The Indians are doing some major research too, since thorium is abundantly available in the country. But many people believe that China's approach (liquid fuel thorium) is superior to India's (solid fuel thorium). It could be a game-changer if a couple of demonstration projects could be built. Although it won't be inexpensive, it's a pittance compared to how much we spend on energy research and investments globally.
As an aside -- and you're probably aware of this -- there was a fork in the road between uranium and thorium many decades ago, but the DOD shut down thorium because.... you guessed it, it couldn't be easily weaponized.
So as someone that actually worked in the industry, and has a nuclear plant right outside his window (literally), let me tell what is actually going on.
Nuclear power plants consist largely of two parts. Even the buildings reflect this. On one side you have the "nuclear island" with the reactor and the first cooling loop. On the other is the turbine hall with the 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) cooling loop and all the non-nuclear bits and parts. Inside that hall is there the power actually comes from, the heat from the first loop boils water in the second, which spins a turbine which powers a generator who's power flows into the switchyard and out to the grid.
Now that non-nuclear side is almost identical to the one in a coal plant, heavy oil plant or even some CSP plants. The thing is, the nuclear side is inherently more complex than the one in the coal plant. The coal plant, for instance, probably doesn't even have separate cooling loops, which makes it a lot simpler. And then there's the lack of radiation and such, which makes it all easier to build. So basically, there is no way, even in theory, that a nuclear plant can ever cost less to build than a coal plant. Ever.
Never ever ever.
Now consider a natural gas plant. It consists solely of the turbine and the generator. All the rest is gone, because it generates its moving fluid from the fuel itself. Presto, all the complexity disappears. And so, NG generators cost about $1 a watt to build, while coal plants are $3 to $6, and nuclear is $8 to $10.
It wasn't always this way, of course. It took a while for people to get good at building turbines, just like it took time to get good at building reactors. But the reactor people had others sources of income, the government and military, that the NG guys didn't. So it took longer. But now we're here, and from about 2005 on, NG power plants will always, always, cost less than nukes. Forever.
Now you might say, hey, maybe we'll invent some sort of thing that will make nukes cost less. That is entirely possible. Here's the problem though... the non-nuclear part of the plant already costs more than the entire gas plant. So even if you reduce the price of the reactor to zero, it's still more expensive than a gas plant. Ok, you say, so we come up with some way to make the non-nuclear side cheaper too. Ahhh, there's the rub right there. You see, you've just make NG plants cheaper too.
And this is why coal and nuclear plants are shutting down and NG is taking over the US grid. The money just works that way. And let me assure you as someone that worked there, that's all anyone cares about. You might want clear power, but you're not a bank, and the bank is paying for it.
Ok, now for the fun part. Consider a wind turbine. A wind turbine consists of a pole, the blades, maybe a gearbox in some designs, and the generator. Everything else is gone. There's no piping, no stream, no cooling, no pumps, no turbine. It's basically 1/8th of a coal plant. And that's why they cost $1.50 a watt to build, in spite of having such low power density. And a PV panel has no moving parts at all, you just put it in the sun and out comes electrons.
And that's why for everyone outside the US, wind and solar are the fastest growing power sources. And I don't mean a little - more wind will be put in this year alone that the peak of reactor construction ever. And it's accelerating.
So the Indians and Chinese can work all they want on thorium, but we know how it's going to play out already. And that's true for anything that is based on the Rankin cycle... if you have a working fusion reactor and it uses a turbine, it's already all over but the crying.
Energy needs of countries like India not only need to be relatively low-cost, but they will need to be relatively clean (coal is simply not an option for the amount of energy they will need over the next few decades), and most importantly, reliable.
Wind is intermittent. Moreover, an honest analysis of the cost of wind should also include the cost of storage to get rid of the intermittency issue. It won't be base load energy at a reasonable cost for quite w while, unless there is some breakthrough in storage technologies.
Natural gas is fine in principle (although much cleaner than coal, it still emits about half the GHGs of coals, its extraction is not clean, and transportation is a HUGE issue), India and China do not have it in abundance so it's moot. Also, the cost of NG power varies quite a bit by region (again, see the DOE table linked above).
I would be willing to bet even Apple with all of their solar arrays only feeds it back into the grid and then picks up their power off the grid just like everyone else ....
