Thoughts on TESLA

[bobandsherry]

You quite easily can beat it, you say?

Tell us how you get free gasoline?

My vehicle was fueled for free at the supercharger.

I'll make a wild prediction: You won't type "You're right Mr, Tightwad". Instead, you'll continue to pay for your gasoline, and somehow justify to yourself how paying for smelly gasoline "beats" getting free electricity.

If you justify the price you paid for your car by getting free fill-up, then you are right Mr. Tightwad. But you pay more for your car in monthly depreciation than I do. So you have "paid" something, just consider it pre-paid. I'd place a bet that when you look at the cost of your car's monthly depreciation and what I'm paying plus the cost of gas, it's largely a push at best. And since I believe you paid cash, I can make a better point that the amount you lost on market returns you are in the hole. I'd bet that over a 10 year period my "costs" would be less than yours.

Additionally, I'm just going to remind you that you are currently getting government subsidy on your cost of fill-up (nothing in life, especially when the government is involved, is free). You are also not paying for the roads you use as you aren't paying the tax that's included in the gas price. At some point your "free" charging is going to cost you something and I'll make a prediction that in the end it will cost more than gasoline.

I'll also say that you give up some of your freedom as to where you want to drive, and when, just to get your "free" fill-up. In relative $$, what I pay for fuel is minuscule, I can easily afford that with trade off of doing what I want and without any delay. As I pointed out before, a trip just to visit my son would easily add 4 hours to a 18 hour trip. Additional time with family = priceless.

 

[Ready]

I usually refrain from arguing about this stuff since I fully understand that no one type of car is right for everyone and I never tell someone to buy an EV if it’s not the right choice for them. But this argument is so silly that I can’t resist responding to it.

If you justify the price you paid for your car by getting free fill-up, then you are right Mr. Tightwad. But you pay more for your car in monthly depreciation than I do. So you have "paid" something, just consider it pre-paid. I'd place a bet that when you look at the cost of your car's monthly depreciation and what I'm paying plus the cost of gas, it's largely a push at best.

Are we comparing apples to apples here or are you comparing your used and heavily depreciated car to his brand new one? At some point you are going to need a new car too, no? And then your new car will experience the same depreciation as his.


And since I believe you paid cash, I can make a better point that the amount you lost on market returns you are in the hole. I'd bet that over a 10 year period my "costs" would be less than yours.

What relevance does that have to anything being discussed here? Regardless of what type of car you purchase you can decide to pay cash or finance and keep your money invested.

Additionally, I'm just going to remind you that you are currently getting government subsidy on your cost of fill-up (nothing in life, especially when the government is involved, is free). You are also not paying for the roads you use as you aren't paying the tax that's included in the gas price. At some point your "free" charging is going to cost you something and I'll make a prediction that in the end it will cost more than gasoline.

So what? The government incentivizes behavior. They want cars that don’t create toxic fumes for all of us to breath so they create incentives for people to purchase cars that don’t. So yes, EV drivers make the air easier to breath while gasoline powered vehicles pay a tax for not doing so.

I'll also say that you give up some of your freedom as to where you want to drive, and when, just to get your "free" fill-up. In relative $$, what I pay for fuel is minuscule, I can easily afford that with trade off of doing what I want and without any delay. As I pointed out before, a trip just to visit my son would easily add 4 hours to a 18 hour trip. Additional time with family = priceless.

Fair point if relevant, but most of us don’t regularly go on 18 hours drives. Even when be both owned ICE vehicles if we had an occasional long distance drive we always rented a car anyway because rental cars are incredibly cheap so why put thousands of miles on my car to save $20/day.

I’m not sure why this thread has turned into a 153 page rant on why you should or shouldn’t own an EV. If an EV is not the right car for you then don’t buy one, but no need to belittle those people who do choose to own them.

 

[bobandsherry]

I usually refrain from arguing about this stuff since I fully understand that no one type of car is right for everyone and I never tell someone to buy an EV if it’s not the right choice for them. But this argument is so silly that I can’t resist responding to it.

I’m not sure why this thread has turned into a 153 page rant on why you should or shouldn’t own an EV. If an EV is not the right car for you then don’t buy one, but no need to belittle those people who do choose to own them.

