Model S will not save the planet

[richkae]

I don't buy the argument that it was necessary to build a 7 seater sedan followed by a huge SUV/Minivan. The investment in production tooling would be the same for Model S as it would be for a higher volume small vehicle for middle class and working people. It may be necessary to run more shifts to achieve a higher volume.

This is not correct. In general the more you spend on your production equipment, the less the cost per part. To produce the cars for less, they need to spend more on equipment. That is money they do not have.

People are assuming that the 57,000 dollar sedan will make enough profit in a couple of years to fund the smaller vehicle. I have done my own numbers and I don't see it. How much has Tesla set aside for warranty claims on a brand new vehicle I wonder? As I stated in my first post, the Model S is ego over eco, an ego trip for Elon, Franz and Peter. The sedan has "7" seats because Elon has 5 children.

Again you are incorrect. The Model S will not make enough profit to fund a mass market vehicle. The Model S should make enough profit to pay for the investment to make the Model S. That profit will also pay for a lot of the R&D to make other vehicles.
What it will do is provide evidence that Tesla has the expertise to produce and sell a higher volume vehicle. Doing so will require a lot more capital, and they should be able to raise it if the Model S succeeds.

You also forget that when Tesla produces a higher volume of cars, they will need a much more extensive network of sales and service locations. That is an investment they have not yet made, and they need to see success with the Model S to be able to develop that.

 

[neroden]

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.

If you build me:
(a) a fast charging network in upstate New York
or (b) extensive intercity train service and local streetcar service in upstate New York

Why, then, yes, 100 miles would be a fine range.

But neither exists, so for those of us in upstate New York, we need a 300 mile range just to get to our doctors' appointments. And there are a LOT of us in that position.

Elon's doing what he can. He would have needed a *lot* more funding to rebuild America's entire rail system or build a fast-charge network through the whole of the rural US.

This post made for the sake of argument, supposing that the thread-starter is not a troll. Even though the thread-starter probably is a troll.

 

[extesla]

I don't know what a troll is but if that is meant to be derogatory so be it. I feel that I speak for the 99%, 98%, 97% or whatever. People who want to help save the planet yet can not afford a fisker or tesla. As such I think that the investment and taxpayer dollars for model s and model x are misspent in favor of wealthy people.
I suppose some of you end a thread when you don't like what is said.

 

[engle]

I don't know what a troll is but if that is meant to be derogatory so be it. I feel that I speak for the 99%, 98%, 97% or whatever. People who want to help save the planet yet can not afford a fisker or tesla. As such I think that the investment and taxpayer dollars for model s and model x are misspent in favor of wealthy people.
I suppose some of you end a thread when you don't like what is said.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted".
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Also, how did you come up with the handle "extesla" -- what do you mean by that? Just curious!

 

[brianman]

I feel that I speak for the 99%, 98%, 97% or whatever.

You speak for 1 person.

 

[Norbert]

You speak for 1 person.

At most.

 

[dsm363]

I don't know what a troll is but if that is meant to be derogatory so be it. I feel that I speak for the 99%, 98%, 97% or whatever. People who want to help save the planet yet can not afford a fisker or tesla. As such I think that the investment and taxpayer dollars for model s and model x are misspent in favor of wealthy people.
I suppose some of you end a thread when you don't like what is said.

Ok, please give us a detailed description on what you think the solution is then. What should Tesla be doing, producing a $25,000 small car in limited volume with maybe a 80 mile range? Would that save the world? Many people seem to want a car with a 500 mile range and for under $30,000 which isn't possible at this point. Tesla's sales will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of car sales. Unless your solution mandates a maximum weight for passenger cars or adds a dollar to two to the gas tax to essentially force Americans to down size their cars, you don't have much on an argument.

Also, you don't have to buy a electric car to 'save the world'. You can sell your car and walk, ride a bike, take public transportation..etc

 

[jcstp]

I don't know what a troll is but if that is meant to be derogatory so be it. I feel that I speak for the 99%, 98%, 97% or whatever. People who want to help save the planet yet can not afford a fisker or tesla. As such I think that the investment and taxpayer dollars for model s and model x are misspent in favor of wealthy people.
I suppose some of you end a thread when you don't like what is said.

Ok drive a bicycle and you will ba happy!
But do not use rubber tyres and a plastic seat! They are made from petroleum!

 

[T@oo]

...Model S will not save the planet...

....

 

[Robert.Boston]

I was part of a roundtable discussion recently hosted by a think-tank in DC, with other leading energy economists and lobbyists. At one point, I asked the group two questions:

1. Is there anyone who disagrees that a carbon tax is the best way to address climate change issues? No one disagreed.
2. Is there anyone who thinks it is politically feasible to put a carbon tax in place in the US? No one thought this was politically feasible.

So, if leading thinkers all agree on a solution to "save the planet," why can't the policymakers execute that solution? Simple: the cost is too high. So much capital has been spent building up so many parts of the infrastructure (homes, factories, transportation, etc.) with the assumption of no carbon tax; adding a tax today would obsolete a lot of capital and impose enormous costs on those who rely on that obsolete capital.

What to do?

First, start investing in infrastructure that doesn't have the same reliance on cheap carbon. EVs are a perfect example: if the underlying energy source for manufacturing and operation is zero-carbon, the car is also zero-carbon (or very close).

Second, make a credible commitment to impose a carbon tax at some date certain, say, 2020. This would put everyone on notice that they need to put themselves in a position, through shifts in investment and consumption, that a carbon tax won't impose undue burdens. The problem here, however, is that there is no means for Congress to make such a credible commitment -- anything that this Congress does can be unwound by a future Congress.

