Thoughts on TESLA

[oneill225]

No shift to EVs?

And to understand that fuel costs are relatively small part of total ownership costs. See graphic below for 2016 numbers, according to AAA. For a vehicle driven 15K miles per year, fuel accounted for less than 15% of the cost to own and operate the average sedan. Depreciation costs were about three times that much.
If/when Tesla tanks, owners will learn a LOT about depreciation costs. The money saved on fuel will be a wry inside joke they share while standing in their driveway surveying their cars and sharing tips about where to find spare parts.

I get the concerns about Musk and how his recent actions call into question Tesla's future leadership, but I do not get the negativity concerning EV technology or the inevitable shift to EV from ICE powered cars/trucks.

Here, you highlight depreciation as though Tesla or other EVs are more affected than conventional cars; I have heard no evidence to support that notion. You go on to imply that cutting your fuel costs in half (ignoring future tax increases) and never paying to change your oil (along with other maintenance savings) is not worthy of consideration when buying a new car. We are talking about hundreds or thousands in savings for every year of ownership. Why minimize the value of those savings for the average daily driver?

The biggest expected cost of EV ownership (Tesla included) over current ICE vehicles is battery replacement. Right now, the estimates are around $10,000. However, even the older Model S battery packs are getting well over 100,000 miles and still going strong. One company claims to have gotten over 300,000 miles on the original Model S pack. That is pretty darn good and getting better with each new advance in battery technology. I don't think I've ever driven a car over 100,000 miles before selling it.

Tesla is on the cutting edge of all of this. If Tesla can continue the upward sales trajectory and secure another round of investment (which history says they will), I see no reason to think they will not continue to hold a significant chunk of the EV market going forward.

 

[The Cosmic Avenger]

Well, we are making a little progress.

If you refuse to concede that creating power with a large electric plant (added to the current infrastructure, of course) generates energy more efficiently than millions of internal combustion engines in various states of repair, then can you at least concede that it is cheaper and more efficient to distribute electricity to a local charger than oil and gas to refineries and your local gas station?

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

The most important part is that electricity is fungible -- it can be generated from clean or dirty sources, and distributed much more easily than fossil fuels. Electricity generation is likely to get cleaner and cleaner, and the end user won't have to switch to an ethanol or CNG engine or furnace. Electricity is kind of like cash that can be used for almost anything, whereas fossil fuels are like store credit, only usable for certain things.

 

[gerntz]

" "

 

[samclem]

. . . I do not get the negativity concerning EV technology or the inevitable shift to EV from ICE powered cars/trucks.

"Inevitable?" Maybe EVs will someday supplant IC engines for transportation, maybe they won't. Maybe fuel cells--> electric motors will prove to be the best way to convert stored chemical energy to mechanical energy. You don't know and I don't know. Storage remains the issue, and batteries still don't have the energy density of fossil fuels.

Here, you highlight depreciation as though Tesla or other EVs are more affected than conventional cars

No, I said nothing about other EVs. The point is, when any auto maker goes out of business, the owners of their existing cars generally experience more rapid depreciation. How much more dramatic will it be for Tesla owners who have cars with tons of proprietary parts, dependent on a recharging infrastructure that isn't fully mature, and with very few dealers? You can probably guess.

I don't think I've ever driven a car over 100,000 miles before selling it.

When you sold them, did they have a blown engine and a transmission that needed an overhaul? Would they be worth much if they did? Because that's about what a depleted battery pack in an EV amounts to, in terms of cost and impact on functionality of the car.

Tesla is on the cutting edge of all of this. If Tesla can continue the upward sales trajectory and secure another round of investment (which history says they will), I see no reason to think they will not continue to hold a significant chunk of the EV market going forward.

If there's a real demand for EVs to go mainstream, there are a lot of other car companies in a better position to capitalize on that demand. They are already in the car biz, they have a dealer network, they know what is involved with keeping customers happy over a decade or two of ownership and (crucially) they have (for all their warts) mature corporate structures and cultures for developing talent and choosing leaders. Far from infallible, but generally not a cult of personality dependent on a single flawed, tottering guru. The lack of same is showing acutely right now, but has been evident for years.

