Thoughts on TESLA

[oneill225]

Don't you think it would be better to tax the bad behavior than to reward the good?
SOOO, instead of giving someone $7500 to buy an electric, raise the tax on gas... this will put the full cost to the buyer and they will adjust accordingly... some will not care as they drive so little it does not affect them and they like their big gas guzzling car...

Maybe, but I think a specific incentive is better when the choices are clear. Simply making gas more expensive creates a more generic revenue source that will never go away. Also, it taxes many who can afford it the least.

With the EV credits, it is more likely they will be stopped when the incentive has run its course. I think we are there, now. I would drop the EV/hybrid incentives because the market is strong enough to sustain sales without it. I am very skeptical of social engineering, but I recognize it is useful at times.

 

[NW-Bound]

Who is doing that?

Well, last year or the year before last, Merkel the chancellor of Germany signed a contract to pay utility companies a lot of money for them to keep old generating plants idle but in shape. Else, the plants would be shut down or dismantled.

Earlier in the thread, Musk was quoted as saying we could shut down the oil refineries and have enough power for EVs. Yeah, right!

We've already had that scenario happen on multiple occasions in the U.S., long before solar and wind came along. Why would anyone degrade the system to that point again? We can transition without these power loss scenarios you describe...

In order to "transition without these power loss scenarios", we need ALL of the current plants in shape, and ready to go on a moment notice. That in addition to all the new generating stations.

It can all be done, sure, but it costs money. Nothing is easy and nice like some people think.

Last year, California produced so much solar on some early summer days, it had to pay Arizona to take some. Yes, the power was more than free. It costs California residents money! And of course, in the middle of summer California still does not have enough, and has to buy power.

See: California invested heavily in solar power. Now there’s so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it - Los Angeles Times

The renewable energy production is not easy to manage. You need almost 100% backup. Imagine if each of our homes needs to have its own battery bank and generator to back up our solar panels.

Well, you don't want to do it, but in order for your utility company to provide that service, they are going to need more money.

It's not going to be cheap, that's all. If you say you don't care about cost, you just want to be green, that's OK with me. Don't say that it is going to cost the same or is cheaper.

 

[Running_Man]

Can we keep this thread on Tesla?

 

[bobandsherry]

Market drop is due to criminal probe into Elon Musk being announced for possible hit at shorts. There are two downsides to this 1) they can also look at prior announcements to determine if there is a pattern of deception and fraud to boost stock price and 2) From Charles Gasparino on Twitter: "on US Atty looking at @Tesla $TSLA: almost pro forma given the @SEC_Enforcement investigation BUT will guarantee a deep dive by investigators into his emails and if there's one that shows he was tweeting funding secured merely to screw the shorts, he has a serious criminal issue"

This probe by SEC is just another trouble spot for Tesla. If Tesla does indeed need to raise capital they most likely find they are unable to do so as SEC will not allow companies under federal investigation to raise capital. Kind of poetic justice that Musk tried to squeeze the shorts and instead with convertible bonds coming due to Tesla will get squeezed due to short of cash.

 

[oneill225]

This probe by SEC is just another trouble spot for Tesla. If Tesla does indeed need to raise capital they most likely find they are unable to do so as SEC will not allow companies under federal investigation to raise capital. Kind of poetic justice that Musk tried to squeeze the shorts and instead with convertible bonds coming due to Tesla will get squeezed due to short of cash.

Where did you hear that companies under investigation can't raise capital?

 

[Running_Man]

This probe by SEC is just another trouble spot for Tesla. If Tesla does indeed need to raise capital they most likely find they are unable to do so as SEC will not allow companies under federal investigation to raise capital. Kind of poetic justice that Musk tried to squeeze the shorts and instead with convertible bonds coming due to Tesla will get squeezed due to short of cash.

This is not true, SEC investigations have no bearing on the day to day operations of a company, other than embarrassment and possible criminal sanctions, and forced exit of key employees, only when they recommend remediation can anything occur.

 

[bobandsherry]

Where did you hear that companies under investigation can't raise capital?

In a discussion on CNBC with Bob Lutz concerning Tesla (he didn't have much to say that was positive on Tesla), he mentioned company he took over (Exide) had to raise capital (due to the prior CEO screwing over the company). However as the company was under investigation for actions of the prior CEO the SEC told him he that he couldn't raise capital due to the ongoing investigation. Or perhaps Lutz was just lied.

