Looks like quite a bit less than 50% aluminum mass for the structural part. Not sure what the body panels contribute.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Looks like quite a bit less than 50% aluminum mass for the structural part. Not sure what the body panels contribute.
This sounds like a good deal for LG, SKI, Panasonic, and of course Tesla if they can get their LFP act together. Looks like the vast majority of the batteries whether they be for EV or storage will eventually be LFP, and there is no one other than BYD / CATL that seem to be playing in that space. What is Tesla's strategy here? Probably would be a good question for the earnings call.
But isn't demand so high that competition won't matter for many years?
Shocking. Tesla can't move 600 cars from their lots to peoples home last week before incentive expire but everywhere else in the world they were selling demo units. Tom must be running a sugar show over there and should be terminated vs getting promoted.Hadn’t seen this posted yet (apologies if double posted):
Tesla MIC weekly insured units
26 Dec 2022-1 Jan 2023: 4,338
Or could be that the 26k worth of inventory in China is BS and they ran out of cars to sell.
Take your pick.
Here's what various analysts are saying in the wake of the P&D report:
Consensus 2023 deliveries are 1.85mm. vs 1.31 in 2022, for an expected 41% YoY growth.
RBC: "Because of a greater focus on margins/profit, we are shifting entirely to earnings-based valuation metrics (avg. of EV/EBITDA and P/E, from avg. EV/Sales and EV/EBITDA). We now use 20x 2025 EBITDA and 30x 2025 P/E to get to our $186 PT [down from $225]." Note that RBC is projecting slightly lower than consensus deliveries for 2023, 2024, and 2025.
RBC: "IRA ... Model 3 Long-range subject to $55k cap but TSLA currently has no pricing on site, but we wouldn't be surprised to see it priced to qualify. However, IRS also appears to be leaning towards a rule that leased vehicles can get $7.5k credit and since these would be considered "commercial" then all TSLA vehicles may qualify if leased."
RBC: "Based primarily on updated deliveries, our 4Q22 revenue estimate goes to ~$23.7bn from ~$24.0bn. Visible Alpha consensus stands at $25.7bn, so a sizable revision should come. We model $250mm of credits. We model auto-gross margins ex-credits at 25.5% vs. Visible Alpha consensus at ~28.5%. Our diluted adjusted EPS decreases to $1.13 from $1.15 vs. consensus of $1.29. Our diluted GAAP EPS estimate is $1.02."
RBC maintains an outperform rating for TSLA. Upside scenario at $350/share, downside at $89/share.
Deutsche Bank: "4Q revenue forecast $23bn and gross margin at 26.3% (ex-credit), representing 50bps decline q/q leading to EPS of $1.00. Note that our 4Q estimates do not account for the expected one-time benefit from the company recognizing the rest of 40%+ in deferred revenue associated with FSD rollout in N. America. We estimate that including this benefit could boost 4Q gross profit by ~ $1bn and EPS by 24-26 cents."
Deutsche Bank: "Beyond the quarter, we expect challenging headlines around demand softening and associated price cuts to continue; recent reports already suggest Tesla may take an extended shutdown in Shanghai later this month around Chinese New Year."
Deutsche Bank: "Looking at the year ahead, we anticipate tailwinds from continued volume growth, diminishing ramp-up cost from Austin and Berlin eventually turning to COGS/vehicle tailwind, IRA benefits, lower raw materials costs, and ~100% FSD revenue recognition in N. America at ~90% gross margin. Main uncertainty comes from the macro environment and associated magnitude of price cuts required, as well as lithium prices. We now
model 9% reduction in global ASP as initial IRS guidance raises the risk the IRA consumer incentive of $7,500 may not benefit all variants of Model Y in the U.S., and we are tweaking down our 2023 deliveries estimate to 1.84m units (still +40% YoY), and revenue to $100.7bn." They are targeting 2023 EPS of $4.70,
Deutsche Bank: "All in, we lower our price target to $250 (from $270) based on the average of 40x our 2025 EPS and EV/sales multiple of 10x 2023 (both discounted back), reflecting slightly lower volume and reduced but still strong gross margin expectations. We continue to view Tesla as an EV leader in the autos sector thanks to its superior cost structure and agility in the midst of challenging macro conditions. In the near term, it is establishing more cost-efficient capacity to support meaningful growth. In midterm, the company is looking to launch its next-gen platform which should support multiple other vehicles and segments, and targeting $20k COGS/vehicle. Reiterate Buy."
