You win!
  Here's a map of California earthquakes for the last week:
http://scedc.caltech.edu/recen...

I have a few RPi's dedicated to servers and monitoring various things. None of them use a display port. I access them all using ssh over WiFi. This would be a good drop in replacement for these projects.
Right now I use a RPi ($35) plus WiFi dongle ($10). With this, $9.

Look, HornWumpus, I agree with you. You are right. They lost money because they invested a lot of money in new factories, etc. and the accounting rules, etc.
However, that is not what the OP and I were discussing when you inserted yourself into this thread. The OP said that they were losing $3600 on each car they made. I pointed out that they made money on each car they made but the company lost money because they spent all the money they made on each car plus other money on investing in new factories and new models.
It seems that you have enough understanding of economics to know the difference between losing money on each car you make and having the company lose money because they are investing in the future... this is a big difference. I would be worried if they lost money on each car (the car cost more to make than they sold it for). I am not worried (and most of the investors are not worried) that they lost money because of their investing in factories and new models.

Right.
That's why they "lost money" in 2014.
My point was that they make money on every car they sell which the OP didn't seem to understand.

Their gross profit per car is about 28% (i.e. about $25,000 per car).
The company lost money because it is spending everything it makes on new factories (Gigafactory, etc.) and developing new models (X, 3).

The Tesla is a car which feels like it was teleported from 10 years in the future.

Start with a few facts rather than opinions pulled from the nether regions:
Coal accounted for 35% of electricity production in the US in 2014. This is down from 50% in 2005.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity...

Thermodynamics:
Efficiency: Large power plants (such as coal powered plants) are very efficient. Internal combustion engines are very inefficient.
"According to a range of studies doing a ‘well to wheels’ analysis, an electric car leads to significantly less carbon dioxide pollution from electricity than the CO2 pollution from the oil of a conventional car with an internal combustion engine.[1][2][3] In some areas, like many on the West Coast that rely largely on wind or hydro power, the emissions are significantly lower for EVs. And that's today. As we retire more coal plants and bring cleaner sources of power online, the emissions from electric vehicle charging drop even further. Additionally, in some areas, night-time charging will increase the opportunity to take advantage of wind power -- another way to reduce emissions."
[1] Union of Concerned Scientists. “State of Charge: Electric Vehicles’ Global Warming Emissions and Fuel-Cost Savings Across the United States.” April, 2012. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d...
[2] MIT Energy Initiative. "The Electrification of the Transportation System." April, 2010.
[3] Electric Power Research Institute and Natural Resources Defense Council. "Environmental Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles." 2007. Cited February 16, 2011.
I charge my electric car from solar panels... YMMV

"No, not at all. Sea levels have risen about 120m over the past 20000 years; they can only rise about another 50-60m. Unpleasant, to be sure, but no threat to farmland. If anything, there was more arable land during the Cretaceous, due to warmer and wetter conditions."

Depends on how you define "unpleasant". If you are one of the 80%+ of people on earth who will find their house under water, it is highly "unpleasant"... others may enjoy their new beachfront property.

There have been publication and experiments over hundreds of years forecasting (or advocating) a utopia where people work less and get paid more. These would work except they all require a strong socialist state and severely curtailed capitalism. There are some countries which have come close to this utopia with strong worker rights and supports. I think many of the Scandinavian countries are in this category.
The key is having workers capture increases in productivity. Currently in the US (and many other places), almost all of the benefits of increases in productivity go to the capitalists who then drive down wages and increase profits. A socialist system creates a more equal distribution of the benefits of productivity by enforcing minimum wages, taxing profits and supporting worker with direct subsidy when there is not enough work available.

Irony is dead.

There are some efficiencies of scale but not a factor of two.
Not quite...
The cost of residential (less than 10kw) is $5.47 /w
Larger systems (more than 10kw) drop the price to $4.92 /w

https://www.californiasolarsta...

Maintenance?
Service?
PV solar doesn't require either... it just works.

Where I live, the time of use differential is 14 cents. I could save $1.40 a day with this battery. $511 a year for an investment of $3500... good return.

Distributed solar generation is more efficient than central generations because you don't have distribution losses and don't have to have the high capacity power distribution network.

You don't have to have a string inverter. You can use microinverters such as Enphase.
Cost 250w panel=$200 plus 250w microinverter=$150 total $350. This is below the limit for requiring a building permit where I live ($500).
Just add them one at a time.