More anti-ev gibberish

[Dan5]

Hey, hold on pretty soon AXPW announce their stock performance. My guess is another substantial loss. My concern is that it takes such a small amount to move the stock he may just buying it and say its doing good and dump it the next day....after all its on the pink equivalent board. I wish I could short AXPW, but shorting pinks/OCTBB is a bad idea and finding someone to actually buy the stock hard too (very few if any brokerage firms allow it and others require a substantial escrow)- I guess that's what saved them from tanking sooner, less short interest.

 

[Zythryn]

Has anyone compiled a list of John P's greatest hits? Or more accurately most spectacularly incorrect predictions?

 

[LST]

Here's a brilliant one: Axion Power: A Battery Manufacturer Charging Forward - Seeking Alpha. The poor guy lost big.... could you call him a loser ?

 

[FalconNinetyD]

With AXPW now trading for 2 short bits ($0.20), my guess is another JP article is coming. Even more than bashing Tesla, he's got his castle to keep. Numbers look like Axion needs to do another capital raise - the last one hit the stock price pretty hard, so with A123 and many other battery makers in trouble, AXPW is in a world of hurt.

Or (2) short ribs. Reminded me of one of Chris Rock's first movies...

 

[Arnold Panz]

This article was linked by Andrew Sullivan in his widely read blog on the Daily Beast this morning. Not surprisingly, the author leaves Tesla completely out of the equation until the very end because Tesla's results on range, popularity and financial solvency cut against his every argument:

Far From Electrifying

Electric car hopes never die — but electric realities keep intervening.

Technical success of electrics comes down, most fundamentally, to batteries. The lithium-ion battery, with its many flaws, is still the only relatively lightweight commercial option and Edison’s dream of a perfect car battery is now more than a century old. Bold plans come and go: a 1980 report on the introduction of electric vehicles in the United States predicted 1–2 million units in sales by 1985 and as many 11–13 million fully electric cars by the year 2000. But by the end of 2012, the United States had about 50,000 electrics on the road, no more than 0.03 percent of all light-duty vehicles licensed to operate in the country. Undaunted, a campaigning President Obama did not repeal his 2011 State of the Union goal of putting 1 million electric cars on the road by 2015.

 

[JRP3]

I don't know, it certainly had a negative slant but was mostly factually accurate, and did mention Tesla before the end:

Tesla’s deliveries for 2012 were cut from 5,000 to 2,700–3,250, due to production problems.

Again, accurate.

 

[CapitalistOppressor]

I don't know, it certainly had a negative slant but was mostly factually accurate, and did mention Tesla before the end:
Again, accurate.

It recycled the Reuters story about Volt's costing ~$80,000 each to produce. He loosely chains that to reality with his comment that it might take years before GM makes money, but the ~$80,000 number is flawed and deeply debatable even on its own terms.

As to Tesla, he compared it to Fiskar and stated that their problems are somehow equivalent, when in fact the market trajectory of the two companies are diametrically opposite from one another. Cutting your production forecast because you are a few weeks behind your planned schedule does not make you equivalent to a company flirting with bankruptcy and searching for a buyer willing to save it.

And another extended-range electric vehicle, the high-end Fisker Karma, has fared much worse. Consumer Reports found the $107,000 car, developed with a $529 million loan from the U.S. government and built in Finland, is full of design flaws and did not recommend its purchase. The car’s battery failed during the Consumer Reports test drive and Fisker subsequently replaced all of its 2012 Karma batteries. Then, on October 16, the manufacturer of the substandard lithium-ion battery used in the Karma, A123 Systems, (recipient of a U.S. federal grant worth $249 million in 2009) filed for bankruptcy.

The bold portions of that paragraph are the conceptual framework of that paragraph, with the rest being descriptive filler. He then transitions to Tesla with the following -

And another American true electric car has not done any better: Tesla’s deliveries for 2012 were cut from 5,000 to 2,700–3,250, due to production problems.

Setting aside the false equivalency between bankrupt and failing concerns, like Fiskar or A123 Systems, and a rapidly growing company like Tesla, this linkage is factually false in another sense because the author is also equating Tesla with Fiskar's quality problems. Consumer Reports is on record calling the Model S amazing and addictive. There is nothing factual about those comparisons.

 

[JRP3]

It recycled the Reuters story about Volt's costing ~$80,000 each to produce. He loosely chains that to reality with his comment that it might take years before GM makes money, but the ~$80,000 number is flawed and deeply debatable even on its own terms.

Until volume increases that number may be accurate. Even without development costs we don't know what the Volt is costing GM to build at this point.

As to Tesla, he compared it to Fiskar and stated that their problems are somehow equivalent, when in fact the market trajectory of the two companies are diametrically opposite from one another. Cutting your production forecast because you are a few weeks behind your planned schedule does not make you equivalent to a company flirting with bankruptcy and searching for a buyer willing to save it.



The bold portions of that paragraph are the conceptual framework of that paragraph, with the rest being descriptive filler. He then transitions to Tesla with the following -



Setting aside the false equivalency between bankrupt and failing concerns, like Fiskar or A123 Systems, and a rapidly growing company like Tesla, this linkage is factually false in another sense because the author is also equating Tesla with Fiskar's quality problems. Consumer Reports is on record calling the Model S amazing and addictive. There is nothing factual about those comparisons.

