Short-Term TSLA Price Movements - 2016

[Green Pete]

at this point NG is the only reason why BEVs make sense... that took about 15 to 20 years to occur and there's no sign that will change in any short term... do you agree with that?...

"Surely, even if you are against Tesla, you can see the very big reasons to move to BEVs, right?"

let's explore this... i assume if this statement is true... then shifting 100% today from ICE to BEVs would be an incredible improvement, right?... transportation accounts for approximately 30% of total energy consumption in the US... where about half of that is for transporting people... electricity accounts for 40% of total US energy consumption... so what happens if we add 15% of all US energy consumption to evening hours on the electrical grid?

I don't know... do you?... not all states have massive hydro like the west coast... and are those really going to be able to support that increase?... wind in Texas only accounts for 12%... and the rest of the renewables account for very little... so, what would increase?... Nuclear, NG or coal?... if we increase NG... then we're going to keep seeing an increase in headlines above... are we going to vote in a bunch of new nuclear plants?... or in a Trump administration... would a dramatic increase in BEVs lead to a dramatic increase in coal production leading to a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions?

Coal isn't cost efficient. NG would win out that fight, and solar utility is has crossed into being even cheaper than NG in some regions and is expected to continue to do so. Solar growth is going to outpace NG growth by leaps and bounds once it's cheaper solar in more regions, which is a matter of years not decades. Investing in NG infrastructure now actually seems like a very poor long term investment. Those facilities are cheap to operate once built, but expensive as hell to build, with the long term expectation of growth recouping that. If 5 years from now solar is cheaper than NG in all the southern states economic sense would stop the use of NG.

Peak electrical use is during the day. So increasing demand at night would actually be advantageous to utilities as the swing in day night use of power would be less severe and more easily manageable. This is the same reason European utilities are providing rebates to people who install power walls, storing power locally to use it at night is beneficial to both utility and individual consumer.

 

[dakh]

but then wants to produce 500k EVs per year starting in 2018... then 1m per year by 2020... shifting cars from oil to NG + nuclear + coal... it is pretty clear the SolarCity/Tesla roofs are only intended for a small minority of houses... so Tesla's entire business model is geared towards NG or additional nuclear. (yeah... there's probably some about to rant about renewables... but go check out the nationwide stats on how much renewables account for energy production... and then break down how much of that is solar)

Man why don't you read up at least a little before making these statements? First off, converting hydrocarbons to electricity and then using that for transportation is a lot more efficient than using those same hydrocarbons for propulsion directly. Second, "pretty clear" is your opinion. The reality is it depends on economic viability of solar+battery solution, and you can't possibly say they're not pushing as hard as they can (and much harder than anyone) to get to the point where it simply is more cost-efficient then using hydrocarbons. It already is in places where hydrocarbons are expensive, and with the two giant factories it will be in a much broader area.

 

[Green Pete]

Man why don't you read up at least a little before making these statements? First off, converting hydrocarbons to electricity and then using that for transportation is a lot more efficient than using those same hydrocarbons for propulsion directly. Second, "pretty clear" is your opinion. The reality is it depends on economic viability of solar+battery solution, and you can't possibly say they're not pushing as hard as they can (and much harder than anyone) to get to the point where it simply is more cost-efficient then using hydrocarbons. It already is in places where hydrocarbons are expensive, and with the two giant factories it will be in a much broader area.

Fossil fuel based electricity cost is pretty much the same nation wide. In AZ NM CA(some parts) and NV solar is cheaper is cheaper than NG. The Swanson effect whereby solar per watt drops by 20% for every doubling of shipped solar working out to halving the price every 10 years. By 2026 (at this rate, not considering solar gigafactory or other companies joining Tesla) solar will be cheaper than NG everywhere in the us but Alaska. A ten year investment in any fossil fuel company is basically lost money at that point. (The US is basically the only northern hemisphere country that isn't ahead of the curve on this)

 

[myusername]

Coal isn't cost efficient. NG would win out that fight, and solar utility is has crossed into being even cheaper than NG in some regions and is expected to continue to do so. Solar growth is going to outpace NG growth by leaps and bounds once it's cheaper solar in more regions, which is a matter of years not decades. Investing in NG infrastructure now actually seems like a very poor long term investment. Those facilities are cheap to operate once built, but expensive as hell to build, with the long term expectation of growth recouping that. If 5 years from now solar is cheaper than NG in all the southern states economic sense would stop the use of NG.

Peak electrical use is during the day. So increasing demand at night would actually be advantageous to utilities as the swing in day night use of power would be less severe and more easily manageable. This is the same reason European utilities are providing rebates to people who install power walls, storing power locally to use it at night is beneficial to both utility and individual consumer.

