Anti-Tesla Gibberish

[aznt1217]

Elon Musk at D11 Conference

Hello All,

Not sure if this has been covered, but just wanted to make this known to you incase some of you didn't know. Elon is going to be speaking at D11. Wonder if this affects timing of the Supercharger Announcement-- like perhaps being announced tomorrow and interviewed about it on Wednesday...

D11 Schedule - AllThingsD

Links to Liveblog -- thanks to Brianstorms-- just figured I'd put it on first page.

The Verge

Engadget

 

[brianstorms]

The way things are typically done at D is you get billionaire executives to come out on stage, sit in one of the fancy Steelcase-sponsored chairs, and Kara Swisher and/or Walt Mossberg grill said billionare with questions using every maneuver they can muster to get the billionaire to trip up and say something revealing, new, embarrassing, (or, ideally, all three) that AllThingsD and WSJ can then use as media scoops.

It's not an ideal setting to make official announcements especially ones that the marketplace has been waiting for for weeks, as Walt and Kara do their damndest to get the newsmaker to screw up somehow and the gaffe becomes the news instead of the announcement.

Also, given the process Tesla has used in past announcements this year, namely, a conference call with an announcement followed by Q&A with analysts, I'm still expecting this to be the setting for the supercharger announcement.

 

[nygiants242]

The way things are typically done at D is you get billionaire executives to come out on stage, sit in one of the fancy Steelcase-sponsored chairs, and Kara Swisher and/or Walt Mossberg grill said billionare with questions using every maneuver they can muster to get the billionaire to trip up and say something revealing, new, embarrassing, (or, ideally, all three) that AllThingsD and WSJ can then use as media scoops.

It's not an ideal setting to make official announcements especially ones that the marketplace has been waiting for for weeks, as Walt and Kara do their damndest to get the newsmaker to screw up somehow and the gaffe becomes the news instead of the announcement.

Also, given the process Tesla has used in past announcements this year, namely, a conference call with an announcement followed by Q&A with analysts, I'm still expecting this to be the setting for the supercharger announcement.

Completely on point in every way. The conference just is not the setting for an announcement, given the Q&A nature of it. "Keynote" may throw others off as it could imply an Apple-esque presentation. This is not how it works, and I expect as brianstorms said for announcements to continue coming in the conference call format.

 

[aznt1217]

Completely on point in every way. The conference just is not the setting for an announcement, given the Q&A nature of it. "Keynote" may throw others off as it could imply an Apple-esque presentation. This is not how it works, and I expect as brianstorms said for announcements to continue coming in the conference call format.

Yes I agree, that's why I'm thinking it would be announced today? Or knowing Elon's ways, he would drop hints during the interview to build hype for the announcement.

 

[JRP3]

So you know the 2% value you used would be wrong for a Tesla Model S.

 

[jeffro01]

If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We'd All Save Some Money

I'm really getting sick of defending Tesla against hit pieces such as this one. I keep getting these anti-Tesla articles from "friends" of mine who think I'm some sort of elitist a-hole for supporting Tesla...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...ld-stop-selling-cars-wed-all-save-some-money/

Jeff

 

[Double00]

I read this article too and I get the same sorts of emails from my friends an family. Someone from Forbes should look into how much we'd all save if we remove ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil. Plus look at the articles this guy has written. He has a clear agenda against sustainable transport and climate change. This has hit piece written all over it and should be taken with a grain of salt. Just be thankful for your friend forwarding it to you because it's full of all the forthcoming foxnews talking points that the naysayers will reference.

Politicians aren't going to back the electrification of the transportation market. Consumers will have to bring about this change themselves with their pocket books. And these sorts of hit pieces will persist until tesla successfully rolls out a compelling successful genIII.

 

[AWDtsla]

So you know the 2% value you used would be wrong for a Tesla Model S.

I do... and despite being able to do the relative math in my head I actually did do the work and the numbers came out to exactly what I thought. The way this conversation is going I doubt showing you my math would help, so why don't you show me yours? The one where you calculate how it grows from the 2% for a PHEV20 in the study to something relevant in a 85kWh Tesla.

Go.

 

[ElSupreme]

We should probably stop producing food too. That costs a LOT!

But in all fairness Tesla producing cars did cost me a lot of money.

 

[dsm363]

Another in a long line of 'subsidies or tax credits we like are ok but not yours' articles.

 

[Dave EV]

We should probably stop producing food too. That costs a LOT!

Farmers do get a ton of subsidies...

 

[Zaxxon]

What I take away from this article are the comments--it's amazing how the average hit piece's commentor's position has moved more and more toward rebuttal via logic and reason than piling onto Tesla. Granted there's still a lot of gibberish out there, but going through the comments on this piece is refreshing. One that made me chuckle: "what is the [benefit] of having Patrick Michaels from the Cato Institute cover TSLA? This is like having Mayor Bloomberg work a soda fountain in NYC."

The public seems to be coming around.

 

[Electric700]

We shouldn't get too angry at these things. When people realize how much money you can save, and that each EV is helping to further reduce our dependence on foreign oil, they will hopefully start to see these are very good reasons for buying into the whole EV concept. It's just the tip of the iceberg though. There's the quietness, quick acceleration, elimination of energy costs to move oil from the drilling sites to the fuel pumps, and the list goes on...

 

[MarkH]

Agree w/ Electric700. The Model S is a killer product. There is no longer any need to worry about any of these impotent nabobs of negativity.

 

[jeff_adams]

Best comment on the article I saw:

"Instead of paying money towards these green energy credits why don’t we stop subsidizing oil? Than green energy could be naturally more competitive."

