Thoughts on TESLA

[corn18]

I've got some good marijuana stocks for you, Corn.

Now that's something I can get behind.

 

[NW-Bound]

Of course, these sorts of rough calculations are open to all sorts of alternative and mitigating effects. But they do help give us a sense of scale of the problem.

But you did leave out a HUGE factor - those batteries, going through heavy daily use, won't last so long. If we give a very generous 20 year life (assume improvements in battery tech), you only get ~ 7% of our needs covered, before the whole output of the largest building in the world has to start replacing the batteries it produced 20 years ago. Forever. You can't get there from here!

I did some rough calcs that indicated replacing every coal plant in IL with solar/batteries would cost the average IL household something like $500 a month, ongoing (so includes battery replacement). And they'd still need to buy the ~ 65% of the electricity not provided by coal.

I'm with samclem on this one. I do think that technology and conservation will come to the rescue. Yes, prices are likely to increase, but I expect it to be manageable.

Unfortunately, I just don't see any large scale storage that is viable, not even the 'far out' future ideas, even if you give them a huge does of optimism. But RE can supplement the grid, and future nukes can help, and maybe things we have not thought of?

-ERD50

When I showed that the Tesla plant will need 300 years to build enough batteries to store 1-day's worth of US electricity consumption, I knew someone would say "but these batteries do not last that long for us to accumulate them".

For batteries to be incorporated into the infrastructure, their price will have to drop, or the cost of the alternatives to rise for the two to match.

And when that happens, batteries will be a commodity that is continuously produced, rotated, and recycled. It's just like other materials that get spent, and discarded or recycled.

I guess that when fossil fuel runs out, some percentage of the world population would be employed to continually turn out solar cells and batteries to keep the others air-conditioned and enjoying the "ludicrous" acceleration of their EVs.

 

[ERD50]

Goodness, ERD50, always so negative. ...

Again, my comments aren't negative, they are factual. Don't shoot the messenger.

...

Tesla is working everyday to improve upon and mass market battery driven tech. Production, capacity, and cost are steadily improving over time and will, in fact, continue to do so whether by Tesla or others. Granted, batteries cannot solve all of our energy needs, today, but is that the standard by which we should judge this amazing company?...

No, of course not, and that is not what I am saying. I give these numbers to put scale to things. As I've said before, wind and solar are good as far as they go, but they only go so far. Musk says shut down refineries and we have all the electricity we need for EVs. That kind of BS needs to be countered by facts.

And look at all the politicians (any engineers?) claiming that they want their city to be 100% RE by 20xx (or already are!). That needs to be countered with facts - can we do it? How, At what cost? What are the real benefits? And their measure is warped. They still rely on the grid and their neighbors for their power. If everybody did it, there is no neighbor to rely on when the wind dies at night (w/o a LOT more infrastructure to bring the grid from far away, and that has its own environmental issues and costs). And most of those rely on hydro, which can't really be expanded in the US, and is questionable as an environmental plus.

Batteries will be applied to storage as they make sense, that's great. They have a place (see - positive!), but it is limited (fact).

.... Regarding investment, what is Tesla's competition going forward? Tesla has passed the experimental phase for me as an investor. Until I see serious competition from the likes of Ford and other battery producers, I will continue to believe that Tesla is in the early stages of being the next Amazon of battery/auto production.

If "reality" starts to indicate otherwise I will support the next leader in this inevitable shift. And, yes, the shift off of oil and gas is as inevitable as full marijuana legalization in the US. Just a matter of time. Get on board, my friend. The train is leaving the station.

OK, Tesla may become the leading battery producer, and that could be very good for them as a company. Hard to say. Also hard to say how they will do over the next 5~10 years as an auto manufacturer (yes, they have lots of competition coming on board there). Just going by gut feel, I think I'd take battery production as a better bet than car production. But I dunno, we will see.

Shift from oil and gas inevitable in what time frame? It appears to me that we will be using more gas (Natural gas) as we bring on more RE. I'll look at some numbers later, but I'm pretty sure that supplementing RE intermittency with an NG peaker plant is far more practical and cost effective than using batteries.

