Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[winfield100]

Nonsense from bulls is no better than nonsense from bears and I'll call out both when appropriate. I have no problem if a bear credits me with speaking the truth. Randy's response further proves he doesn't know much at all about cell production.



Cells are charged and most likely measured before going into the aging room, there is no point in aging a bad cell. They are likely tested again after aging to make sure they are up to spec because you don't want to put a bad cell into a module. My speculation is that the measuring technology developed by Prof. Jeff Dahn using coulombic efficiency is used to measure and grade cells.

i enjoy reading/listening to discussions between folks with expertise in similar fields and why/why not to clarify knowledge. I place a greater weight emphasis on both your's and Randys remarks as opposed to Paulo or MS or others with barely a passing aquaintance of the field(s). sometimes a graceful exit is best as you cannot win all the time, but SA seems less "stridant" as one person remarked perhaps.
meanwhile, those shorts are hurting puppies with TSLA up ~$50 since december 1st.. I suspect their options are expiring worthless at best

 

[daxz]

Misinformation ruins everything Adam Ruins Everything (including his credibility) when he goes after Tesla and EVs with classic misinformation

In the video

.. according to one study even if a third all drivers switched to electric cars the carbon savings could be tiny...

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~jfdecaro/papers/Babaee_etal_2014.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/es4045677

The paper quoted is about distributions of a series of models of projections in the year 2050 where it assumes a fleet-wide average fuel economy of 49.6 miles per gallon or better. Also, the efficiency of power plants and EV's don't increase.

It also clearly lists some caveats in the conclusion.
we do not capture the potential air quality benefits due to shifting emissions out of dense urban areas to more remotely located power plants where emissions from large point sources are easier to control

we assume vehicle charging is constant throughout the day. As a next step, we plan to investigate the effects of time-of day charging on system-wide emissions.
It also doesn't consider any kind of power plant load flatting by using batteries on the grid.

Tiny value is dependent what specific scenarios are examined in the models. I can see where the CO2 reduction is more than 50% between 2 scenarios with 42% EV's vs 0% EV's in 2050. The paper conclusion states:
The model results do not demonstrate a clear and consistent trend toward lower system-wide emissions as EDV deployment increases.

So ...carbon savings could be tiny or they could be more than a reduction to 50%.

 

[wdolson]

This is very helpful. From a carbon standpoint for ICE I would think you would also need to somehow account for the carbon emitted by the various drilling processes and transportation from well to refinery, no?

Then there's the whole matter of cleanup costs for spills during the production and transportation stages.

How much it costs to produce and transport oil can vary dramatically. In California they use steam injection to soften the oil. The steam is generated by burning produced natural gas to boil water that comes up with the oil. As the steam comes back up from the well after softening the oil, they run it through a generator and then pump the cooled water down another well.

The field produces some electricity, but this oil costs more to produce that light sweet from Saudi Arabia which is the cheapest to produce in the world. Transportation can also has different energy footprints and costs. Moving it by train costs a lot more in fuel and money than putting it in a pipeline.

The average costs in money are reflected in the current price of oil. When the price goes too low, expensive wells get shut in until the price goes back up. The environmental impact is a bit tougher to quantify.

 

[winfield100]

The environmental impact is a bit tougher to quantify.

sometimes no, sometimes yes

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

This is very helpful. From a carbon standpoint for ICE I would think you would also need to somehow account for the carbon emitted by the various drilling processes and transportation from well to refinery, no?

Then there's the whole matter of cleanup costs for spills during the production and transportation stages.

Don't forget about the carbon footprint of the Gulf wars and other military actions to keep the oil flowing. Oh yeah and all of the people that grieve daily for the loved ones they lost or body parts they are missing from defending our oil supply.

 

[ohmman]

Don't forget about the carbon footprint of the Gulf wars and other military actions to keep the oil flowing. Oh yeah and all of the people that grieve daily for the loved ones they lost or body parts they are missing from defending our oil supply.