"Peak electrical use is during the day"

but if a massive change to BEVs occurred... that would also change.

regarding "Solar growth is going to outpace NG growth by leaps and bounds"... i assume you mean industrial solar rather than residential solar?... if that is the case then why did Elon just merge with SCTY?... why not promote industrial solar?

regardless... it would be fantastic if battery backed industrial solar fed BEVs during the night and personal transportation shifted to this form of energy... i'm all for that... but where is that in the Master Plan?

 

[racer26]

at this point NG is the only reason why BEVs make sense... that took about 15 to 20 years to occur and there's no sign that will change in any short term... do you agree with that?...

"Surely, even if you are against Tesla, you can see the very big reasons to move to BEVs, right?"

let's explore this... i assume if this statement is true... then shifting 100% today from ICE to BEVs would be an incredible improvement, right?... transportation accounts for approximately 30% of total energy consumption in the US... where about half of that is for transporting people... electricity accounts for 40% of total US energy consumption... so what happens if we add 15% of all US energy consumption to evening hours on the electrical grid?

I don't know... do you?... not all states have massive hydro like the west coast... and are those really going to be able to support that increase?... wind in Texas only accounts for 12%... and the rest of the renewables account for very little... so, what would increase?... Nuclear, NG or coal?... if we increase NG... then we're going to keep seeing an increase in headlines above... are we going to vote in a bunch of new nuclear plants?... or in a Trump administration... would a dramatic increase in BEVs lead to a dramatic increase in coal production leading to a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions?

This particular horse has been beaten dead so many times its getting ridiculous. Even in worst case mostly coal-fired West Virginia, a Model S has lower well-to-wheels CO2 emissions than ICEVs and is approximately on par with hybrids. The data is out there, all you have to do is look for it. BEVs are better than ICEVs, even if you power them with dirty coal-fired power.

That being said, its never going to happen that way.

With solar reaching its inflection point in the next 5 years (possibly within the next 8 months), decentralized generation will go way up, and the sort of people who would own an early EV are the same sort that would own Solar to power it. We'll continue closing coal-fired plants, and we'll just stop replacing them with NG or Nuclear because we don't need to. Solar will rapidly become the largest source of power.

 

[techmaven]

at this point NG is the only reason why BEVs make sense... that took about 15 to 20 years to occur and there's no sign that will change in any short term... do you agree with that?...

"Surely, even if you are against Tesla, you can see the very big reasons to move to BEVs, right?"

let's explore this... i assume if this statement is true... then shifting 100% today from ICE to BEVs would be an incredible improvement, right?... transportation accounts for approximately 30% of total energy consumption in the US... where about half of that is for transporting people... electricity accounts for 40% of total US energy consumption... so what happens if we add 15% of all US energy consumption to evening hours on the electrical grid?

I don't know... do you?... not all states have massive hydro like the west coast... and are those really going to be able to support that increase?... wind in Texas only accounts for 12%... and the rest of the renewables account for very little... so, what would increase?... Nuclear, NG or coal?... if we increase NG... then we're going to keep seeing an increase in headlines above... are we going to vote in a bunch of new nuclear plants?... or in a Trump administration... would a dramatic increase in BEVs lead to a dramatic increase in coal production leading to a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions?

Not evening hours. Super off peak hours, which is usually less than half the demand as during the day peak. The conversion will take a while, but it actually helps the economics of nuclear power plants, wind power, and daytime solar in areas with significant solar installations.

 

[myusername]

This particular horse has been beaten dead so many times its getting ridiculous. Even in worst case mostly coal-fired West Virginia, a Model S has lower well-to-wheels CO2 emissions than ICEVs and is approximately on par with hybrids. The data is out there, all you have to do is look for it. BEVs are better than ICEVs, even if you power them with dirty coal-fired power.

That being said, its never going to happen that way.

With solar reaching its inflection point in the next 5 years (possibly within the next 8 months), decentralized generation will go way up, and the sort of people who would own an early EV are the same sort that would own Solar to power it. We'll continue closing coal-fired plants, and we'll just stop replacing them with NG or Nuclear because we don't need to. Solar will rapidly become the largest source of power.

"BEVs are better than ICEVs, even if you power them with dirty coal-fired power."

I have researched this... and it ends up being neutral... not better.

"That being said, its never going to happen that way."

Ok... so your answer is... solar outputs will increase... and what do you mean by: "the sort of people who would own an early EV are the same sort that would own Solar to power it"?... that sounds pretty elitist... you can't just target the wealthy and expect a significant environmental improvement.