Quick points.
- My ride is not old, piece of junk. It's 2017 Lincoln MKC Reserve, fully loaded (just about everything except the Black Label service).

- Cost of loss on investments is relevant when you consider various options to pay for your vehicle, loan, lease, cash. When considering leasing, auto manufacturers give incentives in the terms. Paying cash is a loss on investment opportunities that I can easily offset with making the right terms on leasing.

- Cars are much cleaner today than they have ever been. Cars, well transportation itself, accounts for the smallest portion of air pollution. Transportation accounts for lower amount of pollution than electricity. So if you want to make a point that EV is cleaner, when you consider the pollution that electricity creates today, well it's just going to get worse by driving more EV's. Source: Air Pollution

- Please point out any post where someone has belittled someone for owning an EV. I know I haven't done that and don't recall anyone doing that.

 

[oneill225]

- Cars are much cleaner today than they have ever been. Cars, well transportation itself, accounts for the smallest portion of air pollution. Transportation accounts for lower amount of pollution than electricity. So if you want to make a point that EV is cleaner, when you consider the pollution that electricity creates today, well it's just going to get worse by driving more EV's.

Not even close. Some hybrids compete with full EV when coal is used to power the plants, but full EV is the winner by a long-shot compared to ICE cars/trucks. This is the best and most current analysis that I have found on the topic: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

 

[bobandsherry]

Not even close. Some hybrids compete with full EV when coal is used to power the plants, but full EV is the winner by a long-shot compared to ICE cars/trucks. This is the best and most current analysis that I have found on the topic: https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

Another viewpoint:

Electric vehicles’ engines don’t churn out polluting fumes, making them the obvious choice for improving local air quality in towns and cities. But although they have the potential to drastically cut pollution, they are only as green as the electricity they run on. Given that most electricity globally is still produced by burning fossil fuels, charging an electric car can indirectly generate similar amounts of greenhouse gases to a petrol-powered vehicle, particularly in countries that rely heavily on coal power. As the world embraces renewable energy, electric cars will increasingly gain the upper hand in years to come.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/will-electric-cars-reduce-pollution/

And yet another:

And as for that electric car: The energy doesn’t come from nowhere. Cars are charged from the nation’s electrical grid, which means that they’re only as “clean” as America’s mix of power sources. Those are getting cleaner, but we still generate power mainly by burning fossil fuels: natural gas is our biggest source of electricity, and is projected to increase. And coal, while still declining, will remain the second largest source of electricity for some time. (Third is nuclear power, which doesn’t generate emissions but has other byproducts that worry some environmentalists.) Even with large increases in wind and solar generation, the EIA projects that the nation’s electric generating mix will be just 30% renewable by 2030. Based on that forecast, if the EIA’s projected number of electric vehicles were replaced with new internal combustion vehicles, air pollution would actually decrease—and this holds true even if you include the emissions from oil refineries that manufacture gasoline.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

 

[eroscott]

Model 3 is making a splash in some countries now that deliveries have started. Norway below.

Has anyone followed the China related twitter account I pointed out? Not a bad think to have a country 3+ times the population of the USA excited about electric cars.

Via:
https://ofv.no/registreringsstatist...VehicleCategory=Personbiler&selectedYear=2019

 

[oneill225]

Another viewpoint:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/will-electric-cars-reduce-pollution/
And yet another:
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660

Weak. As I said, this is the best and most current analysis that I have seen concerning vehicle emissions:

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

If you justify the price you paid for your car by getting free fill-up, then you are right Mr. Tightwad. But you pay more for your car in monthly depreciation than I do. So you have "paid" something, just consider it pre-paid. I'd place a bet that when you look at the cost of your car's monthly depreciation and what I'm paying plus the cost of gas, it's largely a push at best. And since I believe you paid cash, I can make a better point that the amount you lost on market returns you are in the hole. I'd bet that over a 10 year period my "costs" would be less than yours.

Additionally, I'm just going to remind you that you are currently getting government subsidy on your cost of fill-up (nothing in life, especially when the government is involved, is free). You are also not paying for the roads you use as you aren't paying the tax that's included in the gas price. At some point your "free" charging is going to cost you something and I'll make a prediction that in the end it will cost more than gasoline.