This is exactly right. Apple, like many other companies, relies on something called the 'contract for differences' model with utilities (i.e., fixed price contract whereby, if price per kWh rises above a certain level you pay for the difference, or below a certain level you receive the difference).
Now consider a natural gas plant. It consists solely of the turbine and the generator. All the rest is gone, because it generates its moving fluid from the fuel itself. Presto, all the complexity disappears. And so, NG generators cost about $1 a watt to build, while coal plants are $3 to $6, and nuclear is $8 to $10.
It wasn't always this way, of course. It took a while for people to get good at building turbines, just like it took time to get good at building reactors. But the reactor people had others sources of income, the government and military, that the NG guys didn't. So it took longer. But now we're here, and from about 2005 on, NG power plants will always, always, cost less than nukes. Forever.
You are forgetting that you have to keep a supply of NG flowing to the plant to keep the NG plant working. That has a cost. For the NG itself, for its extraction and transport as well. And for the pollution from the burning, extracting, and transporting of that.
So the overall cost of the NG plant needs to include the cost of the fuel.
Wind and solar only work where there is wind and sunshine. It is not 24/7 anywhere. They can add power to the grid when possible but for reliability you really need to burn something.
Wind and solar the fastest growing power sources in history.
Page 2 compares the LCoE for power sources that come online next year. The most advanced nuclear plants are over twice the price of wind.
These numbers are the most up to date available. The DoE number you are quoting is about 10 years old. Yes, the date on the DoE paper is newer, but the DoE has not updated that particular number for about a decade. That is in spite of the fact that every advanced nuclear reactor currently under construction is overbudget and is coming in closer to $10/W (that's CAPEX). This is not surprising, given nukes are their mandate, and it's been a bit of a running joke in the industry for some time now.
As to everyone's complaints about "the wind doesn't blow" because they read that somewhere. Only someone who's never worked in the industry thinks that's a problem. The grid has always consisted of a mix of intermittent sources and average CF's on the order of 60%. The only difference is that the power companies used to own all the assets and they could schedule them to their advantage. Now they're owned by lots of different companies so they can't. But that problem was solved twenty years ago during the deregulation process. We've added more wind in the last year that ever before, and not a single problem anywhere.
As I note above, all these "problems" simply aren't problems. Wind and solar are the two fastest growing power sources in history. Nuclear and coal both have global negative growth, and no signs that will change. The Rankin cycle is dead. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but until those facts change, well, think what you want.
regardless the perception, the nuclear is the most efficient and "clean" if done properly, like slowpoke reactor. - do need sufficient fund for the R&O and control computer upgrade, since the reactor can last for many generation of computer age...
Wind and solar only work where there is wind and sunshine. It is not 24/7 anywhere. They can add power to the grid when possible but for reliability you really need to burn something.
Wind and solar the fastest growing power sources in history.
Page 2 compares the LCoE for power sources that come online next year. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">The most advanced nuclear plants are over twice the price of wind.</span>
These numbers are the most up to date available. The DoE number you are quoting is about 10 years old. Yes, the date on the DoE paper is newer, but the DoE has not updated that particular number for about a decade. That is in spite of the fact that every advanced nuclear reactor currently under construction is overbudget and is coming in closer to $10/W (that's CAPEX). This is not surprising, given nukes are their mandate, and it's been a bit of a running joke in the industry for some time now.
As to everyone's complaints about "the wind doesn't blow" because they read that somewhere. Only someone who's never worked in the industry thinks that's a problem. The grid has always consisted of a mix of intermittent sources and average CF's on the order of 60%. The only difference is that the power companies used to own all the assets and they could schedule them to their advantage. Now they're owned by lots of different companies so they can't. But that problem was solved twenty years ago during the deregulation process. We've added more wind in the last year that ever before, and not a single problem anywhere.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">As I note above, all these "problems" simply aren't problems. Wind and solar are the two fastest growing power sources in history. Nuclear and coal both have global negative growth, and no signs that will change. The Rankin cycle is dead. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but until those facts change, well, think what you want.</span>
Wow, that's a lot of words to avoid every substantive point that was brought up in response to your post.
Three points. First, you should learn to read a table. What matters TODAY is the investment you make TODAY for stuff that will come on stream 5-7 years from now. Hence the need to focus on Table A5. What is coming on stream today is investment made five years ago, and that's a sunk cost. You can't go back and change it. Second, if you think levelized cost of energy (LCOE), a comprehensive and widely used measure of comparison between different energy sources is inferior to Capex (which is only a portion of the costs), I am not sure about your understanding of the energy business model. Third, if you want to rely on the energy numbers from some French investment bank over that of the DOE, all I can do is a facepalm.