Deutsche Bank: "Tesla is likely facing a mix of accelerated weak macro and some level of growing competition in China with compelling EVs that offer newer features. Relative to the U.S. and Europe, China is seeing more new credible products coming to market and ramping up in capacity. This year, competition has moved upward to the RMB 100-200k price segment (BYD, GAC Aion, Hozon Neta), away from low end mini car category (e.g., Wuling Hongguan, Great Wall ORA). In response to this, reports suggest Tesla is developing a revamped version of the Model 3 to reboot the appeal of the 5-year old electric sedan and lower costs meaningfully further. The redesigned model will move into production in third quarter of 2023 in Shanghai. Amid the accelerated weak macro and a more competitive EV market, pricing naturally becomes Tesla’s lever to pull, especially after several price hikes earlier last year."
Deutsche Bank: "We expect IRA to constitute a meaningful tailwind for the company, starting January 1. The battery manufacturing piece should amount to $45/kWh for the battery cells and packs made in-house (10 GWh capacity from pilot line in Fremont, and ramping up Austin capacity as fast as possible), and a piece of it to be shared with Panasonic for the batteries made by the JV in Nevada. The company has indicated in the Q3 earnings call that Austin’s battery output should be around 1,000 vehicle sets per week by the end of this year. We had previously estimated ... under the IRA, amounting to a ~$1,800/unit overall COGS reduction on a volume-weighted basis in the U.S, or ~$800/vehicle when averaged over global volumes."
Deutsche Bank: "Tesla indicated that it is extremely focused on its next-generation vehicle platform, which in our view should support several different top hats across multiple vehicle segments, as well as robotaxi. Development is well advanced, and SOP is targeted to be in 2024. The goal is for this platform to have a COGS of about $20k per vehicle (half of Tesla’s current one), and for Tesla manufacturing output of the vehicle to be twice as high as currently on similar footprint, with half the capex spent. Recall that the company had seemingly de-emphasized the development of the more affordable “Model 2” earlier on last year, to focus primarily on growing volumes of existing models at its current and new factories, and roll out its FSD software. This platform development would represent the re-acceleration of this effort for SoP in 2024, though the exact vehicle types are yet to be unveiled. We think this will be an important topic investors will look to understand better, given implications for volume trajectory in the years beyond 2023."
JP Morgan: 4Q EPS estimate at $1.16. "Our base case assumption is that y/y growth (while remaining impressive overall) is likely to decline each year from here on out (we forecast +26% growth in 2023, +24% in 2024, and +20% in 2025)."
JP Morgan: "...with significant capacity coming online in full year 2023 vs. 2022 (annual run-rate installed capacity as per the 3Q22 shareholder letter of >1.9 mn as Austin and Berlin ramp vs. 2022 deliveries of 1.3 mn), supply is unlikely to be the limiting factor for Tesla deliveries in 2023 that it has been in prior years, such that a material deliveries miss vs. expectation could be particularly injurious to long-term investor expectations. We are not materially lowering our estimates today (2023 goes to $4.60 from $4.84, 2024 to $5.15 from $5.35, and 2025 to $5.55 from $5.65) although we are reducing our December 2023 price target to $125 from $150 on expected multiple compression as growth expectations moderate."
JP Morgan has a underweight rating for TSLA. "Although both technology and execution risk seem substantially less than was once feared, expansion into higher volume segments with lower price points seems fraught with greater risk relative to demand, execution, and competition. Meanwhile, valuation appears to be pricing in upside related to expansion into mass-market segments well beyond our volume forecasts for the Model 3 and Model Y."
Citigroup: "Although the soft Q4 outcome isn’t entirely shocking given recent China COVID developments, the delivery miss (vs. reduced estimates & post recent price actions) will likely escalate concerns over NT macro/competitive demand pressures at a time when Tesla is adding significant capacity on existing products. At ~30x consensus ’22 EPS and with sentiment already quite negative, an argument can be made that much of the bad news is already priced in. But until gross margin visibility improves (Q4 results on Jan 25th), the stock might struggle to regain meaningful ground, and it doesn’t help that U.S. IRA guidelines appear to limit the $80k price cap to just the three-row Model Y variants."
Citigroup maintains a $176 price target.