A grid operator has as much peak capacity as they envision they will need, and probably buffer that by X%. If you take a steady producing coal plant off-line and replace it with wind/solar, that grid operator needs to add more peaking capacity to their grid to maintain the same buffer against brownouts. That's simple arithmetic. And we just don't have the storage tech to do it, so NG will be the answer for decades. And grid infrastructure changes slowly, due to scale.

We are in good shape (see, positive!) when wind solar is at low levels, the grid can react/plan. But at higher levels, things have to give. So RE is not just the cost of RE (often touted as being cheaper than coal now), it is the cost of RE and the NG plant needed to back it up when output is low. That's not what we want to hear, but I don't see any way around it. Better to plan real solutions for that, than be fooled by politicians, Musk and well-meaning 'greenies'.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

We are in good shape (see, positive!) when wind solar is at low levels, the grid can react/plan. But at higher levels, things have to give. So RE is not just the cost of RE (often touted as being cheaper than coal now), it is the cost of RE and the NG plant needed to back it up when output is low. That's not what we want to hear, but I don't see any way around it. Better to plan real solutions for that, than be fooled by politicians, Musk and well-meaning 'greenies'.-ERD50

Love the positivity. Yes, we will need NG plants as a crutch. Good thing they are less polluting than millions of ICE (or even hybrid) cars/trucks. Incremental improvement is all I expect.
Buy Tesla.

 

[aja8888]

There was an interesting article in the WSJ (last week?) about all the natural gas from fracking that is being flared off because they have no way of storing or transporting it to where it can be used. Perhaps we should fix stupid things like that first, while we wait for EV tech to get better. Just a thought.

Having spent the last 30 years of my oil & gas career in the field solving issues such as what to do with natural gas that has no home at a well site (among other problems), let me assure you that the feds and state agencies are writing regs to address the management of flared natural gas. And they have been for decades.

Not that many wells are in this particular situation these days. Most of them are in North Dakota and areas of West Texas where no pipelines are in-place to transport the gas. However, if the state and federal environmental agencies would get off their dead asses and smooth out the pipeline permitting process, flaring gas would be reduced to only short and manageable periods during well construction and development.

It's getting better, but it's a cumbersome process and believe it or not, well owners would be more than happy to sell that flared gas rather than flare it.

 

[Texas Proud]

What do you think if Apple buys TSLA? Lets Elon out with a payday and puts management in place to run an actual company. Clark Howard brought this up recently. Sounds intriguing. Allows Apple to kick start the autonomous car program

This sounds like some stupid people throwing out stuff...


First, TSLA is way overvalued on any metric... to buy it you would need a premium on an already high price...



Second, even if run to make a profit it just does not have the margins that Apple would want...


Third, Apple can not give much value to TSLA and if you look at the first two TSLA cannot give much value to Apple...

 

[NW-Bound]

... look at all the politicians (any engineers?) claiming that they want their city to be 100% RE by 20xx (or already are!). That needs to be countered with facts - can we do it? How, At what cost? What are the real benefits? ...

I remember seeing the definition of engineering is the application of science to produce things of economic values. That is the main thing that separates science and engineering. A scientist is mainly concerned with knowing if something is possible. An engineer has to be more practical.

It is well-known that politicians are huge ignoramuses. Witness the craze about "solar roadways". Instead of using that money to build conventional solar plants which is a lot less expensive, some cities and towns spend money to do these silly things for publicity. If you point out the silliness, they will say that it is new and exciting, and the "way of the future", etc... I would not mind if they spend their own money, but to use public money?

PS. This strays from the topic, but this "solar roadway" is really out of this world. For example, it was proposed that the "smart road" could be heated to melt snow and ice in the winter. Good lord! While people are freezing to death, where do we get the power to heat the damn road? Have they looked at how much energy is needed to melt ice and snow on the road? Physically, it is of course possible. A child would know that heat turns ice and snow to water; the science was known to the caveman. An adult would ask how much power is needed, the cost for that power, and where to get it.