Given that you don't know the difference between CAPEX and LCoE, it's safe to dismiss most everything you say as lacking substance.
But to be direct, the report I linked to covers 1) CAPEX, 2) LCoE, 3) transmission overhead and CF adjustments.
If you care to actually read it, you'll see it addresses every one of your points.
> What matters TODAY is the investment you make TODAY
LOLZ. The DOE paper, if you care to actually look at the fine print, was based on numbers from several years ago. Go ahead, look closely, it's right there in the report.
>Second, if you think levelized cost of energy (LCOE), a comprehensive and widely used measure of comparison between different energy sources is inferior to Capex
LOLZ. CAPEX is the #1 factor in LCoE, especially for large projects like nukes.
Look, it's clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about, and you're talking to a guy that has worked in the industry for well over a decade that he's wrong. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?
Well whatever, if you want to be wrong, feel free to enjoy your ignorance. I'm out.
While the automobile has greatly evolved in the last hundred years, many aspects remain absolutely terrible. The user interface comes to mind. Have you ever tried to use the "infotainment" system on a modern car? They are atrocious, both hardware and software. I've heard of people (technologically inclined ones at that) intentionally delaying the purchase of a new car just to avoid dealing with these systems. And of course, any such technology is years outdated by the time it appears in a new car, and once you've bought the car there is no practical and economical way to keep it up to date.
I drove a late model Ford Focus recently, equipped with their Sync system, and it was atrocious. Ridiculously convoluted, deeply nested menus, illogically organized, and with inconsistent navigation practices. The hardware controls were equally poor, right down to the idiotic decision to place volume controls on the right side of the steering wheel instead of the left. Everything about the man-machine interface on this car screamed "designed by committee." And the sad thing is that virtually every other car on the market, regardless of price, has similarly poor ergonomics and software UI design.
So yes, the car is ripe for disruption by Apple.
I think this is where Apple is coming from. Just fixing what we see on the screen is not a decent solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterrockets
Yeah, there's a big leap into something with this many moving parts. Suspension, brakes, drivetrain, wipers, mirrors, etc.
Apple has also gotten pretty good at curved glass...
Reiterating, the point I made is that there are many types of power - wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, gas, coal, fossil fuels. Some are more consistent and reliable than others and some are more appropriate for certain situations. If you find that to be sophistry you need to re-lookup the definition.
Ultimately solar is the best source of power. With enough installations around the world we could effectively get our power from aisa and they get theirs from the Americas simply because of night and day.
Ultimately solar is the best source of power. With enough installations around the world we could effectively get our power from aisa and they get theirs from the Americas simply because of night and day.
Transmission losses will be challenging with nobody contributing power in the oceans -- just have to cross them and accept the loss.
And watches. It's funny when history repeats itself.
What product since '98 has Apple had that has failed? That they haven't made money on?
The eMate and G4 Cube come to mind. They ended their server business, but I have no idea if they'd have considered it to be a success or failure. It lasted for a long time for a reason I'm guessing, but it also ended for a reason.
The eMate and G4 Cube come to mind. They ended their server business, but I have no idea if they'd have considered it to be a success or failure. It lasted for a long time for a reason I'm guessing, but it also ended for a reason.
Steve Jobs said the reason they stopped making the Xserve was that "hardly anyone was buying them" this was in an email response to a customer question about pro products. The iPod HiFi was another product that wasn't really a success.
If Apple is getting in to the electric car game, its because they can already see the profit endgame. On the contrary Lutz, those auto manufacturers ought to start paying attention to the Apple rumors...because clearly Apple has figured out something they could not.
If I were just a newly graduating Mechanical Enginer with MEMS, Machine Design, Tribuluation and an emphasis on materials and machines I would never work for the big 3. I would jump at the chance to be on the leading edge with Apple, Tesla, etc.
If I were just a newly graduating Mechanical Enginer with MEMS, Machine Design, Tribuluation and an emphasis on materials and machines I would never work for the big 3. I would jump at the chance to be on the leading edge with Apple, Tesla, etc.
