Model S will not save the planet

[extesla]

To provide a 300 mile range with today's battery technology means carrying around a lot of weight. Why does Model S need a 300 mile range? Based on all available data a daily range of 100 miles would be more than adequate for 99% of the population's needs. Providing for 300 miles requires using power to move the extra weight of batteries. This is clearly not an efficient use of electricity and coal.
A Model S owner needing to go across country could (most likely would) rent a vehicle.
Secondly, the luxury fitments of Model S (and Model X) also add what I believe to be unnecessary weight. An example is the complex motorized door handle which is nothing more than a designer's whim.
Model X is a behemoth waiting in the wings. Heavier still than Model S and burning even more electricity and coal to move tons of car and usually only one occupant.
Step back for a moment. Sure Model s is a beautiful looking car and will have great performance BUT... Is this really the best way to spend 500 million of taxpayer loans. I for one would have been much happier to see a small commuter vehicle that truly could help to save the planet and the pockets of the middle class. The annoying thing is that Elon Musk and the engineering team could have pulled it off. Instead they chose ego over eco and built a luxury saloon for the wealthy.

 

[smorgasbord]

I smell A Christmas Troll.

 

[engle]

I smell a TSLA short. Note that as of Dec. 15 settlement date, 63.15% of TSLA's entire float has been shorted! That's 24.6M shares out of the total equity float of 38.9M. It is the 2nd most shorted stock on NASDAQ, by percent of float, behind TZOO (Travelzoo) and in front of SKUL (Skullcandy) and OPEN (Opentable):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/largest-nasdaq-short-interest-vs-free-float-as-of-dec-15.html?cmpid=yhoo

If the Model S is successful and drives the stock higher sometime in 2012, covering all these short positions would take a month at normal trading volumes. Can you say "short squeeze"! :cursing:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-27/largest-nasdaq-short-interest-positions-as-of-dec-15.html?cmpid=yhoo

Here's another long's bullish argument for TSLA posted to seekingalpha.com:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/316235-tesla-s-model-s-will-drive-profitability-in-2012?source=yahoo

Interestingly, he states Model S range varies from 230-300 miles! Also, he thinks reservations total 6,500. Obviously, he hasn't read Tesla's site very carefully, nor this forum, for that matter...

Disclosure: I am long TSLA.

 

[Norbert]

The annoying thing is that Elon Musk and the engineering team could have pulled it off.

I smell someone who is interested in the engineering team.

 

[surfingslovak]

Instead they chose ego over eco and built a luxury saloon for the wealthy.

I smell a Brit.

 

[dpeilow]

I smell a Brit.

If it is they are living in California.

 

[zack]

Elon has other plans in mind.

 

[dsm363]

What a strange first post. Main point is that people drive heavy cars with usually only one occupant. Wow. Great insight and this applies only to Tesla how?

 

[AnOutsider]

I smell A Christmas Troll.

View attachment 3790

Lots of trolls of all varieties lately. 'tis getting old.

 

[WhiteKnight]

It is a giant conspiracy by the coal companies and the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

 

[zack]

I can charge my Tesla anywhere. And I know exactly how.

 

[mnx]

sounds like Dan Fredrickson of autoblog green fame....

 

[GSP]

Isn't it geat that the i and the Smart ED are available? Why not put your money where your mouth is, and help EVs get off the ground by buying one. The EV industry needs sales to establish a workable business. You maybe could even trade up to a Tesla BlueStar for your next car someday.

Isn't is also great that Tesla is building EVs for people who would not buy one of the above, so they have an alternative to ICEs? And they establish the EV as something very desireable, so that more people consider EVs of all types and sizes? And that Tesla is working in a price segment that allows at least a chance of business success and repaying of loans? Tesla's price segment also allows them to be competitive with equivalent ICE cars. High volume, mid-priced cars will require a much larger investment and even more risk. Tesla cannot afford this, but Nissan is making a valiant effort here, to everyone's benefit.

No automobile is going to "save the planet," or bring peace to the middle east for that matter. That does not make them bad investments of taxpayer loans or for the customers, who will be delighted to be driving EVs.

