases the dependency on other nations. Also it's not limitless and therefor will get more expensive when more nuclear power plants are build up. Solar and wind are the only clean energy sources which are abundand in almost every part of the world. And also they are getting cheaper and cleaner by the minute.
Neither solar or Wind are clean when they need a ton of parts made only to intermittently extract a relatively small amount of energy. Here in scandinavia, our electricity cost has skyrocketed to insane levels simply because it's been predicted that the air doesn't blow in Germany and so we now need to help supply them too
@@TheChrisey Well that sounds like BS to me, but you can show me the direct correlation between lack of wind energy in Germany and increase of energy prices in Scandinavia. Germany has a lot of renewables in their electricity mix and not just since yesterday. Most increases in electricity prices are due to the volatile oil and gas prizes. Also energy is relatively cheap right now so I don't know what your problem is. And lastly, how would the arguably most expensive energyform (nuclear) help with electricity prizes?
Yeah, modern reactors are far superior and less wasteful than people think. Also, not as dangerous as what occured at a certain few places in the past. Things have gotten better, people just think Armageddon and that makes them scared. Theyre just ignorant.
I don’t think people care that much anymore, there are just too many barons of industry that could take a hit from a chunk of their check getting taken out, so rather the better option for them is to lobby against it however possible
They have never been as dangerous as people think It is mostly appropriation of nuclear bombs and Germans I love nature and will go so far as to call it Global Warming, but Greenpeace has also done a lot to drum up fears about nuclear too
It's clean ....the waste is the problem
I think this is a silly video
Very insightful
I think you are silly
@Axobattler I've been called many things but nothing as silly as that
😂😂 We can build it if we can dispose of the waste in your neighbourhood and you're prohibited to move.
Makes a lot of sense !
This may be true but the cost is one of the significant factors which prevents nuclear from making sense. Its massively costly compared with solar, wind and batteries
France has one of the cheapest electricity in Europe and its more than 60% nuclear
@Basileus.syeah... And many countries around the globe wouldn't build them
@Basileus.s Because its highly supported by the government otherwise it would be far more expensive. Those 6 new reactors you guys build cost now over 67 billion €. That are just the building costs..
It has an upfront cost It's not massively expensive aside from needing to pay for a large portion of the total cost in the beginning
@@AxobattlerThe cost of solar and wind is far cheaper and also upfront but has a running cost near zero making them a more feasible option. The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) is a good measure that combined the capital, fuel and O&M costs. I am yet to see any studies that suggests that the LCOE of nuclear can get even close to wind/solar/battery. But some argue LCOE doesn't consider the value of the energy provided. One of the most critical requirements in any energy market is the ability to ramp up and down to meet demand. Wind/Solar/Battery are very capable of meeting demand with Batteries being extremely responsive and flexible. Nuclear is the opposite of this flexible as it struggles to ramp up and down to meet demand, it also struggles to shutdown or turn on unlike batteries which react in less than a second. This makes it challenging to provide majority of power with nuclear. It also isn't a true renewable. Thats said, nuclear could maybe become more feasible in the future. But the projections don't suggest they will experience the same level of price decrease as renewable and in particular batteries.
Fumes? No dude. Not fumes. Nuclear radiation leaks. Right?
Like when ? Who died from radiation leaks ?
@Basileus.s Are you kidding? Ok... well here is one event I'm sure you've heard of. These people all died within weeks of the Chernobyl leak/explosion: Vladimir Pravik Viktor Kibenok Tatyana Ignatenko Nikolai Titenok Vladimir Tishura Leonid Telnykh Nikolai Vashchuck Vasili Ignatenko Vladimir Prishchepa Aleksandr Akimov Leonid Toptunov Valery Khodemchuk Vladimir Shashenok Anatoly Dyatlov (although he died years later, he was one of the initial cases of ARS) Aleksandr Lelechenko Nikolai Gorbachenko Valery Perevozchenko Viktor Proskuryakov Vladimir Chugunov Aleksandr Yuvchenko Anatoly Sitnikov Boris Stolyarchuk Gennady Berdov Viktor Myshkin Volodymyr Pravyk Mykola Titenok Mykola Vashchuk Igor Kazachkov
I’m excluding Chernobyl of course… I acknowledge all of that in my full video. Just that it wasn’t bcs nuclear is a dangerous technology but bcs of the USSR secrecy regime.
No, just no. The conservatives led this!
Led what ?
One of the people who faced with irrefutable truth puts their fingers in their ears and sings LA LA LA?