Tesla is hiring big time. If you are willing to work on the cutting edge, be prepare to be on the "bleeding edge" as well. It is a lot of blood and sweat and be willing to put your life on hold for a while. Give it a good thought, if you have the stomach, go dive in and willing to learn everything on a flight (if you work on bleeding edge, you are most likely not going to find someone can teach you knowhow) and willing to fall hard and get up running again (with all the scare on your face). It is a lot of fun to be at bleeding edge, but it is not easy...Best of luck.
He was being interviewed the other day about the VW scandal and managed to work in a completely off-topic shot at Hillary Clinton. Whether you like her or not, it was a dick move. Lutz is a putz.
Comments
As an aside -- and you're probably aware of this -- there was a fork in the road between uranium and thorium many decades ago, but the DOD shut down thorium because.... you guessed it, it couldn't be easily weaponized.
So as someone that actually worked in the industry, and has a nuclear plant right outside his window (literally), let me tell what is actually going on.
Nuclear power plants consist largely of two parts. Even the buildings reflect this. On one side you have the "nuclear island" with the reactor and the first cooling loop. On the other is the turbine hall with the 2nd (and sometimes 3rd) cooling loop and all the non-nuclear bits and parts. Inside that hall is there the power actually comes from, the heat from the first loop boils water in the second, which spins a turbine which powers a generator who's power flows into the switchyard and out to the grid.
Now that non-nuclear side is almost identical to the one in a coal plant, heavy oil plant or even some CSP plants. The thing is, the nuclear side is inherently more complex than the one in the coal plant. The coal plant, for instance, probably doesn't even have separate cooling loops, which makes it a lot simpler. And then there's the lack of radiation and such, which makes it all easier to build. So basically, there is no way, even in theory, that a nuclear plant can ever cost less to build than a coal plant. Ever.
Never ever ever.
Now consider a natural gas plant. It consists solely of the turbine and the generator. All the rest is gone, because it generates its moving fluid from the fuel itself. Presto, all the complexity disappears. And so, NG generators cost about $1 a watt to build, while coal plants are $3 to $6, and nuclear is $8 to $10.
It wasn't always this way, of course. It took a while for people to get good at building turbines, just like it took time to get good at building reactors. But the reactor people had others sources of income, the government and military, that the NG guys didn't. So it took longer. But now we're here, and from about 2005 on, NG power plants will always, always, cost less than nukes. Forever.
Now you might say, hey, maybe we'll invent some sort of thing that will make nukes cost less. That is entirely possible. Here's the problem though... the non-nuclear part of the plant already costs more than the entire gas plant. So even if you reduce the price of the reactor to zero, it's still more expensive than a gas plant. Ok, you say, so we come up with some way to make the non-nuclear side cheaper too. Ahhh, there's the rub right there. You see, you've just make NG plants cheaper too.
And this is why coal and nuclear plants are shutting down and NG is taking over the US grid. The money just works that way. And let me assure you as someone that worked there, that's all anyone cares about. You might want clear power, but you're not a bank, and the bank is paying for it.
Ok, now for the fun part. Consider a wind turbine. A wind turbine consists of a pole, the blades, maybe a gearbox in some designs, and the generator. Everything else is gone. There's no piping, no stream, no cooling, no pumps, no turbine. It's basically 1/8th of a coal plant. And that's why they cost $1.50 a watt to build, in spite of having such low power density. And a PV panel has no moving parts at all, you just put it in the sun and out comes electrons.
And that's why for everyone outside the US, wind and solar are the fastest growing power sources. And I don't mean a little - more wind will be put in this year alone that the peak of reactor construction ever. And it's accelerating.
So the Indians and Chinese can work all they want on thorium, but we know how it's going to play out already. And that's true for anything that is based on the Rankin cycle... if you have a working fusion reactor and it uses a turbine, it's already all over but the crying.
Even if one accepts your numbers -- which I don't, since, according to the DOE (which calculates the LCOE for various types of energy generation and transmission), the LCOE for Advanced Nuclear falls squarely in the middle of different types of natural gas options (see Table A5, p. 10) -- your premise is flawed.
Energy needs of countries like India not only need to be relatively low-cost, but they will need to be relatively clean (coal is simply not an option for the amount of energy they will need over the next few decades), and most importantly, reliable.
Wind is intermittent. Moreover, an honest analysis of the cost of wind should also include the cost of storage to get rid of the intermittency issue. It won't be base load energy at a reasonable cost for quite w while, unless there is some breakthrough in storage technologies.