From CNBC today, you might find this interesting to watch (positive and negative viewpoint on Tesla)

 

[oneill225]

In a discussion on CNBC with Bob Lutz concerning Tesla (he didn't have much to say that was positive on Tesla), he mentioned company he took over (Exide) had to raise capital (due to the prior CEO screwing over the company). However as the company was under investigation for actions of the prior CEO the SEC told him he that he couldn't raise capital due to the ongoing investigation. Or perhaps Lutz was just lied.

That sounds like it may have been specific to that case and I'm betting they needed a court order to do it.

No question Tesla has a lot of head winds and those who will short the stock, but I don't get the sense that the government is looking to destroy the company or Musk over an ill-advised tweet. A fine? Probably.

 

[bobandsherry]

That sounds like it may have been specific to that case and I'm betting they needed a court order to do it.

No question Tesla has a lot of head winds and those who will short the stock, but I don't get the sense that the government is looking to destroy the company or Musk over an ill-advised tweet. A fine? Probably.

I guess you have more insight than Lutz, he's just some know nothing.

 

[Running_Man]

I guess you have more insight than Lutz, he's just some know nothing.

Bob Lutz came in to Exide in 1999 after previous management had been forced out by the SEC investigation for fraud (exide sold reconditioned batteries as brand new under the Sears label)

By 2002 Lutz had bankrupted Exide by adding 2.4 billion in debt to buy companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exide

Then at GM in 2008 - No possibility of GM bankruptcy https://www.motortrend.com/news/lutz-no-seriously-bankruptcy-not-an-option-for-gm-2668/
Of course in 2009: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-06-01/gm-files-for-bankruptcybusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

he pretty much is sure of himself but I think most of his ideas do not work out for investors. I give him a zero for credibility and ignore him.

 

[bobandsherry]

Bob Lutz came in to Exide in 1999 after previous management had been forced out by the SEC investigation for fraud (exide sold reconditioned batteries as brand new under the Sears label)

By 2002 Lutz had bankrupted Exide by adding 2.4 billion in debt to buy companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exide

Then at GM in 2008 - No possibility of GM bankruptcy https://www.motortrend.com/news/lutz-no-seriously-bankruptcy-not-an-option-for-gm-2668/
Of course in 2009: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2009-06-01/gm-files-for-bankruptcybusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

he pretty much is sure of himself but I think most of his ideas do not work out for investors. I give him a zero for credibility and ignore him.

I guess you can ignore his other positions to make your point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lutz_(businessman)

• General Motors—Lutz began his automotive career at GM in September 1963, where he held senior leadership positions in Europe until December 1971.
• BMW—1971 to 1974, executive vice president of Global Sales and Marketing at BMW in Munich, and a member of that company's board of management.
• Ford—1974 to 1986, where his last position was executive vice president of truck operations. He also served as chairman of Ford of Europe and as executive vice president of Ford International Operations (1982–86), as well as a member, Ford board of directors (1982–86).
• Executive at Chrysler Corporation—1986 to 1998. Lutz began his service with Chrysler in 1986 as executive vice president and was shortly thereafter elected to the Chrysler Corporation board. Lutz led all of Chrysler's automotive activities, including sales, marketing, product development, manufacturing, and procurement and supply. Lutz also served as president and chief operating officer, responsible for Chrysler's car and truck operations worldwide.
• CEO of Exide—1998 to 2002. Lutz was chairman and chief executive officer of Exide Technologies. He served as chairman until his resignation on May 17, 2002, and as a member of Exide's board of directors until May 5, 2004.
• General Motors 2001 to 2010. Lutz rejoined GM on September 1, 2001, as vice chairman of Product Development. On November 13, 2001, he was named chairman of GM North America and served in that capacity until April 4, 2005, when he assumed responsibility for Global Product Development. He also served as President of GM Europe on an interim basis from March to June 2004. On April 1, 2009, Lutz was named vice chairman/senior advisor providing strategic input into GM's Global Design and Key Product initiatives, a position he held until retirement at the end of 2009. He agreed to join the new GM at his current position. On July 23, 2009, he was appointed vice chairman, marketing and communications, and on December 4, 2009, named vice chairman, special advisor design and global product development.[5] On May 1, 2010, Lutz retired from GM; but was retained again by GM in September 2011.[14]
• Lutz Communications 2010 to present. Founder and head of Lutz Communication, which he describes as "a universal business consulting firm with an emphasis on businesses in motion."[15]
• VIA Motors 2011 to present. Joined as chairman of the board.
• VLF Automotive 2013 to present. Founded the company alongside Gilbert Villereal.