 

[Papafox]

Man why don't you read up at least a little before making these statements? First off, converting hydrocarbons to electricity and then using that for transportation is a lot more efficient than using those same hydrocarbons for propulsion directly. Second, "pretty clear" is your opinion. The reality is it depends on economic viability of solar+battery solution, and you can't possibly say they're not pushing as hard as they can (and much harder than anyone) to get to the point where it simply is more cost-efficient then using hydrocarbons. It already is in places where hydrocarbons are expensive, and with the two giant factories it will be in a much broader area.

Indeed. The reason Tesla and SolarCity are doing a big solar and battery farm on Kauai here in the islands is because solar is so effective year round and electricity is otherwise generated by petroleum brought great distances by ships. Add in the 4x or 5x efficiency of an EV vs. an ICE vehicle and it's a no brainer in locations such as mine. Places with cheap hydro are a no-brainer too, and with the efficiency of clean energy methods improving at a dramatic pace (along with battery efficiency), the map of where in America EVs are the clear winner is expanding mighty quickly.

 

[winfield100]

Coal isn't cost efficient. NG would win out that fight, and solar utility is has crossed into being even cheaper than NG in some regions and is expected to continue to do so. Solar growth is going to outpace NG growth by leaps and bounds once it's cheaper solar in more regions, which is a matter of years not decades. Investing in NG infrastructure now actually seems like a very poor long term investment. Those facilities are cheap to operate once built, but expensive as hell to build, with the long term expectation of growth recouping that. If 5 years from now solar is cheaper than NG in all the southern states economic sense would stop the use of NG.

Peak electrical use is during the day. So increasing demand at night would actually be advantageous to utilities as the swing in day night use of power would be less severe and more easily manageable. This is the same reason European utilities are providing rebates to people who install power walls, storing power locally to use it at night is beneficial to both utility and individual consumer.

you might consider downloading the FREE analysis "The economics of grid defection" (and also "the economics of load defection") which bolster your arguments about the "Sooner than you realize" switch to PV and battery (and realize the papers are a year or so old, TE will surprise folks, even me)
The Economics of Grid Defection
The Economics of Battery Energy Storage
The Economics of Load Defection

 

[Value Ev]

Point well taken. I am a little frustrated with these companies efforts to ramp production in EVs. I think they are stalling hoping for a collapse of the market.

If one is selling millions of cars, one can can't just turn on a dime (no pun intended).
They are starting the ramp, put foot in water, experiment, doing R&D, look at market take up rate etc.

Sure there are 500k or so reservations, but how long until there be 2M? 3M? And at that point, what are the criteria for winning more share, price? range? AP4.0? other?. Can they up-sell from a Corolla to a Camry to a EV or is it a different strategy? What happened with the 35k reservations for the X? Is the S about to ramp up or has it settled into a niche?

These are all things that will inform their decisions on how quickly they will ramp.

Remember to substantially move the needle on their performance most have to get to significant volumes at good enough numbers to defray the costs.

 

[myusername]

this discussion started with increased earthquakes due to increased natural gas production that justified EVs... that then went to negatives of shifting from oil to electricity... that went to solar is going to explode... then ended with "duh... EVs are better"... and I'll just let it go... not trolling.

 

[racer26]

"BEVs are better than ICEVs, even if you power them with dirty coal-fired power."

I have researched this... and it ends up being neutral... not better.

"That being said, its never going to happen that way."

Ok... so your answer is... solar outputs will increase... and what do you mean by: "the sort of people who would own an early EV are the same sort that would own Solar to power it"?... that sounds pretty elitist... you can't just target the wealthy and expect a significant environmental improvement.

Your research has probably forgotten to include the fact that refining gasoline is itself a CO2 intensive process.

If you want to account for the fuel source emissions in those of a BEV, you must also do so for the ICEV you're comparing to.

Calculating the CO2 emissions per mile of the Model S • /r/teslamotors

I'll concede that a Model S is on par with similar class ICEVs, if you ignore the gasoline refining emissions AND power it from 100% coal.

To your 'elitist' comment, its nothing like that: I don't own a Model S (much as I would love to) or have solar panels on my house, because I can't afford to.

I agree you cannot just target the wealthy and expect a big impact: that's why Model 3 and the roof "cheaper than a normal roof" are coming.

What I'm saying, is that the early adopters of one of those technologies are a highly correlated group to the early adopters of the other, and so the net impact of a mass switch to BEVs on the grid will be reduced accordingly by a concurrent mass switch to solar power.

 

[Green Pete]

regarding "Solar growth is going to outpace NG growth by leaps and bounds"... i assume you mean industrial solar rather than residential solar?... if that is the case then why did Elon just merge with SCTY?... why not promote industrial solar

Power pack two and solar gigafactory are a much bigger reason for the merger. The combined company now has a great advantage in the bidding process for these projects. The solar roof will be big business but the master plan is "facilitation the transition". Powerpack+utility solar is going to be a massive part of the future of Tesla

 

[racer26]

On a completely different note:

Speculation: We're definitely going to be meeting guidance.