Consensus 2023 deliveries are 1.85mm. vs 1.31 in 2022, for an expected 41% YoY growth.
RBC: "Because of a greater focus on margins/profit, we are shifting entirely to earnings-based valuation metrics (avg. of EV/EBITDA and P/E, from avg. EV/Sales and EV/EBITDA). We now use 20x 2025 EBITDA and 30x 2025 P/E to get to our $186 PT [down from $225]." Note that RBC is projecting slightly lower than consensus deliveries for 2023, 2024, and 2025.
RBC: "IRA ... Model 3 Long-range subject to $55k cap but TSLA currently has no pricing on site, but we wouldn't be surprised to see it priced to qualify. However, IRS also appears to be leaning towards a rule that leased vehicles can get $7.5k credit and since these would be considered "commercial" then all TSLA vehicles may qualify if leased."
RBC: "Based primarily on updated deliveries, our 4Q22 revenue estimate goes to ~$23.7bn from ~$24.0bn. Visible Alpha consensus stands at $25.7bn, so a sizable revision should come. We model $250mm of credits. We model auto-gross margins ex-credits at 25.5% vs. Visible Alpha consensus at ~28.5%. Our diluted adjusted EPS decreases to $1.13 from $1.15 vs. consensus of $1.29. Our diluted GAAP EPS estimate is $1.02."
RBC maintains an outperform rating for TSLA. Upside scenario at $350/share, downside at $89/share.
Deutsche Bank: "4Q revenue forecast $23bn and gross margin at 26.3% (ex-credit), representing 50bps decline q/q leading to EPS of $1.00. Note that our 4Q estimates do not account for the expected one-time benefit from the company recognizing the rest of 40%+ in deferred revenue associated with FSD rollout in N. America. We estimate that including this benefit could boost 4Q gross profit by ~ $1bn and EPS by 24-26 cents."
Deutsche Bank: "Beyond the quarter, we expect challenging headlines around demand softening and associated price cuts to continue; recent reports already suggest Tesla may take an extended shutdown in Shanghai later this month around Chinese New Year."
Deutsche Bank: "Looking at the year ahead, we anticipate tailwinds from continued volume growth, diminishing ramp-up cost from Austin and Berlin eventually turning to COGS/vehicle tailwind, IRA benefits, lower raw materials costs, and ~100% FSD revenue recognition in N. America at ~90% gross margin. Main uncertainty comes from the macro environment and associated magnitude of price cuts required, as well as lithium prices. We now
model 9% reduction in global ASP as initial IRS guidance raises the risk the IRA consumer incentive of $7,500 may not benefit all variants of Model Y in the U.S., and we are tweaking down our 2023 deliveries estimate to 1.84m units (still +40% YoY), and revenue to $100.7bn." They are targeting 2023 EPS of $4.70,
Deutsche Bank: "All in, we lower our price target to $250 (from $270) based on the average of 40x our 2025 EPS and EV/sales multiple of 10x 2023 (both discounted back), reflecting slightly lower volume and reduced but still strong gross margin expectations. We continue to view Tesla as an EV leader in the autos sector thanks to its superior cost structure and agility in the midst of challenging macro conditions. In the near term, it is establishing more cost-efficient capacity to support meaningful growth. In midterm, the company is looking to launch its next-gen platform which should support multiple other vehicles and segments, and targeting $20k COGS/vehicle. Reiterate Buy."
Deutsche Bank: "Tesla is likely facing a mix of accelerated weak macro and some level of growing competition in China with compelling EVs that offer newer features. Relative to the U.S. and Europe, China is seeing more new credible products coming to market and ramping up in capacity. This year, competition has moved upward to the RMB 100-200k price segment (BYD, GAC Aion, Hozon Neta), away from low end mini car category (e.g., Wuling Hongguan, Great Wall ORA). In response to this, reports suggest Tesla is developing a revamped version of the Model 3 to reboot the appeal of the 5-year old electric sedan and lower costs meaningfully further. The redesigned model will move into production in third quarter of 2023 in Shanghai. Amid the accelerated weak macro and a more competitive EV market, pricing naturally becomes Tesla’s lever to pull, especially after several price hikes earlier last year."