Natural gas is fine in principle (although much cleaner than coal, it still emits about half the GHGs of coals, its extraction is not clean, and transportation is a HUGE issue), India and China do not have it in abundance so it's moot. Also, the cost of NG power varies quite a bit by region (again, see the DOE table linked above).
I would be willing to bet even Apple with all of their solar arrays only feeds it back into the grid and then picks up their power off the grid just like everyone else ....
This is exactly right. Apple, like many other companies, relies on something called the 'contract for differences' model with utilities (i.e., fixed price contract whereby, if price per kWh rises above a certain level you pay for the difference, or below a certain level you receive the difference).
Now consider a natural gas plant. It consists solely of the turbine and the generator. All the rest is gone, because it generates its moving fluid from the fuel itself. Presto, all the complexity disappears. And so, NG generators cost about $1 a watt to build, while coal plants are $3 to $6, and nuclear is $8 to $10.
It wasn't always this way, of course. It took a while for people to get good at building turbines, just like it took time to get good at building reactors. But the reactor people had others sources of income, the government and military, that the NG guys didn't. So it took longer. But now we're here, and from about 2005 on, NG power plants will always, always, cost less than nukes. Forever.
You are forgetting that you have to keep a supply of NG flowing to the plant to keep the NG plant working. That has a cost. For the NG itself, for its extraction and transport as well. And for the pollution from the burning, extracting, and transporting of that.
So the overall cost of the NG plant needs to include the cost of the fuel.
Wind and solar only work where there is wind and sunshine. It is not 24/7 anywhere. They can add power to the grid when possible but for reliability you really need to burn something.
Wind and solar the fastest growing power sources in history.
My reality beats your sophistry.
Even if one accepts your numbers -- which I don't, since, according to the DOE (which calculates the LCOE for various types of energy generation and transmission), the LCOE for Advanced Nuclear falls squarely in the middle of different types of natural gas options (see Table A5, p. 10) -- your premise is flawed.
*sigh* You are confusing LCoE with CAPEX. Generation 101 dude.
And its wrong anyway:
https://www.lazard.com/media/1777/levelized_cost_of_energy_-_version_80.pdf
Page 2 compares the LCoE for power sources that come online next year. The most advanced nuclear plants are over twice the price of wind.
These numbers are the most up to date available. The DoE number you are quoting is about 10 years old. Yes, the date on the DoE paper is newer, but the DoE has not updated that particular number for about a decade. That is in spite of the fact that every advanced nuclear reactor currently under construction is overbudget and is coming in closer to $10/W (that's CAPEX). This is not surprising, given nukes are their mandate, and it's been a bit of a running joke in the industry for some time now.
As to everyone's complaints about "the wind doesn't blow" because they read that somewhere. Only someone who's never worked in the industry thinks that's a problem. The grid has always consisted of a mix of intermittent sources and average CF's on the order of 60%. The only difference is that the power companies used to own all the assets and they could schedule them to their advantage. Now they're owned by lots of different companies so they can't. But that problem was solved twenty years ago during the deregulation process. We've added more wind in the last year that ever before, and not a single problem anywhere.
As I note above, all these "problems" simply aren't problems. Wind and solar are the two fastest growing power sources in history. Nuclear and coal both have global negative growth, and no signs that will change. The Rankin cycle is dead. You can say I'm wrong all you want, but until those facts change, well, think what you want.
regardless the perception, the nuclear is the most efficient and "clean" if done properly, like slowpoke reactor. - do need sufficient fund for the R&O and control computer upgrade, since the reactor can last for many generation of computer age...
Wow, that's a lot of words to avoid every substantive point that was brought up in response to your post.
Three points. First, you should learn to read a table. What matters TODAY is the investment you make TODAY for stuff that will come on stream 5-7 years from now. Hence the need to focus on Table A5. What is coming on stream today is investment made five years ago, and that's a sunk cost. You can't go back and change it. Second, if you think levelized cost of energy (LCOE), a comprehensive and widely used measure of comparison between different energy sources is inferior to Capex (which is only a portion of the costs), I am not sure about your understanding of the energy business model. Third, if you want to rely on the energy numbers from some French investment bank over that of the DOE, all I can do is a facepalm.