I really don't understand the panic wenn someone mentions 'nucleare energy' people just say no thanks without investing 10 mins to look it up but if somebody wants to reactivate a cole power plant nobody cares even if this power plant will kill statistically more people than the nuclear option... Just no humans are really strange
Yeah…
💯
First off I am by no means against nuclear power plants. Imo thorium reactors in combination with solar and wind energy are the future of energy production. However there are still too many issues with the waste of uranium based reactors. Yes, fossil fuels are much much worse, but the 1% of very radioactive waste you mentioned is extremely dangerous and we still don't quite know how to properly dispose of it. Also nuclear power plants take a long time to build safely and they are pretty expensive to maintain and operate due to the complexity of the technology. The main issue though is the public view of nuclear energy. Most people are scared of it and rightfully so, but that shouldn't stand in the way of innovation. Fusion power has even more issues coming with it. The technology is far from ready to be used for energy production and once it is ready it will take a long time to implement into our society. I mean, fusion reactors will be even more expensive than fission reactors. They will be even more difficult to operate and maintain. In a nutshell: we need more research and education on this important topic in order to find solutions to the above mentioned issues as quickly as possible. So thank you for trying to educate!
Thanks for your comment, The sites where the 1% is stored are very safe and yes a reactor with no waste would be ideal. But I’m looking at this from a practical standpoint and as of today I think it’s the best choice based on all factors. Still 100 times better to do actual fission than continuing burning fossil fuels on all fronts. But yeah that’s why I think it’s a midterm solution, long term fusion or what you talked about…
Please read up on Chernobyl, Fukushima and where you that tiny bit of waste...
What ?
Human mistake. Modern reactor they are far more safe
Thanks
Thank you for the 420th reply about Fukushima and Chernobyl How about you practice what you preach and actually read about them yourself
Yep. 100% correct and objective
Source, trust me bro.
Bro space X and Elon musk literally tweeted that. That’s the source
there are so many space channels and shows now that are AI generated, low quality, low insight, uncoordinated video to narration.. irrelevant video to what's being said.. repetitive... sensationalistic... essentially just click bait low quality space news; its refreshing to hear a real voice, with an interesting and under-covered topic to do with space exploration. thank you and i wish you the best of luck!
Thanks a lot. Yeah A.I video are getting out of hand, even if the quality isn't good yet I'll definetly improve over time so thanks for the encouragement !
I've heard some dump argument from some random TV pseudo space scientist say there is no return of investment on Mars colonization when "colonization" is in the Fk name. How about access to the entire planet as the ROI?
Well, it's an interesting question thinking about ROI of Mars colonization. personally I think it's a paradigm shift and that we can't think of ROI for now at least. Maybe if a sustainable civilization is created there then it can have a autonomous economy. But definetly an interesting subject.
Living on Mars is utter, total bollox. So childish its beyond all reckoning. Money has little to do with it, since we have ALREADY gone to Mars with robots. This idea is just an immature one popularised, but certainly not originated, by E Musk.
Sending robots and starting a colony are two very different things. Back in the 1400s, some people thought exploring new lands was pointless. But it’s not just about the destination-it’s about the spirit of discovery. Not everyone has that drive, but it’s the ones who do that change the world.
The short answer to what's stopping us is common sense. Obviously Eeelon fanbois don't have any... and that's basically it. No need to look deeper. Eeelon is greedy, and people are thick.
"Common sense" may be your excuse for having a lack of imagination or no interest in exploration. I'm sure all across history there were people telling others not to do new things from the Vikings exploring the coasts of Europe to the Europeans setting sail for the new world.
That analysis is so profound; I'm truly baffled.
@@ekij133 There is a difference between science, and science fiction - Musk is so much into the fiction, it isn't funny.
how are all elon fanboys lacking common sense? can you back that up? any time someone says "no need to look deeper".. that is a signal of either ignorance or apathy, especially when there are no examples for the claim. i'm no fan boy, open AI, neurolink and tesla bot will destroy civilization.. but i'm pretty sure that elon is not greedy. he is far too idealistic to be greedy. money is a side effect for him, a means to deepen the realization of his ideologies. elon has built what he has built through first principles thinking, which most often is upstream of common sense. are cost plus contracts common sense? do you think SLS is a product of common sense?
If 30 million users can drive $40 Billion in annual revenue, that would suggest Starlink connectivity costs users $1333/year? $111/month
Yes that’s the average price 120$ approx. and that’s not counting all the partnerships with airlines cruises etc…
@@Basileus.sthat is certainly not the average consumer price internationallly, for example in Ireland it's around 70 a month. In developing countries much less. 120 is probably the US average. Also 60% profit margin isn't likely, but still will be very profitable
When I say average I mean with all big contracts and non citizen access. For example if you want a Starlink on a boat it’s more expensive than 120. But it’s speculation just to estimate broadly. And yeah the 60% margin would be crazy but who knows long term…