For those true believers who want to bet on Tesla and Musk, the market gives a great opportunity to do that every day. Highly leveraged investments can lead to tremendous rewards AND afford an opportunity to directly do battle with the evil short sellers so reviled by Mr Musk.

 

[Fedup]

I saw a Hydrogen fuel car made by Toyota(IIRC) at a car show a few years ago, just wonder why those types of cars are not more popular.

 

[oneill225]

Yes, Tesla has a challenge in front of it when the other manufacturers are fully engaged. Volvo is going "all electric" next year. But, who thought Amazon would end-up making Walmart look feeble when they first entered the market? Your uncertainty is not unwarranted, but I cannot ignore the quality of Tesla cars or their rich collection of patents. We shall see.

 

[samclem]

I saw a Hydrogen fuel car made by Toyota(IIRC) at a car show a few years ago, just wonder why those types of cars are not more popular.

Mainly because hydrogen is a very problematic fuel in the real world. It looks good in a presentation, and a lot of folks bought the fairy tale, but it is not practical. More here: The Hydrogen Hoax.

 

[mpeirce]

I saw a Hydrogen fuel car made by Toyota(IIRC) at a car show a few years ago, just wonder why those types of cars are not more popular.

Hydrogen, natural gas, electricity fuels are all interesting and worthy of research.

But gasoline (/diesel) is kind of a wonder technology for compact energy storage, fast refueling, and safety. It's really hard to get the alternatives up to the performance gas as attained.

 

[samclem]

Volvo is going "all electric" next year.

It depends on what "all electric" means. Lots of EV believers got carried away. From this site:

Last year, Volvo announced that it was going “all electric“ by 2019, but it was actually only adding electric motors to each model.
Now, the company is clarifying its electrification plans with an announcement that they aim for 50% of sales to be ‘fully electric’ by 2025.

Yeah. We'll see about that . . .

 

[aja8888]

Yes, Tesla has a challenge in front of it when the other manufacturers are fully engaged. Volvo is going "all electric" next year. But, who thought Amazon would end-up making Walmart look feeble when they first entered the market? Your uncertainty is not unwarranted, but I cannot ignore the quality of Tesla cars or their rich collection of patents. We shall see.

Walmart is far from dead, and actually had a very good last quarter from a financial performance standpoint. My son-in-law runs a very large Walmart distribution center here in Texas and they are hiring like crazy due to the high demand for retail store goods.

While I believe that EV's and hybrids will have a share of the transportation market going forward, they will not totally replace fossil fueled vehicles until crude oil and natural gas are either so expensive to obtain or are near depletion. That may be many decades away based on our worldwide consumption of those compounds.

 

[oneill225]

It depends on what "all electric" means. Lots of EV believers got carried away. From this site:
Yeah. We'll see about that . . .

Not sure what an "EV believer" is, but I must assume that you would have called Steve Jobs a "computer believer" in the late 70's. This is inevitable, it is only a question of how quickly at this point.

 

[Fedup]

We had computers before Steve Jobs, bigger type but nonetheless they are computers.

 

[Running_Man]

I get the concerns about Musk and how his recent actions call into question Tesla's future leadership, but I do not get the negativity concerning EV technology or the inevitable shift to EV from ICE powered cars/trucks.

Here, you highlight depreciation as though Tesla or other EVs are more affected than conventional cars; I have heard no evidence to support that notion. You go on to imply that cutting your fuel costs in half (ignoring future tax increases) and never paying to change your oil (along with other maintenance savings) is not worthy of consideration when buying a new car. We are talking about hundreds or thousands in savings for every year of ownership. Why minimize the value of those savings for the average daily driver?

The biggest expected cost of EV ownership (Tesla included) over current ICE vehicles is battery replacement. Right now, the estimates are around $10,000. However, even the older Model S battery packs are getting well over 100,000 miles and still going strong. One company claims to have gotten over 300,000 miles on the original Model S pack. That is pretty darn good and getting better with each new advance in battery technology. I don't think I've ever driven a car over 100,000 miles before selling it.