Given that you don't know the difference between CAPEX and LCoE, it's safe to dismiss most everything you say as lacking substance.
But to be direct, the report I linked to covers 1) CAPEX, 2) LCoE, 3) transmission overhead and CF adjustments.
If you care to actually read it, you'll see it addresses every one of your points.
> What matters TODAY is the investment you make TODAY
LOLZ. The DOE paper, if you care to actually look at the fine print, was based on numbers from several years ago. Go ahead, look closely, it's right there in the report.
>Second, if you think levelized cost of energy (LCOE), a comprehensive and widely used measure of comparison between different energy sources is inferior to Capex
LOLZ. CAPEX is the #1 factor in LCoE, especially for large projects like nukes.
Look, it's clear you don't really have a clue what you're talking about, and you're talking to a guy that has worked in the industry for well over a decade that he's wrong. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?
Well whatever, if you want to be wrong, feel free to enjoy your ignorance. I'm out.
While the automobile has greatly evolved in the last hundred years, many aspects remain absolutely terrible. The user interface comes to mind. Have you ever tried to use the "infotainment" system on a modern car? They are atrocious, both hardware and software. I've heard of people (technologically inclined ones at that) intentionally delaying the purchase of a new car just to avoid dealing with these systems. And of course, any such technology is years outdated by the time it appears in a new car, and once you've bought the car there is no practical and economical way to keep it up to date.
I drove a late model Ford Focus recently, equipped with their Sync system, and it was atrocious. Ridiculously convoluted, deeply nested menus, illogically organized, and with inconsistent navigation practices. The hardware controls were equally poor, right down to the idiotic decision to place volume controls on the right side of the steering wheel instead of the left. Everything about the man-machine interface on this car screamed "designed by committee." And the sad thing is that virtually every other car on the market, regardless of price, has similarly poor ergonomics and software UI design.
So yes, the car is ripe for disruption by Apple.
I think this is where Apple is coming from. Just fixing what we see on the screen is not a decent solution.
Yeah, there's a big leap into something with this many moving parts. Suspension, brakes, drivetrain, wipers, mirrors, etc.
Apple has also gotten pretty good at curved glass...
My reality beats your sophistry.
Reality does not belong to anyone.
Reiterating, the point I made is that there are many types of power - wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, gas, coal, fossil fuels. Some are more consistent and reliable than others and some are more appropriate for certain situations. If you find that to be sophistry you need to re-lookup the definition.
Ultimately solar is the best source of power. With enough installations around the world we could effectively get our power from aisa and they get theirs from the Americas simply because of night and day.
Ultimately solar is the best source of power. With enough installations around the world we could effectively get our power from aisa and they get theirs from the Americas simply because of night and day.
Transmission losses will be challenging with nobody contributing power in the oceans -- just have to cross them and accept the loss.
And watches. It's funny when history repeats itself.
What product since '98 has Apple had that has failed? That they haven't made money on?
The eMate and G4 Cube come to mind. They ended their server business, but I have no idea if they'd have considered it to be a success or failure. It lasted for a long time for a reason I'm guessing, but it also ended for a reason.
The eMate and G4 Cube come to mind. They ended their server business, but I have no idea if they'd have considered it to be a success or failure. It lasted for a long time for a reason I'm guessing, but it also ended for a reason.
Steve Jobs said the reason they stopped making the Xserve was that "hardly anyone was buying them" this was in an email response to a customer question about pro products. The iPod HiFi was another product that wasn't really a success.
If I were just a newly graduating Mechanical Enginer with MEMS, Machine Design, Tribuluation and an emphasis on materials and machines I would never work for the big 3. I would jump at the chance to be on the leading edge with Apple, Tesla, etc.
If I were just a newly graduating Mechanical Enginer with MEMS, Machine Design, Tribuluation and an emphasis on materials and machines I would never work for the big 3. I would jump at the chance to be on the leading edge with Apple, Tesla, etc.
Tesla is hiring big time. If you are willing to work on the cutting edge, be prepare to be on the "bleeding edge" as well. It is a lot of blood and sweat and be willing to put your life on hold for a while. Give it a good thought, if you have the stomach, go dive in and willing to learn everything on a flight (if you work on bleeding edge, you are most likely not going to find someone can teach you knowhow) and willing to fall hard and get up running again (with all the scare on your face). It is a lot of fun to be at bleeding edge, but it is not easy...Best of luck.