I'll also say that you give up some of your freedom as to where you want to drive, and when, just to get your "free" fill-up. In relative $$, what I pay for fuel is minuscule, I can easily afford that with trade off of doing what I want and without any delay. As I pointed out before, a trip just to visit my son would easily add 4 hours to a 18 hour trip. Additional time with family = priceless.

I did pay cash.

Government subsidy on filling up? How so?

And if your costs are less than mine, and that's the car purchasing criteria to live by, we should all climb into Nissan Versa's to save $.

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

I usually refrain from arguing about this stuff since I fully understand that no one type of car is right for everyone and I never tell someone to buy an EV if it’s not the right choice for them. But this argument is so silly that I can’t resist responding to it.




I’m not sure why this thread has turned into a 153 page rant on why you should or shouldn’t own an EV. If an EV is not the right car for you then don’t buy one, but no need to belittle those people who do choose to own them.

Best post of 2019.

We should all ask ourselves a question. Why would a grown man spend his time and energy to post daily a new link in an effort to convince others how bad EV's are, how much they pollute, how many Tesla employees leave, how the companies future is fraught with peril, etc.

Ready's comment is perfect. If you don't plan on buying an EV, don't buy one. So the question remains. Why put so much DAILY effort into attempts to convince others that the stock price is going down?

Could it be a sympathetic former oil and gas employee? Probably not.

Could it be someone who hates EV drivers? I say no.

Could it be someone who is shorting TSLA stock? HMM, I think we have a winner. So much effort placed into daily posts, trying to influence others on why Tesla/EV's are no bueno. Because if the stock goes down, the shorts make money. Thats what I see occurring here.

And there absolutely has been posts belittling and mocking Oneil, Ready, Eroscott and myself.

 

[Totoro]

Another viewpoint

You shared opinions, not facts or fact-based analysis. Note two specific things:
* First article: "As the world embraces renewable energy, electric cars will increasingly gain the upper hand in years to come." One shouldn't compare on the current electricity mix, but on the average future one over the lifetime of the car. It's right there in the article.
* Second article: Pollution is referred to as particulate matter only, not CO2.

That second part likely references this report:
https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-JL-0518-v2.pdf

Particulate matter is basically a consequence of dirty coal plants. In fact, new generation capacity (gas AND coal) has virtually no particulate matter, per that report. Which begs the question: why are we allowing current power plants to pollute more than the average car? It's certainly cheaper to fix a centralized power plant vs. an average car, no?

 

[aja8888]

Particulate matter is basically a consequence of dirty coal plants. In fact, new generation capacity (gas AND coal) has virtually no particulate matter, per that report. Which begs the question: why are we allowing current power plants to pollute more than the average car? It's certainly cheaper to fix a centralized power plant vs. an average car, no?

On the bold question above: No, "fixing" old power plants may cost hundreds of millions of dollars for ESP's, scrubbers, etc. Revamping old coal burning technology is not a straightforward fix.

Modern coal plants and those with particulate scrubbers, emit less PM than older plants. Gasoline powered cars, on the other hand, have only been historically regulated for VOC and nitrogen (oxides) compounds to reduce Ozone. PM has not been an issue of strict regulation for auto emissions. That is changing.

However, it is my understanding that the Clean Air Act Amendments of a few years ago will be addressing PM in gasoline vehicles. This will eventually require complicated systems of particulate filters on those cars at an added cost to the buyer. Modern diesels have such particulate filters and also SCR NOx controls, depending on the class of vehicle and which set of rules it needs to meet.

So PM control is coming for gasoline vehicles. And shutting down old coal plants will be done, but bear in mind it will be very costly and create significant job losses, which is not a popular thing to do these days.

Life in the power world would be better in the U.S. if nuclear power plants were accepted without long delays in getting permits to construct and approving optimum locations for the plants.

 

[Totoro]

$300 million USD retrofit for a 1 million kW (1.000 MW) plant would be $300 USD per kW. That's 3 cents or so per kWh after one year of non-stop running, or less than a cent per kWh over the plant remaining life.

Did it quick and dirty, so the math may be off, but it seems not cost prohibitive?

Certainly compared to the hundreds if not thousand USD to install and maintain said filters on ICE cars.

 

[Ready]

Quick points.
- My ride is not old, piece of junk. It's 2017 Lincoln MKC Reserve, fully loaded (just about everything except the Black Label service).