Tesla is on the cutting edge of all of this. If Tesla can continue the upward sales trajectory and secure another round of investment (which history says they will), I see no reason to think they will not continue to hold a significant chunk of the EV market going forward.

If you truly believe that Elon is a visionary and ahead of everyone else then you must realize none of this is real and doesn't matter as it is all a computer simulation, and if it is not a simulation it is more likely than not in the near future humans will be eliminated by automated robots powered by an evil robot dictator linked to all other machines in the cloud and able to control them so therefore investing in Tesla for any reason is meaningless according to philosophical derivatives of Elon Musk, which is probably why he acts like he doesn't care about his company.

 

[ERD50]

Well, we are making a little progress.

If you refuse to concede that creating power with a large electric plant (added to the current infrastructure, of course) generates energy more efficiently than millions of internal combustion engines in various states of repair, then can you at least concede that it is cheaper and more efficient to distribute electricity to a local charger than oil and gas to refineries and your local gas station?

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

OK, but I'm not crazy about the word "concede", facts are facts, I will just acknowledge them, plain and simple. So yes, it's generally cheaper to power an EV with electricity than it is to power a car with gasoline/diesel - that's a fact. For some numbers, this link (the first hit in my query)

https://www.greencarreports.com/new...efficiency-forget-mpge-it-should-be-miles-kwh

agrees with me that MPGe is a bogus number, and they use the far more meaningful miles per KWh.

For a 2012 Nissan Leaf, ... 34 kilowatt-hours per 100 miles. Just multiply that by your electric cost.

So if you pay the U.S. average of 12 cents/kWh, the Leaf will cost you $4.08 to go 100 miles (versus $16 in a 25-mpg car with gas at $4/gallon).

OK, 340 watt-hours/mile matches what I've read (but this is sometimes confusing - if that is consumption from the battery, it disregards charging losses, but close enough). And if it is economy you are after, a Prius gets better than 50 MPG (and I found a list of the top 10, you have some choice at 42 MPG and better), and gas is currently $2.83 (though we can reasonably expect it to be higher in the future), but @ $3 for round numbers, that is $6 to travel 100 miles on gasoline in a Prius, versus their $4/100 miles for an EV. So not such a huge delta, but a delta none the less. Cars with +40 MPG will be more common as there are still ICE advances being made, EVs already high efficiencies are pretty much topped out.


Power plants can burn cheap coal and natural gas or use gravity and water, not so easy for a car. So that helps the cost of electricity, but it still isn't all that impressive compared to available options in the high MPG vehicles.



I'm not sure which efficiency measurements are relevant as far as the grid. Power stations really aren't terribly efficient, an ICE is capable of ~ 50% thermal efficiency, but a power plant doesn't want the maintenance issues of a piston engine, and they don't have to care about size/weight, so they use turbines, which are more like 35%~40% efficiency, plus ~ 8% transmission losses (combined cycle turbines are reaching 60% though, and there are some losses in distributing fuel as well).



But for me, the most important issue is pollution, and newer cars are amazingly low in pollution, and some of the designs I'm reading about improve on that. Even a small mix of coal on a grid can wipe out any EV advantage very quickly (refer to my previous post).


-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

OK, but I'm not crazy about the word "concede", facts are facts, I will just acknowledge them, plain and simple. So yes, it's generally cheaper to power an EV with electricity than it is to power a car with gasoline/diesel - that's a fact. For some numbers, this link (the first hit in my query)
But for me, the most important issue is pollution, and newer cars are amazingly low in pollution, and some of the designs I'm reading about improve on that. Even a small mix of coal on a grid can wipe out any EV advantage very quickly (refer to my previous post).-ERD50

Fair enough. No free lunch.

 

[ERD50]

... This (EVs) is inevitable, it is only a question of how quickly at this point.