Not a fanboy of Lutz, but let's be real. When you are handed a company in trouble like Exide and then GM, sometimes you can fix what has been severely broken.

Let's not pretend that GM was a thriving operation prior to the BK. Decades of bad decisions drove GM into the ground, 2008 crash was just the final straw the broke the camels back. And GM BK was best thing for the company. Personally, I don't like it and refuse to buy a GM product ever again because they took the easy way out (Chrysler too) while Ford stuck to their plan and survived without any bailout. We see though there Ford is today, so maybe they weren't the smart ones. But the GM BK did reset all the debt burden, got the union to concede on wages, etc.

https://www.moneycrashers.com/general-motors-gm-bankruptcy-timeline-future/

 

[oneill225]

I guess you have more insight than Lutz, he's just some know nothing.

I did not disagree with Lutz concerning his experience. I disagree with the suggestion that Tesla is prohibited from raising capital. That is just incorrect from what I have seen.

 

[NW-Bound]

So much of Musk's pain is self-inflicted.

I find it funny, but then I am not a Tesla investor. Not shorting it either, so if Tesla goes belly-up I am not going to say that I could foresee it.

This world is full of perplexing surprises. So many twists and turns to make life interesting.

 

[ERD50]

Just one of the reasons why Tesla and EVs are the future:

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

So EV's reduce CO2 by HALF or more on a national average, even with the current mix of clean/dirty electricity generation? Wow!

Not according to the NAS report I quoted earlier (post #377). EV on grid average is about the same as an old hybrid for CO2.

And of course, CO2 isn't the only thing environmentalists are worried about, so the 'air quality' has to be looked at too.

But again, averages aren't the issue. Where do we get the additional kWh for charging EVs? If all from NG, it looks pretty good, but not overwhelmingly so. And if we have lots of EVs (the only way they can make much of a difference), we have a lot of added demand. I bet grid operators will keep their remaining coal plants running a bit higher through the night to supply that demand, as that is the cheapest fossil fuel. Even a little coal in the marginal mix throws that graph for EVs way out of whack.

Can we keep this thread on Tesla?

Well, Tesla uses environmental issues as a selling point for their cars (and misrepresents some of them). They sell products for storing renewable energy, and solar PV products. It's all about Tesla (the company).

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, Tesla uses environmental issues as a selling point for their cars (and misrepresents some of them). They sell products for storing renewable energy, and solar PV products. It's all about Tesla (the company).

-ERD50

I thought so, but many readers want the direct answer to the question: Tesla is going down the chute or not? And the answer is not easy to find. I never bought Amazon, because I did not think a retailer could become that big. What do I know?

We may have forgotten the OP, who asked if he should buy more Tesla. I don't think he has made another post to this thread since that post #1 in April 2017.

The stock market is weird. People can make money if they guess correctly how the "other guys" value the stock. And Tesla/Musk has so many supporters. This is so interesting to watch, as so many headlines of financial Web sites are about Tesla and Musk.

I have no interest in cars, not just EVs, and I am now hooked.

 

[oneill225]

Not according to the NAS report I quoted earlier (post #377). EV on grid average is about the same as an old hybrid for CO2.
Well, Tesla uses environmental issues as a selling point for their cars (and misrepresents some of them). They sell products for storing renewable energy, and solar PV products. It's all about Tesla (the company).

The 2014 study you reference is also questionable. Among the challenges to the methodology are the following:
"The article’s grid average assumes a 2020 scenario, in which 10% of national miles driven are electric, powered by a 45% coal grid. The authors call it an “aggressive but plausible” assumption. In fact, it is physically impossible."

Do you believe that the current electric grid across the country is 45% coal?