VA medical expenses for PTSD and other casualties are an ongoing financial externality to those wars. Whether or not oil can be fingered as the exclusive cause of that military action can likely be debated successfully.

 

[Gerardf]

you got a kind "shout out" from Montana "potemkin village" Skeptic praising you for that ?exact? point. a dubious honor to some, praise from a ?lawyer?
you may want, or not, to read Randy's comment on the article

I recall that the "GiagaFactory is a Potemkin village" FUD came from Santos.

Actually I have the feeling Santos short position is under big pressure, he is getting more emotional and extreme in his attacks on anything Musk and Tesla with every single comment. Starts to get as extreme as Spiegel.

 

[winfield100]

I recall that the "GiagaFactory is a Potemkin village" FUD came from Santos.

Actually I have the feeling Santos short position is under big pressure, he is getting more emotional and extreme in his attacks on anything Musk and Tesla with every single comment. Starts to get as extreme as Spiegel.

i "glance" at SA some, much less tho. noticed MS is much less prolific and Mark BS aka Logical thot less prolific as well.
i suspect it could be the about $50 run up from $180 - $230 since beginning of december and options expiring worthless , under water, etc.
MS did tell me he would prefer if i reduced my posting 100%band not 95-98% {i think he has long term putz options or something since i dont deal with options}

 

[SteveG3]

sometimes I use the comments sections of articles to dispute false claims by the author or others' comments on the article. as such a high percentage of those presenting a case against Tesla do not limit themselves to facts, it can be a bit of a slippery process to refute their claims.

I thought of a different approach today. the idea is to have a reusable tool to expose the latest "daily special" falsehood coming from this crowd, not by running in circles with someone writing falsehoods, but by exposing that repeating falsehoods is standard operating procedure for so many of Tesla's critics.

here's what I have so far... please, if you think this kind of response can be a useful tool, offer your own suggestions/revisions to this list. I just did it off the top of my head, so I'm sure it could be made much more compelling with different or additional examples, and I won't be offended by suggestions to improve the phrasing.

"for years now, time after time, rather than offering a compelling argument that Tesla is overvalued, it's critics have relied on falsehoods, such as

1) they'll go broke before they ramp up Model S production (fall 2012)
2) SuperCharger network will leave you stranded in the cold (Winter 2013)
3) They'll never build 20,000 cars per year (Winter 2013)
4) Cars are a fire hazard, death of Tesla (Fall 2013)
5) "Tesla Killers Coming from Everywhere" (2013,2014, 2015, 2016, and as of today, Tesla has sold over 180,000 long range EVs, all the "big boys" COMBINED, 350 total).
6) Sales are plateauing (2014, 2015, 2016, ... and: sales still growing)
7) Hydrogen Fuel Cells are the Future... look that's what Toyota, TOYOTA is choosing over EVs (2013, 2014, 2015... as of today: Toyota now taking up EVs)
8) EVs are worse for the environment than gasoline cars (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016... debunked over, and over and over)
8) GigaFactory is a hoax, PR stunt, (2014, 2015... and: GF producing batteries)
9) Oil prices dropping, Tesla doomed (2015, 2016... and: sales still growing)
10) Model X cannot be produced, Tesla will go bankrupt (2015, 2016... and: Model X in full production)

If Tesla were really overvalued, why would the shorts need to rely on false narratives to try to make a case?"

If SpaceX can make space exploration orders of magnitude more efficient with reusable rockets, why can't we make refuting gibberish more efficient with a reusable intellectual dishonesty exposer.

 

[mblakele]

@SteveG3 You have a good idea. Maybe organize it in two sections? The first one is all about showing success in the face of naysayers. The second is about debunking specific myths. It'd be nicer with graphics, but plain text is universal.

Note that I don't have reliable production numbers below. Wikipedia was somewhat helpful, but I'm sure someone else on TMC has more accurate numbers.