Why inevitable? Many people don't have ready access to chargers where they park their cars. There were some numbers earlier on just how much the grid would need to be expanded to support 100% EV, it was not trivial. And for what? Little/no, maybe even negative environmental impact? I really don't understand the excitement over EVs in general.

Compared to a hybrid, especially with anticipated future ICE developments, that puts no added requirements on anyone. Drive it like any car today.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by oneill225
Volvo is going "all electric" next year.

It depends on what "all electric" means. Lots of EV believers got carried away. From this site:

Last year, Volvo announced that it was going “all electric“ by 2019, but it was actually only adding electric motors to each model.
Now, the company is clarifying its electrification plans with an announcement that they aim for 50% of sales to be ‘fully electric’ by 2025.

Yeah. We'll see about that . . .

Even that is being generous - I'm pretty sure the statement form Volvo was that all new models would be 'electrified' (which includes even mild-hybrids). An old model can still be around for decades.

I think this helps answer the earlier question " what is an "EV believer" ", I could say anyone who takes that Volvo statement to mean far more than it actually does.


-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

Why inevitable? Many people don't have ready access to chargers where they park their cars. There were some numbers earlier on just how much the grid would need to be expanded to support 100% EV, it was not trivial. And for what? Little/no, maybe even negative environmental impact? I really don't understand the excitement over EVs in general.
Compared to a hybrid, especially with anticipated future ICE developments, that puts no added requirements on anyone. Drive it like any car today.-ERD50

Hybrids are fine and necessary until the charging infrastructure is ubiquitous and faster. I think the vast majority of EV owners will have a charging point at their home and/or business and with increasing range capacity will rarely need to charge anywhere else. Hybrids are more complex machines with the same issues as regular ICE, so I believe they will fall out of favor over time when people find they are not getting a benefit.

I think we are seeing a shift as dramatic as the shift from horse drawn carriages to autos. Is Musk another Ford? As you have correctly stated: we do not know. But, as the EVs get cheaper and charging becomes a non-issue there will be no advantage to looking back unless you are a collector of antiques.

 

[oneill225]

I think this helps answer the earlier question " what is an "EV believer" ", I could say anyone who takes that Volvo statement to mean far more than it actually does.-ERD50

Be fair, now. Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, Ford, Tesla, Chevy, Nissan, etal. are all offering at least one fully electric auto by next year. All of them claim to be shifting their production towards evermore EVs beyond that. I believe in what I see, not what I want to see.

 

[Beststash]

I don't want pot smokers running around with access to classified space programs.

Smoking marijuana has zero relevance to erratic behavior of Elon Musk. He was visibly drunk when he took the marijuana and he didn't even inhale. While it may or may not fit the corporate executive image (getting hammered on booze) it has nothing to do with his mental stability or ability to lead a large international corporation.

 

[Fedup]

I agree that Elon Musk doesn’t need marijuana or whiskey to have erratic behavior. He has been erratic for a while now. It’s must be the Wharton thing.

 

[bobandsherry]

Well, we are making a little progress.

If you refuse to concede that creating power with a large electric plant (added to the current infrastructure, of course) generates energy more efficiently than millions of internal combustion engines in various states of repair, then can you at least concede that it is cheaper and more efficient to distribute electricity to a local charger than oil and gas to refineries and your local gas station?

Regarding fuel efficiency, crunch the numbers. Gas is around $3.25 per gallon in my state (WA) and electricity is less than a dollar per equivalent MPG. The equivalent mpg is simply the cost of electricity vs the cost of gas to go the same distance. You don't need to be a bureaucrat to do the math; you just have to be willing to do the math.

You have good points, but something to consider:

1. As demand increases chances are price will increase for kWh
2. As demand increases the current infrastructure is most likely unable to provide the replacement for oil. CapEx will be necessary, costs will increase the cost for kWh will increase. As example, look at cost in California as they had to build out their grid, it's 3 or 4th highest in the nation at about 20 cents/kWh (more than double what it is in your state). Compare that to areas that have not seen explosive growth like Idaho the cost is 10 cents/kWh.
3. Gas has a distribution cost, the cost to operate gas station, recharge stations will add overhead and then costs
4. Pricing may give way to deregulation driving up prices
5. What is the source to power the new electrical plants? Coal? Not environmentally friendly. Natural Gas? Don't think it's sufficient to power as based on 2016 consumption it was estimated there was enough NG to last about 90 years. Increase the consumption to power additional plants and soon NG is in short supply. Or Nuclear? As people say, "not in my backyard". So that leaves solar but unless there's a lot progress made in solar panels, that will require a LOT of solar panels.