 

[oneill225]

It is well-known that politicians are huge ignoramuses. Witness the craze about "solar roadways". Instead of using that money to build conventional solar plants which is a lot less expensive, some cities and towns spend money to do these silly things for publicity. If you point out the silliness, they will say that it is new and exciting, and the "way of the future", etc... I would not mind if they spend their own money, but to use public money?

What is enlightened about pushing for solar plants that require natural gas or coal back-ups? The hard truth is that we are decades away from being able to rely primarily on solar and wind production in any form. Thank goodness that the current administration is open to more gas generated power. It is a bit ironic that those pushing solar over gas (today and for the near future) are actually slowing the transition to less polluting electric vehicles by straining the power grid with feel good solar plants.

 

[NW-Bound]

There are solar plants with built-in energy storage. They are just expensive. Not as expensive as "solar roadway", and they work.

It all comes down to money. If it weren't for money, we could all go to Mars.

 

[aja8888]

What is enlightened about pushing for solar plants that require natural gas or coal back-ups? The hard truth is that we are decades away from being able to rely primarily on solar and wind production in any form. Thank goodness that the current administration is open to more gas generated power. It is a bit ironic that those pushing solar over gas (today and for the near future) are actually slowing the transition to less polluting electric vehicles by straining the power grid with feel good solar plants.

One thing that is always overlooked when discussing replacing hydrocarbon based fuels is the huge tax revenue lost by state and federal governments in the process. Kind of makes sense that the politicians really don't want to see tax revenues go away for the sake of feel good electric power (generated or otherwise).

 

[ERD50]

Love the positivity. Yes, we will need NG plants as a crutch. Good thing they are less polluting than millions of ICE (or even hybrid) cars/trucks. Incremental improvement is all I expect.
Buy Tesla.

Ummm, go back and review my post #377. http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f44/thoughts-on-tesla-86202-2.html#post2105129

That shows that an EV on 100% NG is only marginally better for the environment than the hybrids of a few years back (article released in 2014, not sure what year vehicles they looked at). Hybrids have improved and continue to improve. Not sure how much and how fast co-gen is replacing older NG plants (a plus for the grid in terms of the environment and conservation), but it is no slam dunk that EVs are less polluting than hybrids.

They can co-exist. For people who don't have range issues, and/or just like EVs overall, they should just buy them (with their own money, and pay road taxes, and not get special lane usage, etc).

"Buy Tesla"? - you sound like a stock pumper, rather than someone interested in digging into the facts behind the issues surrounding the company and its products.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Having spent the last 30 years of my oil & gas career in the field solving issues such as what to do with natural gas that has no home at a well site (among other problems), let me assure you that the feds and state agencies are writing regs to address the management of flared natural gas. And they have been for decades.

Not that many wells are in this particular situation these days. Most of them are in North Dakota and areas of West Texas where no pipelines are in-place to transport the gas. However, if the state and federal environmental agencies would get off their dead asses and smooth out the pipeline permitting process, flaring gas would be reduced to only short and manageable periods during well construction and development.

It's getting better, but it's a cumbersome process and believe it or not, well owners would be more than happy to sell that flared gas rather than flare it.

And I suppose that some of those pipelines are being protested by 'environmentalists'? Another irony, they obstruct pipelines, and the result is more NG wasted and creating pollution with no benefit of power production. Reminds ne of the "no nukes" of the 80's.

I remember seeing the definition of engineering is the application of science to produce things of economic values. That is the main thing that separates science and engineering. A scientist is mainly concerned with knowing if something is possible. An engineer has to be more practical.

It is well-known that politicians are huge ignoramuses. Witness the craze about "solar roadways". Instead of using that money to build conventional solar plants which is a lot less expensive, some cities and towns spend money to do these silly things for publicity. If you point out the silliness, they will say that it is new and exciting, and the "way of the future", etc... I would not mind if they spend their own money, but to use public money?