For years, Tesla's critics have relied on falsehoods rather than facts. Compare what naysayers have said to what Tesla has done.

2012: Tesla made 2,500 cars, and everyone said "they'll go broke before they ramp up production"
2013: 6,900 cars; "they'll never build 20,000 cars a year"
2014: 35,000 "the Tesla killers are coming"
2015: 51,000 "sales are flat"
2016: 84,000 "the gigafactory is a hoax"
2017: "???"

Get the facts about these anti-Tesla myths.

Myth: SuperCharger network will leave you stranded in the cold
Fact: For years now, thousands of Tesla owners have relied on Tesla's extensive network of SuperChargers.

Myth: Teslas are a fire hazard
Fact: Gasoline and diesel engines catch on fire every day. Teslas rarely have this problem.

[etc...]​

 

[3Victoria]

Yes, don't just have a list of mistruths, you will be quoted out of context!! ..and make things worse. I like the Myth and Fact format.

It would be useful to have these in some handy location so we all could use them

 

[wdolson]

@SteveG3

Myth: Teslas are a fire hazard
Fact: Gasoline and diesel engines catch on fire every day. Teslas rarely have this problem.

[etc...]​

Most of the situations where Teslas have caught fire have been situations where an ICE would have burned too.

 

[Electroman]

Most of the situations where Teslas have caught fire have been situations where an ICE would have burned too.

and most likely killed the occupants too..

 

[SteveG3]

@SteveG3 You have a good idea. Maybe organize it in two sections? The first one is all about showing success in the face of naysayers. The second is about debunking specific myths. It'd be nicer with graphics, but plain text is universal.

Note that I don't have reliable production numbers below. Wikipedia was somewhat helpful, but I'm sure someone else on TMC has more accurate numbers.

For years, Tesla's critics have relied on falsehoods rather than facts. Compare what naysayers have said to what Tesla has done.

2012: Tesla made 2,500 cars, and everyone said "they'll go broke before they ramp up production"
2013: 6,900 cars; "they'll never build 20,000 cars a year"
2014: 35,000 "the Tesla killers are coming"
2015: 51,000 "sales are flat"
2016: 84,000 "the gigafactory is a hoax"
2017: "???"

Get the facts about these anti-Tesla myths.

Myth: SuperCharger network will leave you stranded in the cold
Fact: For years now, thousands of Tesla owners have relied on Tesla's extensive network of SuperChargers.

Myth: Teslas are a fire hazard
Fact: Gasoline and diesel engines catch on fire every day. Teslas rarely have this problem.

[etc...]​

thanks mblakele. it makes sense to have a few variations on this idea, and people can pick or choose what they like.

re the myth vs. fact suggestions... yes, I agree, need both. I put the facts in parentheses for these points, but, yes, maybe spelling out Myth and Fact would be an improvement. I didn't bother with fats in parentheses in a couple of cases where the facts are obvious, ie, Tesla has did not go out of business in 2013.

for the variation I started, I added this point today,

4) "It's a "cult stock" you just can't value the darn thing" (2013, 2014, 2015, 2016... and: it's almost entirely owned by insiders and institutional investors AND of course, the analysts models do value the company and all use the basics of fundamental valuation)

and modified this point,

5) Cars are a fire hazard, death of Tesla (Fall 2013... and: Tesla's have fires at a far lower rate than gasoline cars, and when they do they are far less dangerous fires)

as put to use here:

Tesla Motors: There Go the Overhangs!

 

[SteveG3]

okay this is fun,

I just put this up as the first comment on a new Barrons' piece linked below,

"get ready for the Tesla bashers.

are their claims accurate? well, here's what we've seen from them say about Tesla in the past,

1)...

13) "they lose money on every car"... reality: Tesla is plowing the profits from the S/X into growing their production 10X over the span of four years. EVERY automaker on the planet would love to be in this position.