Yep, let's level the playing field and see what happens to Oil Company profits (and see what consumers will do when gas is over $12 a gallon.) Electric vehicle adoption will get really serious real fast....

 

[AnOutsider]

I like the comment about the folks that can afford cars like this (and get the tax credit), are typically the ones paying the most in taxes as well. I mentioned something along those lines when some.. ahem, gentleman, felt it necessary to point out that his tax dollars subsidized my car.

 

[Doug_G]

Another in a long line of 'subsidies or tax credits we like are ok but not yours' articles.

Yeah, but this really is a mindless waste of of resources:

Ethanol fuel in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

cumulative ethanol subsidies between 2005 and 2009 were US$17 billion

And the USA put a tariff on the import of ethanol to prevent Brazil from being competitive with what is widely recognized to be the only sustainable ethanol production in the world.

Ethanol fuel in Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

I like the comment about the folks that can afford cars like this (and get the tax credit), are typically the ones paying the most in taxes as well. I mentioned something along those lines when some.. ahem, gentleman, felt it necessary to point out that his tax dollars subsidized my car.

It seemed like ~80-90% of the comments in that article were extremely pro-Tesla. That is a 180 turnaround from what you used to see last year. Even articles posted on conservative sites are getting pushback now.

As to the substance of the article, there is little difference between the non-refundable tax credit that Tesla receives, and the favorable tax treatment that home ownership or health care or any number of other tax subsidies.

ZEV credits are different, because they are actually a penalty on automakers who aren't meeting the states emissions goals. Only some automakers need to even purchase ZEV credits, and none would if they would build and market a relatively minute number of EV's in California. Purchasing credits from Tesla is just one of a menu of choices they have to comply with the regulation. Same thing with the GHG and CAFE credits. Some automakers are avoiding extra charges by simply complying with the regulation.

As to the rest, a huge part of his argument rests on the false assumption that Tesla can only be profitable by selling credits. That will be disproven in future quarters.

 

[derekt75]

I do... and despite being able to do the relative math in my head I actually did do the work and the numbers came out to exactly what I thought. The way this conversation is going I doubt showing you my math would help, so why don't you show me yours? The one where you calculate how it grows from the 2% for a PHEV20 in the study to something relevant in a 85kWh Tesla.

Go.

I think JRP3 has demonstrated in the past that he's pretty fair, so I think it's a bit hasty to assume that your math won't help.

Furthermore, I think it's useful to be able to answer the question of how bad BEV production is for the environment. Folks like Petersen have been throwing out various numbers. We criticize many of the assumptions, but I haven't generally seen us produce a realistic quantitative response. JRP3 is quite right to point out that the "2%" from the study is not very well applicable to the Model S battery.
The linked study asserts that the Nissan Leaf battery will cost 500% more energy to produce than the batter that they studied (which I think is 6X, no?). Model S battery is 3.5X the capacity of the Leaf battery, so does that mean Model S batter costs 21X energy to produce than the study battery?

At 21X, battery construction is not negligible. That would mean 30% of Model S energy consumption over 160k miles is related to battery construction, and that a typical Volt driver causes much fewer CO2 emissions than a Model S driver.

Conversely, if we look at weight instead of energy capacity, we might get a number closer to 8X than 21X. 8X the 2% (= 14%?) is still not exactly negligible, but it's relatively small.

The paper also concedes that battery chemistry is important to the calculation. Is the Tesla chemistry better or worse for the environment that the study's battery chemistry?

Lastly, what is the environmental cost of producing an ICE? Surely that's not free. How much carbon dioxide is saved from not having to make a 200 kg engine?

(I'd love to also pick on the environmental implications of lead acid batteries in ICEs, but it seems that EVs have similar 12V batteries.)

 

[Jeff Miller]

I think JRP3 has demonstrated in the past that he's pretty fair, so I think it's a bit hasty to assume that your math won't help.

Furthermore, I think it's useful to be able to answer the question of how bad BEV production is for the environment. Folks like Petersen have been throwing out various numbers. We criticize many of the assumptions, but I haven't generally seen us produce a realistic quantitative response. JRP3 is quite right to point out that the "2%" from the study is not very well applicable to the Model S battery.
The linked study asserts that the Nissan Leaf battery will cost 500% more energy to produce than the batter that they studied (which I think is 6X, no?). Model S battery is 3.5X the capacity of the Leaf battery, so does that mean Model S batter costs 21X energy to produce than the study battery?

At 21X, battery construction is not negligible. That would mean 30% of Model S energy consumption over 160k miles is related to battery construction, and that a typical Volt driver causes much fewer CO2 emissions than a Model S driver.

Conversely, if we look at weight instead of energy capacity, we might get a number closer to 8X than 21X. 8X the 2% (= 14%?) is still not exactly negligible, but it's relatively small.

The paper also concedes that battery chemistry is important to the calculation. Is the Tesla chemistry better or worse for the environment that the study's battery chemistry?

Lastly, what is the environmental cost of producing an ICE? Surely that's not free. How much carbon dioxide is saved from not having to make a 200 kg engine?

(I'd love to also pick on the environmental implications of lead acid batteries in ICEs, but it seems that EVs have similar 12V batteries.)

If we had a universally applied worldwide carbon tax, which I strongly support, the market would very quickly sort out the correct total lifecylce carbon cost of the Model S as well as that of conventional ICE cars. The carbon cost would be directly embedded in, and correctly accounted for, in the prices of each of the many components and processes that are combined to make the car. Short of having such a market price discovery mechanism - something markets, whatever their flaws, do very well - it's a hard calculation. But I agree with derekt75. I haven't yet seen a careful, compelling lifecycle analysis of the carbon footprint of the S compared with conventional cars, something which would be very
interesting to know.