Deutsche Bank: "We expect IRA to constitute a meaningful tailwind for the company, starting January 1. The battery manufacturing piece should amount to $45/kWh for the battery cells and packs made in-house (10 GWh capacity from pilot line in Fremont, and ramping up Austin capacity as fast as possible), and a piece of it to be shared with Panasonic for the batteries made by the JV in Nevada. The company has indicated in the Q3 earnings call that Austin’s battery output should be around 1,000 vehicle sets per week by the end of this year. We had previously estimated ... under the IRA, amounting to a ~$1,800/unit overall COGS reduction on a volume-weighted basis in the U.S, or ~$800/vehicle when averaged over global volumes."
Deutsche Bank: "Tesla indicated that it is extremely focused on its next-generation vehicle platform, which in our view should support several different top hats across multiple vehicle segments, as well as robotaxi. Development is well advanced, and SOP is targeted to be in 2024. The goal is for this platform to have a COGS of about $20k per vehicle (half of Tesla’s current one), and for Tesla manufacturing output of the vehicle to be twice as high as currently on similar footprint, with half the capex spent. Recall that the company had seemingly de-emphasized the development of the more affordable “Model 2” earlier on last year, to focus primarily on growing volumes of existing models at its current and new factories, and roll out its FSD software. This platform development would represent the re-acceleration of this effort for SoP in 2024, though the exact vehicle types are yet to be unveiled. We think this will be an important topic investors will look to understand better, given implications for volume trajectory in the years beyond 2023."
JP Morgan: 4Q EPS estimate at $1.16. "Our base case assumption is that y/y growth (while remaining impressive overall) is likely to decline each year from here on out (we forecast +26% growth in 2023, +24% in 2024, and +20% in 2025)."
JP Morgan: "...with significant capacity coming online in full year 2023 vs. 2022 (annual run-rate installed capacity as per the 3Q22 shareholder letter of >1.9 mn as Austin and Berlin ramp vs. 2022 deliveries of 1.3 mn), supply is unlikely to be the limiting factor for Tesla deliveries in 2023 that it has been in prior years, such that a material deliveries miss vs. expectation could be particularly injurious to long-term investor expectations. We are not materially lowering our estimates today (2023 goes to $4.60 from $4.84, 2024 to $5.15 from $5.35, and 2025 to $5.55 from $5.65) although we are reducing our December 2023 price target to $125 from $150 on expected multiple compression as growth expectations moderate."
JP Morgan has a underweight rating for TSLA. "Although both technology and execution risk seem substantially less than was once feared, expansion into higher volume segments with lower price points seems fraught with greater risk relative to demand, execution, and competition. Meanwhile, valuation appears to be pricing in upside related to expansion into mass-market segments well beyond our volume forecasts for the Model 3 and Model Y."
Citigroup: "Although the soft Q4 outcome isn’t entirely shocking given recent China COVID developments, the delivery miss (vs. reduced estimates & post recent price actions) will likely escalate concerns over NT macro/competitive demand pressures at a time when Tesla is adding significant capacity on existing products. At ~30x consensus ’22 EPS and with sentiment already quite negative, an argument can be made that much of the bad news is already priced in. But until gross margin visibility improves (Q4 results on Jan 25th), the stock might struggle to regain meaningful ground, and it doesn’t help that U.S. IRA guidelines appear to limit the $80k price cap to just the three-row Model Y variants."
Citigroup maintains a $176 price target.
Last edited:
Perhaps the cathode plant is a constraint on 4680 production at Austin, but the plant is nearing completion.
No reason why 4680 cells can't be used in a single motor SR with a bit less range.
There has been a lot of extra equipment installed at Austin over the last 3-4 months, if cells are not a constraint it should be able to ramp.
We know 4680 packs have been stockpiled, so there are some spare cells, 4680 cell production should keep ramping.
My preference is try to make good margins on a 5 seat Model Y for 55K, sell the 7 seater for 30% margins if possible.
petit_bateau
Active Member
In 2022 if Tesla are lucky they will have sold approx 7 GWh of storage (domestic & utility) combined. Just in the last couple of days I posted in the Daily Energy News thread that two random Chinese companies have switched on two Chinese utility-scale systems, one of 440MWh and one of 800MWh, so 1.2 GWh combined. The point is that is just in the last few days. You are welcome to believe that Tesla is head-and-shoulders above all others, but that is no longer my view. If you have better numbers please put them on display.