It seems that all roads with more EV's lead to higher electrical costs, but I could be dead wrong. I'm OK with learning more so feel free to help me understand how costs would not increase. And as EV's grow it's very possible and likely that the cost of oil based fuels will drop due to decrease demand. So IMHO there will be some point of convergence for electricity and oil prices.

 

[corn18]

Smoking marijuana has zero relevance to erratic behavior of Elon Musk. He was visibly drunk when he took the marijuana and he didn't even inhale. While it may or may not fit the corporate executive image (getting hammered on booze) it has nothing to do with his mental stability or ability to lead a large international corporation.

I stand by my position.

 

[oneill225]

Secondary Effects

You have good points, but something to consider:

1. As demand increases chances are price will increase for kWh
2. As demand increases the current infrastructure is most likely unable to provide the replacement for oil. CapEx will be necessary, costs will increase the cost for kWh will increase. As example, look at cost in California as they had to build out their grid, it's 3 or 4th highest in the nation at about 20 cents/kWh (more than double what it is in your state). Compare that to areas that have not seen explosive growth like Idaho the cost is 10 cents/kWh.
3. Gas has a distribution cost, the cost to operate gas station, recharge stations will add overhead and then costs
4. Pricing may give way to deregulation driving up prices
5. What is the source to power the new electrical plants? Coal? Not environmentally friendly. Natural Gas? Don't think it's sufficient to power as based on 2016 consumption it was estimated there was enough NG to last about 90 years. Increase the consumption to power additional plants and soon NG is in short supply. Or Nuclear? As people say, "not in my backyard". So that leaves solar but unless there's a lot progress made in solar panels, that will require a LOT of solar panels.

It seems that all roads with more EV's lead to higher electrical costs, but I could be dead wrong. I'm OK with learning more so feel free to help me understand how costs would not increase. And as EV's grow it's very possible and likely that the cost of oil based fuels will drop due to decrease demand. So IMHO there will be some point of convergence for electricity and oil prices.

I can't disagree with anything you have said, but prices will have a lot of room to rise before surpassing gasoline costs. I am not anti-coal, but natural gas is the likely fuel for electric generation in the short-term and there is lots of natural gas available. We must assume that solar will continue to improve and may be a viable alternative in the longer-term. As long as there is money to be made in electricity generation, I have no doubt suppliers will readily multiply to meet the demand.

The biggest unknown will be taxation. Right now roads are largely paid for with fuel taxes. Assuming that those taxes are not outrageous (big assumption, I know) the fuel and maintenance savings should balance out these other costs.

I will bow out of my advocacy for EV's until things progress a little more, but I will leave you with this: https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-roadster-makes-european-debut/

1.9 second 0-60 and 600 mile range. Tough to beat.

 

[ERD50]

Be fair, now. Mercedes, Audi, Volvo, Ford, Tesla, Chevy, Nissan, etal. are all offering at least one fully electric auto by next year. All of them claim to be shifting their production towards evermore EVs beyond that. I believe in what I see, not what I want to see.

I was being fair. Your statement was about Volvo, as was the replies.

And in the light of a thread about EVs (though actually Tesla specifically, so maybe the EV discussion belongs in a different thread?), there is a huge gap between the reality of what Volvo is doing ('electrfying' , which includes hybrids, all new models) and saying they are "going all electric next year".

If Volvo doesn't have any models for sale in 2019 that aren't either a hybrid or EV, I will concede ( ) the point. Having a starter motor and/or spark plugs and/or electric lights ('electrified'?) doesn't count!

-ERD50