GSP

 

[Iz]

I would not have a Model S reservation if it only had a 100-mile range. Many of us here would not either. While the Leaf is a cool car and a good step forward for Nissan, one of the biggest critiques is the range. By the time BlueStar is on the market (if ever) its range should be ~ 200 miles with a lighter battery pack.

 

[Trnsl8r]

I smell A Christmas Troll.

View attachment 3790

No kidding. Anyone who has spent time on this forum could counter all points effectively, but why bother... It wouldn't make a lick of difference for this guy/gal.

 

[NigelM]

Model S is a step towards saving the planet

Providing for 300 miles requires using power to move the extra weight of batteries. This is clearly not an efficient use of electricity and coal.

I power my whole house using solar. This means I also charge my Roadster using solar. I will charge my Model S using solar and then I can get rid of my last ICE. Efficient enough for you?

 

[Robert.Boston]

Isn't is also great that Tesla is building EVs for people who would not buy one of the above, so they have an alternative to ICEs? And they establish the EV as something very desirable, so that more people consider EVs of all types and sizes? And that Tesla is working in a price segment that allows at least a chance of business success and repaying of loans? Tesla's price segment also allows them to be competitive with equivalent ICE cars. High volume, mid-priced cars will require a much larger investment and even more risk. Tesla cannot afford this, but Nissan is making a valiant effort here, to everyone's benefit.

No automobile is going to "save the planet," or bring peace to the middle east for that matter. That does not make them bad investments of taxpayer loans or for the customers, who will be delighted to be driving EVs.

Well said. Not everyone wants to drive the same sort of car; if "going green" is viewed as lowered standards, it will meet with a lot of resistance from precisely the high-income individuals who are best able to afford leading-edge technologies and help drive down the costs for mass market products. Few people I know who are shopping for BMWs or Lexuses are going to look twice at a Leaf or i.

What's important is that we begin the transition from burning petroleum to alternative, sustainable energy sources. There are a lot of very smart and dedicated people working to transform the energy infrastructure to a fully sustainable platform. EVs are themselves not the solution, but part of the solution, allowing us to transition from a fossil-based energy economy to other solutions as they are developed. In 2012, my Model S will be powered primarily by natural gas. In 2020, I hope that it will be powered primarily by wind, wave, and solar energy. True, we may be lucky and find a great source for bio-fuels (algae?), but we know that we'll need a sustainable source of electricity, too.

 

[richkae]

I know this is a troll but:

Even if Tesla designed a low cost commuter vehicle now that would save the planet and the pockets of the middle class, they could not build it with the capital they have ( including the government loan )
Engineering, producing, selling and supporting a high volume low cost car may take an order of magnitude more capital than they have.

By succeeding with the Model S, they earn some of the capital they need, and the ability to raise more.

 

[richkae]

Ford lists ~$35 billion in property plant and equipment. $165 billion in total assets. They sell about 2 million vehicles per year in the US
GM lists ~$22 billion in property plant and equipment. $148 billion in total assets. They sell about 2.25 million vehicles per year in the US
Both of them are supported by several thousands of dealerships that probably have total asset values in the $100 billion ballpark.

Tesla lists $123 millon in property plant and equipment and $386 million in assets. They plan to produce 20,000 cars in the US in 2013.

So the big 2 are about 400 times bigger and produce 100 times more cars.

Saving the world will take a lot of capital. Proving it can be done, a little less.

 

[Trnsl8r]

Ford lists ~$35 billion in property plant and equipment. $165 billion in total assets. They sell about 2 million vehicles per year in the US
GM lists ~$22 billion in property plant and equipment. $148 billion in total assets. They sell about 2.25 million vehicles per year in the US
Both of them are supported by several thousands of dealerships that probably have total asset values in the $100 billion ballpark.

Tesla lists $123 millon in property plant and equipment and $386 million in assets. They plan to produce 20,000 cars in the US in 2013.

So the big 2 are about 400 times bigger and produce 100 times more cars.

Saving the world will take a lot of capital. Proving it can be done, a little less.

Awesome post. That GM or Ford haven't come up with a viable alternate fuel vehicle and look like they're about to be outdone by a silicon valley startup baffles me to no end.