Good point on the quality comparisons, but the factual data on Tesla is accurate. As I said it skews negative but I still say the data points are fairly accurate.

 

[JRP3]

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/137536

Counter to what the title claims, this discovery of existing failure mechanisms in lithium cells does not mean they will fail sooner than expected, it just means we've now uncovered another method of failure, which will most likely lead to future improvements.

 

[herbvdh]

He needs to do more research and find out that some of these Lithium batteries have so little Lithium in them it is not worth talking about. I was reading the paperwork from our supplier and the Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet. I would put the percentage here but I have this in my office. I work with a lot of 18630 type Lithium cells same as Tesla'a.

 

[NotTarts]

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/news/137536

Counter to what the title claims, this discovery of existing failure mechanisms in lithium cells does not mean they will fail sooner than expected, it just means we've now uncovered another method of failure, which will most likely lead to future improvements.

Eh, they can't really test some batteries and paint all batteries with the same brush. The Volt and Leaf use Manganese spinel, the Model S uses Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC), the i-MiEV uses Lithium-Titanate, the Smart Fortwo EV uses Nickel Cobalt Aluminium (NCA), while the Karma and Spark EV use Lithium Iron Phosphate. Every car on the market pretty much uses a different chemistry.

 

[JRP3]

Most of them share the same basic structures, and as far as I know fail in similar ways, though at different rates. Lithium plating is probably a factor in all of them.

- - - Updated - - -

He needs to do more research and find out that some of these Lithium batteries have so little Lithium in them it is not worth talking about. I was reading the paperwork from our supplier and the Manufacturers Safety Data Sheet. I would put the percentage here but I have this in my office. I work with a lot of 18630 type Lithium cells same as Tesla'a.

It's true that lithium batteries have small amounts of lithium in them, but that doesn't mean that lithium plating is not a failure mechanism.

 

[GSP]

Until volume increases that number may be accurate. Even without development costs we don't know what the Volt is costing GM to build at this point..

The $80,000/Volt cost is not accurate. Engineering development and tooling costs will be spread across all Volts built; past, present, and future. We don't know how many that will be, but I bet it will be close to GM's original business plan. The article may have its other facts in order, but not this one.

You are correct that we don't know GM's marginal cost to build one Volt either.

GSP

 

[dpeilow]

We don't know it but Bob Lutz gave a well reasoned argument that they are at least breaking even - and he should know.

 

[NotTarts]

Most of them share the same basic structures, and as far as I know fail in similar ways, though at different rates. Lithium plating is probably a factor in all of them.

- - - Updated - - -


It's true that lithium batteries have small amounts of lithium in them, but that doesn't mean that lithium plating is not a failure mechanism.

Just a correction -- there is no "lithium plating" inside the battery. Lithium is dissolved inside a solution to form the electrolyte, so there is no pure lithium inside the battery. The problem in that article refers to lithium ions moving past the anode, which is made from graphite (carbon). I know that the Lithium Titanate batteries used in the i-MiEV use lithium-titanate instead of graphite, but I'm not sure about the other chemistries.

 

[JRP3]

Just a correction -- there is no "lithium plating" inside the battery. Lithium is dissolved inside a solution to form the electrolyte, so there is no pure lithium inside the battery. The problem in that article refers to lithium ions moving past the anode, which is made from graphite (carbon). I know that the Lithium Titanate batteries used in the i-MiEV use lithium-titanate instead of graphite, but I'm not sure about the other chemistries.

Sorry, but I must correct your correction. "Lithium plating" is the unintended build up of lithium during use. http://lithiumbatteryresearch.com/Plating.php

 

[YoungStranger]

Autocar (UK magazine) Xmas Special

"Electric Car vs Horse and Carriage"

A look at Leaf (and they are not too rude about it as a car), but full of tired cliches about range anxiety. Sorry cant find a link to a electronic version. A few quotes:

"The Nissan Leaf, the best of the current crop of electric vehicles now on the market"

"To avoid using too much battery power in the Leaf, its advisable to use thick clothing so you don't need the heater too often"

They conclude that Horse and Carriage would win run to London to Brighton and back journey (120 miles).

The analogy is swapping horses and swapping batteries (which they conclude fairly reasonably is a logistical nightmare)

Merry Christmas Everybody!:smile:

 

[Local host]

Tesla will need more loans to stay afloat in 2013 - John Shinals Tech Investor - MarketWatch

Wow... The new Peterson?

 

[Grendal]

Electric Cars Don’t Impress Car-buying Public - 24/7 Wall St.

An article based on an Indiana University study of 2300 adult drivers. I would think how questions are phrased can get you any result you want. So this study had an anti-EV bias and it was done in August of last year. The Model S is mentioned, but think about where Tesla was in August of 2011. The first public Model S event hadn't even happened yet. The Volt and the Leaf had been out for less than a year and weren't even nationally sold. Only a year old and the study is completely out of date with where EV's are now.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Tesla will need more loans to stay afloat in 2013 - John Shinals Tech Investor - MarketWatch

Wow... The new Peterson?

No, Peterson's last post was far more cogently argued. This was a bad cover. Kate Bush Rocket Man bad.