PS. This strays from the topic, but this "solar roadway" is really out of this world. For example, it was proposed that the "smart road" could be heated to melt snow and ice in the winter. Good lord! While people are freezing to death, where do we get the power to heat the damn road? Have they looked at how much energy is needed to melt ice and snow on the road? Physically, it is of course possible. A child would know that heat turns ice and snow to water; the science was known to the caveman. An adult would ask how much power is needed, the cost for that power, and where to get it.

Good definition of engineering. Don't get me started on "Solar Roadways"! I'll just say they should release a new edition and add a chapter to the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" ( published in 1841).

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

One thing that is always overlooked when discussing replacing hydrocarbon based fuels is the huge tax revenue lost by state and federal governments in the process. Kind of makes sense that the politicians really don't want to see tax revenues go away for the sake of feel good electric power (generated or otherwise).

While I generally have extremely little confidence in our politicians, I am very confident they will find a new tax to replace any old tax revenues that are lost!

What else would they do, cut spending?

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

"Buy Tesla"? - you sound like a stock pumper, rather than someone interested in digging into the facts behind the issues surrounding the company and its products.-ERD50

That is the topic of this thread. Get off the fence.

 

[NW-Bound]

Not buying nor shorting Tesla here. I am still very interested in seeing battery price coming down. It's more important than EVs, whose economic feasibility all depends on the battery technology. EVs were first built a hundred years ago, running on lead-acid batteries. Nothing new here.

 

[aja8888]

And I suppose that some of those pipelines are being protested by 'environmentalists'? Another irony, they obstruct pipelines, and the result is more NG wasted and creating pollution with no benefit of power production. Reminds ne of the "no nukes" of the 80's.

-ERD50

I'm not talking about very large transmission lines which will be picketed against by the greenies. By that stage, they have passed the Environmental Assessment stage and have construction and operating permits. That's generally a 5+ year process.

What I mentioned was permitting related to gathering pipelines, which get held up in the permitting process for a couple of years without greenie involvement (in most cases). That's where the gas is flared; waiting for permit approval...aka, paperwork sitting on government desks getting dusty.

 

[oneill225]

Not buying nor shorting Tesla here. I am still very interested in seeing battery price coming down. It's more important than EVs, whose economic feasibility all depends on the battery technology. EVs were first built a hundred years ago, running on lead-acid batteries. Nothing new here.

Fair enough. Risk aversion can be a very good thing.

I bought Tesla stock based on the following:
1) The inevitable shift (ongoing and accelerating) to electric cars/trucks;
2) The current and growing demand for high capacity batteries; and,
3) Tesla's innovation, leadership and intellectual property related to 1 and 2, above.

I would not bet the farm on it, but the biggest returns will be had for those willing to get on board early. Think Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.

 

[dixonge]

Me: Hey, check out this interesting article about car batteries
You: Ha! This won't replace more than 2 days worth of coal power!
Me: Wait, I was talking about car batteries
You: The thread is about more than just cars


So you answer my questions about changing the subject by --- changing the subject. Again.


I wonder if you even have the capacity to see why that is very frustrating, and poor communication? You do know that topics can have sub-topics, right? If I started a completely new thread with that article, would you keep your responses more in line with the article, or would you still want to immediately broaden the topic to the entirety of powering the entire globe with renewable energy?

 

[ERD50]

That is the topic of this thread. Get off the fence.

What fence?

Is that the 'topic of this thread'? Only buy/sell? The title is pretty generic, it wasn't even "Thoughts on TSLA", which might indicate a focus on the stock itself. The first post was about the stock price, but I haven't seen the OP complain about the other info that could have an affect on the stock price. Or just makes for discussion.

My "Thoughts on TESLA", regarding the stock itself, are that I would neither buy nor short it (and I've lived up to that). I suppose there is some in my funds, that's OK.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

... Good definition of engineering. Don't get me started on "Solar Roadways"! I'll just say they should release a new edition and add a chapter to the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" ( published in 1841).