- Cost of loss on investments is relevant when you consider various options to pay for your vehicle, loan, lease, cash. When considering leasing, auto manufacturers give incentives in the terms. Paying cash is a loss on investment opportunities that I can easily offset with making the right terms on leasing.

Are you suggesting that you will experience less depreciation by leasing a Lincoln MKC every three years versus owning a Tesla Model 3 long term? I’d like to see what figures you are basing that on.

I also don’t understand the pollution argument. I need $8.00 worth of electricity to charge my battery, which gives me 325 miles of range. If the Lincoln averages 25mpg, it will require 13 gallons of gas to drive 325 miles. Are you suggesting that generating $8.00 worth of electricity will create as much pollution as burning 13 gallons of gasoline? If so, I’d like to see how you calculate that.

 

[aja8888]

$300 million USD retrofit for a 1 million kW (1.000 MW) plant would be $300 USD per kW. That's 3 cents or so per kWh after one year of non-stop running, or less than a cent per kWh over the plant remaining life.

Did it quick and dirty, so the math may be off, but it seems not cost prohibitive?

Certainly compared to the hundreds if not thousand USD to install and maintain said filters on ICE cars.

I think the big difference is the power companies can't justify the cost (they have to make money, you know). Now if federal or state air regulations require and upgrade, I'm guessing the cost can be passed along in fees to power users.

With cars, the buyers of the cars eat the cost of the PM control. No big deal there...that kind of thing has been happening for decades.

 

[bobandsherry]

Are you suggesting that you will experience less depreciation by leasing a Lincoln MKC every three years versus owning a Tesla Model 3 long term? I’d like to see what figures you are basing that on.

Sure - I'm paying $375/mo on my lease. MSRP was around $45,000. That comes then with $0 in any maintenance costs. Rinse and repeat for next car (figure maybe 5-7% increase in payment).

Tesla not leasing the Model 3 yet, but if Model S is any indicator, the Model 3 will lease for much more than the MKC. Here's what Tesla is leasing the Model S for:

Model S - $85,000 MSRP leases for $1,110/mo, or pay 47% of MSRP after 3 years. (side note, Model X is pretty similar).

Extrapolate for Model 3 (Long Range model - $44,500 cost) will lease for $580/mo ($44,500 *.47 / 36). Significantly more than my payment. Over 3 years that's $7,380 more in payments - and I won't save that much in fuel to cover that additional cost.

 

[Ready]

Sure - I'm paying $375/mo on my lease. MSRP was around $45,000. That comes then with $0 in any maintenance costs. Rinse and repeat for next car (figure maybe 5-7% increase in payment).

Tesla not leasing the Model 3 yet, but if Model S is any indicator, the Model 3 will lease for much more than the MKC. Here's what Tesla is leasing the Model S for:

Model S - $85,000 MSRP leases for $1,110/mo, or pay 47% of MSRP after 3 years. (side note, Model X is pretty similar).

Extrapolate for Model 3 (Long Range model - $44,500 cost) will lease for $580/mo ($44,500 *.47 / 36). Significantly more than my payment. Over 3 years that's $7,380 more in payments - and I won't save that much in fuel to cover that additional cost.

That’s not what I said. You were comparing leasing to owning, not leasing a Ford to leasing a Tesla. A Tesla Model 3 is $37.5K for SR+ with comparable features to your Ford, or $44.5K for the Long Range Model. Tax credits and incentives in place total $7,250, bringing the net before taxes to almost $30K or $37K. The car will easily last six years and will still have residual value after six years of approximately 35%. Use those numbers to do your analysis. And use 2019 Ford pricing, not 2017.

 

[bobandsherry]

That’s not what I said. You were comparing leasing to owning, not leasing a Ford to leasing a Tesla. A Tesla Model 3 is $37.5K for SR+ with comparable features to your Ford, or $44.5K for the Long Range Model. Tax credits and incentives in place total $7,250, bringing the net before taxes to almost $30K or $37K. The car will easily last six years and will still have residual value after six years of approximately 35%. Use those numbers to do your analysis. And use 2019 Ford pricing, not 2017.

Comparing leases is a good indicator of total costs, don't ya think? Both manufacturers then factor in the depreciation over the same period.

Going down your path, you make an assumption of the residual value. You then also ignore either the cost of a loan or loss opportunity of having those funds invested, low risk.