IF TESLA WERE REALLY OVERVALUED, why would the shorts put so much energy into pumping out these false narratives to try to make a case?"

note: 13) is a new one

note 2: I might not feel good about dumping such a long list in a comments section... but the length of the list only represents the speed at which falsehoods have been pumped out about Tesla. Come to think of it, perhaps they inspired Elon's new ambitions re improving manufacturing ; )

Tesla Motors: Supercharged?

 

[AudubonB]

Steve: re post #1269, please consider in point #7 NOT using the word "today", but rather something like "as of Jan 2017". I think you'll understand why.

 

[Curt Renz]

Long-time Tesla super-bear Bertel Schmitt is a cofounder (with fellow outspoken Tesla bear Edward Niedermeyer) of the Daily Kanban which often rants extremely negatively about Tesla Motors. Forbes also allows Schmitt to be a contributor. Early this morning Forbes presented an article by Schmitt about Chinese EV makers proposing that Chinese battery makers cut prices and how this might affect the worth of the Tesla Gigafactory.

Forbes Link: 40% Price Drop On Chinese EV Batteries Spells Trouble For Tesla

The article re-quotes a Morgan Stanley analyst who was quoted in Barron’s last evening:

According to Gaogong Industry Institute, some EV makers in China have proposed that battery vendors cut prices by 35-40% in 2017. Our China analyst Jack Lu sees this proposal as likely to proceed, as some battery vendors in China could still make a decent profit after such a cut.

Barron's Link: Sell Samsung SDI: China To Slash EV Battery Prices, Warns Morgan Stanley

In the meantime another Morgan Stanley analyst today upgraded Tesla Motors to Outperform with a $305 price target.

Does anyone really believe that the viability of the Tesla Gigafactory could be imperiled by the Chinese as Schmitt suggests?

 

[AudubonB]

On sources of information - a poll-like query:

After receiving Barron's for a none-of-your-business number of yearsdecades, I canceled my subscription three years ago. Messrs. Murdoch &assoc., aka Dow Jones & Company, remain implacable in their attempts to bring me back in the fold. So:

Does anyone reading the print edition believe there is enough useful information still being provided to make it worth their latest ploy, a $52/yr rate? The principle is at issue here, of course; not the money.

Serious question. Thanks.

 

[Drax7]

On sources of information - a poll-like query:

After receiving Barron's for a none-of-your-business number of yearsdecades, I canceled my subscription three years ago. Messrs. Murdoch &assoc., aka Dow Jones & Company, remain implacable in their attempts to bring me back in the fold. So:

Does anyone reading the print edition believe there is enough useful information still being provided to make it worth their latest ploy, a $52/yr rate? The principle is at issue here, of course; not the money.

Serious question. Thanks.

Barrons is not useful in my view, I stopped reading it after decades in 2007, just after
the release of the iPhone 1, When Mike Viveka pooh poohed Apple and the iPhone . I went
against his views and invested heavily in Apple after the financial meltdown for an 8 fold
gain. Thereafter I read Barrons very skeptically and realized it never made me money, on the contrary
they will hinder you from making money.

 

[winfield100]

On sources of information - a poll-like query:

After receiving Barron's for a none-of-your-business number of yearsdecades, I canceled my subscription three years ago. Messrs. Murdoch &assoc., aka Dow Jones & Company, remain implacable in their attempts to bring me back in the fold. So:

Does anyone reading the print edition believe there is enough useful information still being provided to make it worth their latest ploy, a $52/yr rate? The principle is at issue here, of course; not the money.

Serious question. Thanks.

subscribed to IBD (investors Biz daily) from startup till subscription lapsed (2yrs back in the ?90's?)
too something for me
used to read Barrons on and off for few yrs. quit that. to much verbiage, little useful info
subscribed to "Technical analysis of Stocks and commodities" quit that too
also my parakeets died after about 10-12 years so no need for papers any more

best thing from IBD was "if your investment/stock/etx goes down 7% it's the wrong time to own it no matter the reason you bought it
(does this answer your question even peripherally?)