 

[ERD50]

The 2014 study you reference is also questionable. Among the challenges to the methodology are the following:
"The article’s grid average assumes a 2020 scenario, in which 10% of national miles driven are electric, powered by a 45% coal grid. The authors call it an “aggressive but plausible” assumption. In fact, it is physically impossible."

Do you believe that the current electric grid across the country is 45% coal?

I couldn't find the reference to 45% coal in that document. Ahh, this must be what you were reading, a separate PNAS response to that article (be nice if you included links when you quote something, especially if the quote isn't from the document we are talking about!):

Electric vehicle footprint analysis is misleading | PNAS

But I don't have access to the backup documents, so who knows?

Regardless, as I've pointed out a dozen times by now, averages are not meaningful. EVs would be added demand, so the only thing that matters is how that added demand is met.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

Regardless, as I've pointed out a dozen times by now, averages are not meaningful. EVs would be added demand, so the only thing that matters is how that added demand is met.

Averages are the best way to justify EV emissions compared to ICE/hybrid emissions across the country. If you are relying on almost half of the grid being powered by coal then obviously ICE will look much more competitive. In reality coal accounts for less than 30% of the electric grid and the percentage is going down every year.

The following source shows EVs are the least polluting way to drive using the current grid. That advantage will continue to grow as natural gas and RE electric generation replaces the older plants. By the way, this site allows you to break down the comparisons by state.

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

 

[ERD50]

Averages are the best way to justify EV emissions compared to ICE/hybrid emissions across the country. ...https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

I've already explained a dozen times why that is not so. You haven't provided a counter to show me how that would be wrong, you just keep repeating that it is wrong. Any reference that uses grid averages isn't capturing the issue. Think marginal tax rates versus average tax rates. Which one do you use (correctly!) to figure the effect on additional income? You'd fire an accountant that used the wrong number. Don't be blinded by (EV) love!

I don't think a 13th time will help.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Separately. I had a bit more to say on RE and storage, and I decided to put that in the other thread:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/solar-wind-renewable-energy-92910.html#post2110863

Some (somewhat - depending on your view) positive ramblings on renewable energy....

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

After all this Tesla talk, I'm going out and buying a BMW convertible and have some fun. (it doesn't seem like anyone else here is having much of it)

 

[ERD50]

After all this Tesla talk, I'm going out and buying a BMW convertible and have some fun. (it doesn't seem like anyone else here is having much of it)

Aww, this is fun! But I'm with you anyhow - time for some different fun!


-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

After all this Tesla talk, I'm going out and buying a BMW convertible and have some fun. (it doesn't seem like anyone else here is having much of it)

Cars are energy hogs, whether they run on charged batteries or gasoline or diesel.

The world would be a better place if more people took public transit.

 

[Chuckanut]

More news on the Model 3. It seems to be a very safe automobile. How it compares to other autos in the same price range (50K, not 35K, IMHO), well, I am not sure, but there seem to be a lot of cars with mostly 5 stars. Also a lot of cars that have not been tested.

https://electrek.co/2018/09/20/tesla-model-3-5-star-safety-rating-nhtsa/

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has released its safety rating for the Tesla Model 3 today and the electric vehicle has gotten a perfect 5-star safety rating in every category.

 

[ERD50]

More news on the Model 3. It seems to be a very safe automobile. ...

Well that is good news, I would think. Yet, the market is up today, and TSLA is down today. I don't see any other Tesla news. Seems odd.

Oh well, the longer term is the more important, but it did just seem odd that good news didn't drive a bump up today. Would it have dropped far lower w/o that good news? Who knows?

-ERD50

 

[bobandsherry]

Well that is good news, I would think. Yet, the market is up today, and TSLA is down today. I don't see any other Tesla news. Seems odd.

Oh well, the longer term is the more important, but it did just seem odd that good news didn't drive a bump up today. Would it have dropped far lower w/o that good news? Who knows?

-ERD50

You know like I do, market doesn't care about safety ratings unless that translates into bigger bottom line. In this case each safe vehicle Tesla sells adds to a bottom line loss. So until Tesla can sell those high rated vehicles and add to profits these types of stories will just get "crickets" from the market. And unless Tesla can squeeze several grand in production cost savings, the only other option is increase prices... Which is counter to the story of a $35k car that Musk has been talking about for years. So yep, huge upswing in market and Tesla sucks it on the bottom.