Rationale: We're not seeing any strong push to get cars delivered, discounting, etc as we did in 3Q around 6 weeks from the end of the quarter. In fact, we're seeing the opposite, raising of prices, and so on.

 

[Intl Professor]

Just an n of one (nsquared?) but our local publicly owned utility district, SMUD, recently dropped its $10 a month surcharge for 50% of our use of energy from renewable sources. They did say we could elect a new program for $3 which would also give us energy from renewable resources for 50% of our use. That program could be expanded for an additional $3/mo. surcharge and 100% of our energy would come from renewable resources. For that decision I did not have to consult with my wife given our lowly fixed income.

Sure hope SMUD isn't burning wood to achieve this goal.

 

[SteveG3]

(Why Tesla is associating "Paint it Black" with AP 2.0 and the Tesla brand is beyond me. A great rock and roll song don't get me wrong, I have always loved the song, but have you ever really considered what the song is about? It'd be like Tesla putting out an AP video with Eleanor Rigby as the soundtrack or something.)

I agree, but, I'm pretty sure the song is associated with the new series that Talulah is in... so probably an Elon personal decision no one in Tesla is going to stick their nose in. fwiw, I loved their use of "Ring of Fire" (Johnny Cash) when they were doing these progress videos with testing of landing the rockets for reuse. I don't know why... but man did this hit the spot for me (maybe shades of the original rocket testing era and Texas size bold pioneering).

 

[AudubonB]

Close. True in the same sense that the William Tell Overture was by composer Kemo Sabe.

AAAh - ¡No seas tan Tonto!

 

[ggr]

I agree, but, I'm pretty sure the song is associated with the new series that Talulah is in... so probably an Elon personal decision no one in Tesla is going to stick their nose in. fwiw, I loved their use of "Ring of Fire" (Johnny Cash) when they were doing these progress videos with testing of landing the rockets for reuse. I don't know why... but man did this hit the spot for me (maybe shades of the original rocket testing era and Texas size bold pioneering).

Most people who watch the video, don't realize that there was a Johnny Cash dummy strapped to the side of the rocket for that flight. Here's a higher res version, with a closeup in the first few seconds. I think the point was to demonstrate that the rocket wasn't just well balanced but was actively controlling its stability.

 

[MitchJi]

The Enduring Scandal of Trump University - The New Yorker

Give Donald Trump one thing: He’s mastered the political art of diverting attention from damaging news stories. On Friday afternoon, Trump’s lawyers and the Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, announced that they had reached an agreement to settle three civil cases brought against the President-elect and Trump University, the scandal-plagued learning annex that he operated from 2005 to 2011.

The lawsuits, two in California and one in New York, were filed on behalf of thousands of people, some of them elderly and of modest means, who alleged that Trump University had lured them into spending thousands of dollars on courses in real-estate speculation that turned out to be of little or no value. During the election campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed that the lawsuits were baseless, and vowed that he would never settle. But on Friday, just ten days before one of the cases was due to go to court in San Diego, he agreed to pay twenty-five million dollars in restitution and fines.
<Snip>
One of these ads, for a costly three-day seminar, described Trump as “the most celebrated entrepreneur on earth,” and said, “He’s ready to share—with Americans like you—the Trump process for investing in today’s once-in-a-lifetime real estate market.” And yet, although Trump approved the company’s ads, he didn’t attend the seminars or even review the curricula and programming materials used in them. Trump University ads also claimed that Trump had hand-picked the tutors of the courses. This turned out to be a lie. In a sworn affidavit filed in one of the California cases, a former salesman for Trump University, Ronald Schnackenberg, said, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.”

Trump didn’t admit any wrongdoing as part of Friday’s settlement, which was clearly an effort to prevent a major embarrassment for the President-elect. Had the trial in San Diego gone ahead, the nation would have had the chance to watch a succession of witnesses explain how Trump University had used false advertising and promises to lure them into parting with their life savings. Under the terms of the settlement, “every victim will receive restitution and . . . Donald Trump will pay up to $1 million in penalties to the State of New York for violating state education laws,” Schneiderman said in a statement.But the court, and the rest of us, won’t get to hear from the victims of Trump’s scamming enterprise. And that, surely, is worth a lot more than twenty-five million dollars to the incoming Con-Man-in-Chief.

 

[Value Ev]

unrelated link to the topic

(edited that for you)

If you want to post about lawsuits that may affect TSLA stock price (you know, what this thread is about), how about the lawsuits that, oh, I don't know, TSLA is facing? Not just the shareholder lawsuits but the one about the IP (has that been settled?