Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[Curt Renz]

An anti-Tesla Motors article appeared this morning in the business news section of my browser’s ATT/Yahoo homepage. The Motley Fool commissioned three writers to each pick a car brand that may disappear before 2025: 3 Car Brands That May Disappear Before 2025

Admitted TSLA short seller Sean Williams was one of the authors and provided his reasons for suspecting that Tesla Motors might be gone by 2025. It was nothing new: same old FUD. What do you think the full article and particularly Williams’ assessment of Tesla Motors?

 

[ecarfan]

The part of that article about Tesla wasn't as poorly reasoned as I expected. I don't agree with it, but it wasn't completely irrational. Creating a long-term successful global car company is extremely difficult. I think Elon will succeed based on everything I know about the company. But it could fail, and Elon would likely agree that failure remains a possibility (he has said so in the past). However, if the Model 3 is a success and the Gigafactory does what it is designed to do, then Tesla will be a success. We will know in three or four years.

 

[Robert.Boston]

None of the 5 reasons that Williams cites are compelling, either alone or collectively. Where are the profits? The gross margin is very high, and if Tesla wasn't engaged in massive R&D and capex then it would be throwing a lot of profit to the bottom line. Tesla needs to have a mainstream offering? Williams acknowledges that the Model 3 hits this target, but he somehow thinks that every consumer has to be willing to buy one (condo owners, e.g.) for it to be a success. Delays? Sure, but we've talked about this. I'm very confident that we will see the Model X in consumers' hands in Q3 and the Model 3 in late 2017. Competition? Every manufacturer has competition, but only Tesla is serious about making a compelling EV. And so on. Nothing new here.

 

[austinEV]

i remember back in 2012 someone wrote about TM disappearing. He said, kind of reasonably, that the more you hated the stock, the more of a bear you are, the more you should run out and buy a car, since they are great and will appreciate in value as rare collectables. I didn't agree, but I appreciated his logic and the 3-4 cars he may have sold

 

[Curt Renz]

This article published late Tuesday for Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal seems to contain the most outrageous assemblage of slanted Tesla Motors FUD that most of us may have ever read: Holman Jenkins: Tesla: Just Another Car Company - WSJ

Many of the readers' comments are equally ignorant.

To get around the WSJ paywall, enter the words "Tesla: Just another Car Company" into a Google search box.

 

[mejojo]

Interesting difference in perspective....one man's "depends on government intervention" is another man's "I see where we must be headed, so let's jump in the gap"

 

[MartinAustin]

Pretty nasty WSJ article posted tonight:
Holman Jenkins: Tesla: Just Another Car Company - WSJ

Aaargh. Makes me cringe. And the comments... whew. There are a few defenders representing the truth, but so many claiming that driving a Tesla results in no decrease in carbon emissions, since the electricity comes from oil - etc. etc.. (my car averages 101MPG and I can get 140MPG when I drive carefully... that would represent a big improvement if combustion cars all did that!)

And the rub is, you only get to comment if you pay to subscribe to the "newspaper"! They're sort of ensuring that hardly anyone will disagree with what is published. It's impossible to make comments to correct the mistakes, without paying to support them. The people who've already subscribed are less likely to disagree with what the WSJ publishes.

I'm not sure how they would explain that Tesla consistently sells more cars every quarter, a pattern that's been going on steadily since 2012. Perhaps the world is being tricked!

 

[mejojo]

.....so many claiming that driving a Tesla results in no decrease in carbon emissions, since the electricity comes from oil

It really does depend where you live...right now my car is charging on mostly gas, some hydro and a bit of biomass. 0% coal/oil.

I am sure there are other locations where the generation is much higher in dirty production, but it does also seem that Tesla owners have a higher uptake of solar than the general populace. That's seldom/never mentioned but counts for something.

 

[Johan]

This article published late Tuesday for Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal seems to contain the most outrageous assemblage of slanted Tesla Motors FUD that most of us may have ever read: Holman Jenkins: Tesla: Just Another Car Company - WSJ

Many of the readers' comments are equally ignorant.

To get around the WSJ paywall, enter the words "Tesla: Just another Car Company" into a Google search box.

This piece was frankly just hateful. Like His wife was unfaithful with Tesla or something. Mostly devoid of fact and any facts in there were so heavily twisted to suit the author's animosity towards Tesla that it was comical.