 

[dsm363]

I was part of a roundtable discussion recently hosted by a think-tank in DC, with other leading energy economists and lobbyists. At one point, I asked the group two questions:

What were they?:smile:

 

[Robert.Boston]

Heh, sorry, I pushed the POST button prematurely.

 

[Larry Chanin]

I was part of a roundtable discussion recently hosted by a think-tank in DC, with other leading energy economists and lobbyists. At one point, I asked the group two questions:

1. Is there anyone who disagrees that a carbon tax is the best way to address climate change issues? No one disagreed.
2. Is there anyone who thinks it is politically feasible to put a carbon tax in place in the US? No one thought this was politically feasible.

So, if leading thinkers all agree on a solution to "save the planet," why can't the policymakers execute that solution? Simple: the cost is too high. So much capital has been spent building up so many parts of the infrastructure (homes, factories, transportation, etc.) with the assumption of no carbon tax; adding a tax today would obsolete a lot of capital and impose enormous costs on those who rely on that obsolete capital.

What to do?

First, start investing in infrastructure that doesn't have the same reliance on cheap carbon. EVs are a perfect example: if the underlying energy source for manufacturing and operation is zero-carbon, the car is also zero-carbon (or very close).

Second, make a credible commitment to impose a carbon tax at some date certain, say, 2020. This would put everyone on notice that they need to put themselves in a position, through shifts in investment and consumption, that a carbon tax won't impose undue burdens. The problem here, however, is that there is no means for Congress to make such a credible commitment -- anything that this Congress does can be unwound by a future Congress.

Hi Robert,

Great posting as usual.

How about removing tax subsidies for oil companies making obscene profits and redirecting them to sustainable energy approaches?

The political battle would be tough, but not as difficult as adding carbon taxes.

Larry

 

[Robert.Boston]

Sure, Larry, there are a lot of "second best" ways to approximate a carbon tax through piecemeal reforms. The general rule is: tax things you want less of, subsidize things you want more of. If the goal is to shift from carbon-intensive energy sources to lower-carbon sources, we should end subsidies on high-carbon fuels, replacing them with taxes, and maintain or increase subsidies to low- or zero-carbon sources.

It's just so much easier to do that with a carbon tax! Cap-and-trade is a good approximation, and one that Congressional Republicans used to support. Now any comprehensive solution appears DOA.

 

[Larry Chanin]

Sure, Larry, there are a lot of "second best" ways to approximate a carbon tax through piecemeal reforms.

Hi Robert,

Yep, realistically in this political climate piecemeal first steps are probably all we can hope for.

To expect anything else is sort of like naively thinking a start-up car company can immediately go hell-bent for leather with a low cost, high volume EV that has suitable range without going bankrupt. :wink:

Larry

 

[EVNow]

So, if leading thinkers all agree on a solution to "save the planet," why can't the policymakers execute that solution? Simple: the cost is too high.

That is not the most important reason. One of the parties has made no tax increase the #1 public policy. Infact they have all signed off their right to ever increase tax - so none of them will ever vote to increase tax - it is essentially a taboo now.

Anyway, now they have figured out it is much easier to just deny the whole thing. Then you won't have to do anything.

 

[Kevin Harney]

That is not the most important reason. One of the parties has made no tax increase the #1 public policy. Infact they have all signed off their right to ever increase tax - so none of them will ever vote to increase tax - it is essentially a taboo now.

Anyway, now they have figured out it is much easier to just deny the whole thing. Then you won't have to do anything.

I thinkl the high cost he was referring to was the political one not the $ one.

 

[WhiteKnight]

I was part of a roundtable discussion recently hosted by a think-tank in DC, with other leading energy economists and lobbyists. At one point, I asked the group two questions:

1. Is there anyone who disagrees that a carbon tax is the best way to address climate change issues? No one disagreed.
2. Is there anyone who thinks it is politically feasible to put a carbon tax in place in the US? No one thought this was politically feasible.

So, if leading thinkers all agree on a solution to "save the planet," why can't the policymakers execute that solution? Simple: the cost is too high. So much capital has been spent building up so many parts of the infrastructure (homes, factories, transportation, etc.) with the assumption of no carbon tax; adding a tax today would obsolete a lot of capital and impose enormous costs on those who rely on that obsolete capital.

What to do?

First, start investing in infrastructure that doesn't have the same reliance on cheap carbon. EVs are a perfect example: if the underlying energy source for manufacturing and operation is zero-carbon, the car is also zero-carbon (or very close).

Second, make a credible commitment to impose a carbon tax at some date certain, say, 2020. This would put everyone on notice that they need to put themselves in a position, through shifts in investment and consumption, that a carbon tax won't impose undue burdens. The problem here, however, is that there is no means for Congress to make such a credible commitment -- anything that this Congress does can be unwound by a future Congress.

100% agree. Carbon Tax is the perfect solution and it has 0.0% chance of passing this Congress.

 

[EVNow]

I thinkl the high cost he was referring to was the political one not the $ one.

I don't think so - considering what follows "So much capital has been spent building up so many parts of the infrastructure...".

 

[brianman]

That is not the most important reason. One of the parties has made no tax increase the #1 public policy. Infact they have all signed off their right to ever increase tax - so none of them will ever vote to increase tax - it is essentially a taboo now.

Anyway, now they have figured out it is much easier to just deny the whole thing. Then you won't have to do anything.

And one party has decided they'd prefer to never pass a budget and subsidize the economy with Chinese money...

Probably not a good idea to go much further with this line of discussion in this forum.