Giant battery goes online in China
Sineng Electric has switched on a 400 MW/800 MWh storage facility in China's Shandong province. The project features the company's 3.15 MW turnkey battery stations.
www.pv-magazine.com
China connects 220 MW/440 MWh battery to grid
Robestec has connected a 220 MW/440 MW battery storage system to the grid in Ningxia, China. It is reportedly China’s largest standalone energy storage station, and uses lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries from Hithium Energy Storage.
www.pv-magazine.com
Please .... my experience in the energy sector did not stop in 2015. I sold my/our subsequent company (in global HV grid) only last year, 2022. My thirty years of experience have not disappeared, and I've not been idle since then either. Every grid company worth their salt is studying storage very closely indeed.
My head spins with all the questions from so many different directions. Everybody from the biggest Middle Eastern oil & gas despot to the most humble Chinese battery manufacturer would like an answer to all these questions. All of them have agency, all of them are trying to influence the outcome. To provide a personalised answer to every one would require an army of consultants. And in any case the outcome partly depends on how they all interact in the years to come.
As a long-only long-term investor in TSLA it is in my interests that the shareprice go up. However that is not the same as standing completely idly by whilst people spout the most unsubstantiated tripe for either the bull or the bear case. Some have characterised my attempts to sketch out the issues in the Tesla Energy division as being a bear-thesis, or a mere hunch. That is inappropriate, all I have done is point out the issues associated with the known facts at present, and the implications of Tesla's own stated long term goals. Beyond that I'd really rather not try to become that personalised consultant or guru as that would be unreasonable. I am neither a member of the Tesla shareholder support team payroll, nor for that matter on the TMC payroll, or indeed any company's payroll. There comes a point where you have to start digging into things on your own, and forming your own actionable views. You could start with posing yourself the question of why buy a 10kWh domestic storage unit from Tesla at GBP 10k when you can buy basically the same thing from SolarEdge for GBP 6k, or from a Chinese clone for less.
CATL and BYD are the biggest players in LFP, but not the only ones. Gotion is a pretty big one that was rumored to be working on a partnership with Tesla at one point.
The question I ask myself is why you think Tesla can't match or beat competitor pricing for storage products when Tesla needs to, considering their planned scale and manufacturing integration... and why you think the domestic market is "already lost" when it has actually only begun.
I don't have a good answer.
petit_bateau
Active Member
So why has Tesla basically already given up competing in this (domestic) segment ......
From the last earnings call:-
Maybe the future date when they can talk more about it is the next earnings call, or perhaps the investor day.
But while they are are not talking, they are still "pursuing aggressively".
We know the Lithium processing plant in Texas should take 2 years to build, so it is not on the critical path for Cybertruck production.
Mexico makes good Tequila
Given up in what way? Last time I check they have a backlog selling at 2x the price. Are you asking why haven't Tesla given up their profits to race to the bottom with a supply constraint product? Maybe because it's business 101?
Also there are so many reasons why you would want to buy premium. Better software, better support, and not subjected to political pressure. China relied on Nvidia hardware and just got blocked. What do you think running Chinese power plants in your backyard would do during war time? China controlling your power plants sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.
Last edited:
You're assuming Tesla has Powerwall inventory that they can't sell. Do you have evidence for that?
The are production and cell constrained on Powerwall.
Stating the obvious :- Powerwall needs a redesign, probably a move to LFP, lower costs, and higher volume production.
Higher volumes and lower build costs will enable lower prices.
Let's see what the next 12-24 months brings.
If Tesla energy goes nowhere in the next 24 months it is an easy call, you are 100% right.
I'm still betting they know what is required, and plans are in the works.
ok, this is nuts. Apparently the trademark about motors for boats, etc (non land vehicles) was not filed by Tesla, but rather by a Tesla fan w/o Tesla's knowledge.
Rashomon
Member
Hmmm. A single-motor MY with a 66kWh Lithium-FeP replacing a 80kWh 2180 pack might be somewhere around $3000-3500 cheaper to build. Figure at least $1000 from losing a motor and motor controller, the rest from the battery (some from the capacity reduction, the rest from the less expensive but bulkier cells). Sourcing of the LiFeP pack might make complying with domestic sourcing requirements of the IRA difficult in the near term. Alternatively, the Texas 4680 pack could be used at some (not severe) cost penalty. This is just adding and subtracting to the BOM, and doesn't include scale effects with increased production.