 

[FANGO]

It really does depend where you live...right now my car is charging on mostly gas, some hydro and a bit of biomass. 0% coal/oil.

I am sure there are other locations where the generation is much higher in dirty production, but it does also seem that Tesla owners have a higher uptake of solar than the general populace. That's seldom/never mentioned but counts for something.

It doesn't even depend where you live. Oil is almost never used for electricity. Less than 1% in the US and I'm pretty sure it's mostly in Hawaii.

There really is no region where charging on the grid is dirtier than an average gas car, according to union of concerned scientists state of charge report. Also according to tesla's website which uses EIA data.

Recent survey in CA said 30% of EV owners have solar.

So yeah, basically, people are just saying things they've heard from Luddites who haven't looked into the situation. It's really annoying how easily misinformation spreads. Some people are just always looking for an excuse to do nothing.

 

[jhm]

I have lost so much respect for the Wall Street Journal. Simply disgraceful.

 

[Drax7]

Carlos Slims NY Times is not exactly a fan of Tesla .

 

[ecarfan]

Holman Jenkins: Tesla: Just Another Car Company - WSJ
To get around the WSJ paywall, enter the words "Tesla: Just another Car Company" into a Google search box.

Curt, your suggestion for how to circumvent the WSJ paywall did not work for me. I did as you describe and was still limited to reading only the first few sentences of the piece.

It does not surprise me that the WSJ is still attacking Tesla. That newspaper has an agenda that supports entrenched corporate interests and hates the idea that the government cold ever do anything positive to support innovation and combat climate change. So they resort to distortions and obfuscation and ignore the facts.

 

[ibcs]

Nasty article with so many incorrect facts in the editorial section. Hours to recharge - REALLY!

 

[hockeythug]

Pretty nasty WSJ article posted tonight:
Holman Jenkins: Tesla: Just Another Car Company - WSJ

Biggest hit piece I have seen in a while

 

[ev-enthusiast]

Nasty article with so many incorrect facts in the editorial section. Hours to recharge - REALLY!

+1
Added some short term calls in expectation of a rebound and positive global delivery number news during the next days.
+ EM in China could generate some positive news during the next days.

 

[aznt1217]

From the WSJ Piece:

"What P.T. Barnum said about the American public may be doubly true of American politicians, but even a congressman might come to see through Mr. Musk’s feverish attempts to associate Tesla with solar power even though a Tesla is not a solar-powered car."

 

[jhm]

I would add that the majority of new power capacity coming online both in the US and globally is solar and wind. Last year rooftop solar alone accounted for over 30% of the new power in the US. So whatever incremental demand for power that EVs may spur is overwhelmingly met by incremental renewable energy. Nowhere is anyone building new coal plants to satisfy EV demand.

From the WSJ Piece:

"What P.T. Barnum said about the American public may be doubly true of American politicians, but even a congressman might come to see through Mr. Musk’s feverish attempts to associate Tesla with solar power even though a Tesla is not a solar-powered car."


View attachment 75835

 

[mejojo]

From the WSJ Piece:

"What P.T. Barnum said about the American public may be doubly true of American politicians, but even a congressman might come to see through Mr. Musk’s feverish attempts to associate Tesla with solar power even though a Tesla is not a solar-powered car."

Any thinking being would know that Tesla is not a solar-powered car, but even some here think that solar on supercharging stations is somehow very important. Filling a cover like that with solar panels might provide enough power to charge a couple of Teslas each day.

Let's say they were able to fill the area over 10 stations with, say, 120 panels. This would provide "in the ballpark of" 120KwH (120 * 200W * 5hrs, for very rough numbers). Even if they could double the number of panels, it's still only 3-4 charges per day. Supercharger solar is symbolism mostly, but granted that every bit helps.

Distributed home solar + storage is where it's at.

 

[austinEV]

SC's aren't purely symbolic, there are some with batteries that store the excess solar from the off peak hours.

The SC+solar dont have to have batteries, and I doubt they do. They can sell the power back to the grid and have it act as a battery. It is true that a typical solar canopy will only provide 2-4 charges, I think there are a lot of stations where that is all the traffic it gets. And yes, the point is that it is much better. If the station is busier and gives out 10 charges a day, and generates enough for 4, it is ludicrous to complain about that. ICE's are not held to this standard.