We'll then have to agree on what type of maintenance cost would have to be included with owning a Tesla for 6 years. Do we include the maintenance plan costs? What about other costs such as new set of tires? What else will Model 3 require in 6 years ownership?

Additionally I don't have current lease terms for what current MKC would go for post negotiated terms, so another assumption. Based on what I can see with MF and residual value I would expect to be very similar, but who knows.

Doesn't sound like a productive effort on my part as I've already done very similar analysis as I make my decision to buy or lease my vehicle.

 

[Ready]

Comparing leases is a good indicator of total costs, don't ya think? Both manufacturers then factor in the depreciation over the same period.

No, I don’t. You are attempting to compare a Tesla, the number one selling luxury sedan in the country last year, to a Ford that you bought in 2017 at a time when they had to come up with unrealistically high residual values to get the lease payments to those numbers. The only reason a manufacturer discounts a lease so heavily is because they can’t sell the model at the full price. Anyone can find a bargain lease deal on a car that nobody wants and make it look favorable to the figures of a car that is in high demand. What’s the point of doing so?

 

[bobandsherry]

No, I don’t. You are attempting to compare a Tesla, the number one selling luxury sedan in the country last year, to a Ford that you bought in 2017 at a time when they had to come up with unrealistically high residual values to get the lease payments to those numbers. The only reason a manufacturer discounts a lease so heavily is because they can’t sell the model at the full price. Anyone can find a bargain lease deal on a car that nobody wants and make it look favorable to the figures of a car that is in high demand. What’s the point of doing so?

Thanks for your assessment, guess we'll just agree we won't agree and move on.

So shall I assume you are heavily invested in Tesla? Or are you more intrigued by the product and less in the company?

 

[Ready]

I have no interest in owning any individual stocks. Index funds only. But I do appreciate great products.

 

[eroscott]

Look at the 1st three entries in this new Tesla thread. These new stories are being told daily.

 

[Totoro]

I think the big difference is the power companies can't justify the cost (they have to make money, you know). Now if federal or state air regulations require and upgrade, I'm guessing the cost can be passed along in fees to power users.

Car makers and power companies both only do this when they are forced, both need to make money to survive, so both pass costs through. So why are we choosing to force one sets of standards on one group and not the other?


And if we do, it seems a bit odd to consequently claim electric cars do not reduce PM. Inconsistent policies do that in this case it seems.

 

[eroscott]

Other car makers are reacting to the inevitable. This is the Tesla Model Y and X response. My Tesla X is about the Explorer size. I think the Tesla Y would be about the Ford Escape and 'Mustang CUV' size.

2020 Ford Explorer PHEV Revealed With 25 Miles Of Electric Range
https://insideevs.com/2020-ford-explorer-plug-in-hybrid-revealed/

2020 Ford Escape Brings With It A Plug-In Hybrid Option
https://insideevs.com/2020-ford-escapeplug-in-hybrid/

Ford Confirms Mustang-Inspired Electric SUV Goes 370 Miles Per Charge (not EPA but WLTP)
https://insideevs.com/ford-mustang-electric-suv-370-miles-range/

 

[Ready]

I have not seen any other car manufacturer address how they are going to compete with Tesla’s massive Supercharger network. Who is going to buy an EV from a company that doesn’t have the ability to recharge quickly during long distance trips?

 

[eroscott]

I have not seen any other car manufacturer address how they are going to compete with Tesla’s massive Supercharger network. Who is going to buy an EV from a company that doesn’t have the ability to recharge quickly during long distance trips?

Two of the above are Plug-In Hybrids Electric Veh (PHEV) so they will plug into your garage outlet overnight. Heck, our two Volts plug into 120v plugs in our garage and are charged by morning just like the above two Fords would be.

There are numerous players in this market and the other companies are hoping they will make it happen. Biggest on is Electrify America born out of VW fines.

However, there are many reliability problems at his point with them, much smaller number of pedestals per site, and inoperability of a billing system.

I'm a planner and have traveled like 25K-30K in my Tesla. A website will let me do basic planning, then I just get in the car and say: "Navigate to <destination 300+ miles away" -- it then figures the route automatically and sets waypoints with a length of time to charge at each one plus about a 10% buffer.