Last edited:
In 2022 if Tesla are lucky they will have sold approx 7 GWh of storage (domestic & utility) combined. Just in the last couple of days I posted in the Daily Energy News thread that two random Chinese companies have switched on two Chinese utility-scale systems, one of 440MWh and one of 800MWh, so 1.2 GWh combined. The point is that is just in the last few days. You are welcome to believe that Tesla is head-and-shoulders above all others, but that is no longer my view. If you have better numbers please put them on display.
Giant battery goes online in China
Sineng Electric has switched on a 400 MW/800 MWh storage facility in China's Shandong province. The project features the company's 3.15 MW turnkey battery stations.
China connects 220 MW/440 MWh battery to grid
Robestec has connected a 220 MW/440 MW battery storage system to the grid in Ningxia, China. It is reportedly China’s largest standalone energy storage station, and uses lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries from Hithium Energy Storage.
Please .... my experience in the energy sector did not stop in 2015. I sold my/our subsequent company (in global HV grid) only last year, 2022. My thirty years of experience have not disappeared, and I've not been idle since then either. Every grid company worth their salt is studying storage very closely indeed.
My head spins with all the questions from so many different directions. Everybody from the biggest Middle Eastern oil & gas despot to the most humble Chinese battery manufacturer would like an answer to all these questions. All of them have agency, all of them are trying to influence the outcome. To provide a personalised answer to every one would require an army of consultants. And in any case the outcome partly depends on how they all interact in the years to come.
As a long-only long-term investor in TSLA it is in my interests that the shareprice go up. However that is not the same as standing completely idly by whilst people spout the most unsubstantiated tripe for either the bull or the bear case. Some have characterised my attempts to sketch out the issues in the Tesla Energy division as being a bear-thesis, or a mere hunch. That is inappropriate, all I have done is point out the issues associated with the known facts at present, and the implications of Tesla's own stated long term goals. Beyond that I'd really rather not try to become that personalised consultant or guru as that would be unreasonable. I am neither a member of the Tesla shareholder support team payroll, nor for that matter on the TMC payroll, or indeed any company's payroll. There comes a point where you have to start digging into things on your own, and forming your own actionable views. You could start with posing yourself the question of why buy a 10kWh domestic storage unit from Tesla at GBP 10k when you can buy basically the same thing from SolarEdge for GBP 6k, or from a Chinese clone for less.
I get all your concerns but there is data that says Tesla has a backlog for almost 2 years for a product they plan to scale to 40 GWh / year. Do you think this is not the case? It seems, and Musk states that Energy growth will be 100% YoY. Don't you expect say 15 GWh of Energy products this year and say 30 GWh next year? What am I missing?
Tata motors released a 3 thousand dollar car and Mercedes became concerned is the right analogy. Mercedes totally lost the Indian marker because they didn't even try.
That's true for all of us long time Tesla and BEV drivers. However, there's also the increased safety in going from a Leaf to a 3 or Y--not something to be sneezed at. However, the deduction really isn't meant for us, it's meant for ICE drivers.
Mmm.. kinda. Here's the summary of it's purpose from senate.gov:
So, a principle part of the act is to reduce carbon emissions by 40% in the next 8 years, fight climate change, and meet "long term emissions goals". Perhaps we need to revive the Pure EV Dogma thread, but there's no question that a PHEV that only has ~20 miles of electric range does far less to meet those goals than a BEV does.
I'm not sure who's arguing that. I'm not. I didn't see it in Maye's tweet.
The point is, if the credit was designed to encourage the degree to which a vehicle reduced emissions (again, a goal of the act), perhaps by progessive rebate percentage qualification based on MPGe, then it might be easier to say it was aiming for that 40% by 2030. Instead, a buying the hybrid that emits CO2 for 280 miles out of it's 300 mile range gets the same credit as a pure BEV that emits ZERO..
I don't read her tweet that way. I read it as the counterpoint to the POTUS post which said: "Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, folks who purchase electric vehicles can receive a tax credit of up to $7,500 per vehicle, allowing millions of consumers to ditch the pump and easily switch to an EV." That curiously is phrased to omit the "PHEV" or "hybrid" terms, and appears to be a bit of self-back-patting that make the program sound more progressive than it really is.
Again back to "dogma", but calling something that needs to burn gas for 95% of it's rated range an Electric vehicle is just a bit disingenuous, no?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