-ERD50

I spent most of my career in aerospace, where low-volume and high-cost attributes are the norm. I am now more interested and curious in high-volume products for the masses, because they have better potential for enhancing the life for more people.

Fair enough. Risk aversion can be a very good thing.

I bought Tesla stock based on the following:
1) The inevitable shift (ongoing and accelerating) to electric cars/trucks;
2) The current and growing demand for high capacity batteries; and,
3) Tesla's innovation, leadership and intellectual property related to 1 and 2, above.

I would not bet the farm on it, but the biggest returns will be had for those willing to get on board early. Think Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, etc.

I have to get past Musk's personality first.

I am more interested in the battery technology anyway, and there's no way to invest in that alone. Panasonic is building the cells for Tesla inside that factory, and the latter is doing the engineering to assemble them into packs. If Tesla bites the dust, Panasonic can take its secret sauce recipe elsewhere, so not all is lost.

 

[aja8888]

Thoughts on Tesla? (as a topic)

I wish them luck.
I won't buy the stock.
I won't by their bonds.
I won't buy their cars.
I think (my thought) Musk has lost his mind.
I Like their technology, especially with batteries.
The car itself? (any manufacturer can make it or better)

I'm done.

 

[ERD50]

Sorry dixonge, I guess you won't like this answer either...

Me: Hey, check out this interesting article about car batteries
You: Ha! This won't replace more than 2 days worth of coal power!
Me: Wait, I was talking about car batteries
You: The thread is about more than just cars


So you answer my questions about changing the subject by --- changing the subject. Again. ...

The article you linked was about the Gigafactory. I gave you a reference that Musk said that the Gigafactory also produces batteries for their Power products. So it isn't changing the subject, is it?

In fact, in the text of the article, before they even mention batteries for the Model 3, they state (emph mine):

Broadly speaking, Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy.

and further down:

we believe these batteries and further refinement will be the key to Tesla’s long-term success, both in the Model 3, as well as its other EV products.

... I wonder if you even have the capacity to see why that is very frustrating, and poor communication? You do know that topics can have sub-topics, right? If I started a completely new thread with that article, would you keep your responses more in line with the article, or would you still want to immediately broaden the topic to the entirety of powering the entire globe with renewable energy?

No, I don't understand. Because as I showed above, the article was not just about the Model 3, and neither is this thread.

So what would you like to talk about? I'm honestly confused by your replies here.

-ERD50

 

[dixonge]

I'm honestly confused by your replies here.

-ERD50

OK then. Thanks for your honesty.

 

[NW-Bound]

I won't buy their bonds...

Tesla has several bond issues. At least a couple of convertibles will need repayment soon, and the stock price is nowhere at the convertible price of $360. If it were, Tesla could just print stock certificates to repay the bonds I think. Now, it has to pay hard cash.

The most recently issued bond in 2017 (straight, not convertible), just one year ago, has a coupon rate of 5.3%. It recently drops to 87 cents on the dollar, and is said to have the yield same as that of JC Penney.

The stock price may be supported by Tesla enthusiasts, but the bond is priced more at arms length by institutional investors, who love only their money and not any company. It does not look good.

 

[oneill225]

What fence?
Is that the 'topic of this thread'? Only buy/sell? The title is pretty generic, it wasn't even "Thoughts on TSLA", which might indicate a focus on the stock itself. The first post was about the stock price, but I haven't seen the OP complain about the other info that could have an affect on the stock price. Or just makes for discussion.
My "Thoughts on TESLA", regarding the stock itself, are that I would neither buy nor short it (and I've lived up to that). I suppose there is some in my funds, that's OK.-ERD50

Happy to get into the broader subject matter (and I think we have), but you seemed a little put-off by the fact that I would recommend buying Tesla stock in a thread titled "Stock Picking and Market Strategy>Thoughts on Tesla". Good to hear that you have an opinion on the specific topic.

I do not expect to change your mind. I think the exchange of ideas on Tesla, Musk, and the underlying tech is useful and interesting. We seem to be arguing around the edges now, however. Time will tell on this one.