Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[dhanson865]

There's still folks that are red. Anyone who mistimed the market and bought on or around 19 months ago are lost in that table. 19 months ago TSLA SP was at $409 (split adjusted). Those shares are still down 40%. While I didn't buy at ATH, I definitely have some lots that are still red and will, very likely, remain red through 2023. But, they will be black again. I'm all for celebrating the progress we've made in the last month, but WS still owes me some money. Making new ATH is the real goal for me....To infinity and beyond!

I've also bought quite a few that are still in the red. (these are from 4 accounts so they aren't sorted overall, nor am I bothering to figure out my overall gain / loss).

You'll note it has to get over $382.85 for all my lots to be positive. I think you and I have similar goals in mind.

Open Date​	Cost/Share​	Gain/Loss (%)​
06/16/2022​	$211.00​	15.83%​
05/24/2022​	$214.00​	14.21%​
05/12/2022​	$237.67​	2.83%​
05/14/2021​	$193.33​	26.41%​
03/26/2021​	$212.52​	15%​
02/04/2021​	$280.67​	-12.92%​
01/29/2021​	$263.33​	-7.19%​
09/02/2020​	$149.80​	63.15%​
​	​	​
10/03/2022​	$254.40​	-3.93%​
05/28/2021​	$208.33​	17.31%​
01/13/2021​	$280.67​	-12.92%​
10/24/2018​	$20.04​	1119.69%​
07/21/2016​	$15.07​	1521.62%​
10/09/2013​	$11.34​	2054.36%​
​	​	​
03/02/2023​	$186.80​	30.84%​
01/06/2023​	$103.00​	137.28%​
01/06/2023​	$103.00​	137.28%​
12/28/2022​	$108.75​	124.74%​
01/03/2022​	$382.85​	-36.16%​

02/18/21​	260.3​	-6.11​
02/24/21​	233.3333​	4.74​
03/05/21​	197.42​	23.8​
05/10/21​	218.3333​	11.94​
07/06/21​	218.6667​	11.77​
08/16/21​	226.6667​	7.82​
09/29/21​	259.9333​	-5.98​
12/06/21​	333​	-26.61​
01/27/22​	276.6667​	-11.66​
03/08/22​	265.21​	-7.85​
04/29/22​	307.8​	-20.6​
07/29/22​	288.5967​	-15.31​
08/19/22​	299.2367​	-18.33​
09/02/22​	272​	-10.15​
09/30/22​	266.07​	-8.14​
10/12/22​	215.79​	13.26​
10/25/22​	210​	16.38​
11/09/22​	190.61​	28.22​
11/22/22​	168.47​	45.07​
12/06/22​	180​	35.78​
12/20/22​	145.9​	67.51​
01/04/23​	109.31​	123.58​
02/14/23​	190​	28.63​
04/17/23​	186.4​	31.12​
04/26/23​	160.18​	52.58​
05/12/23​	169​	44.62​
06/06/23​	216.04​	13.13​

 

[SarahsDad]

Bit of a discussion on this over on the 11.X.X FSD thread:

1. Running an older version of FSD-b on a narrow, un-lane-marked road.
2. Person "driving" the car had a safety-defeat-device weight system on the steering wheel.

So: On a road the older FSD-b wasn't designed for; running a defeat device so the so-called driver could read a book/watch a movie/otherwise fart around. On software where one is informed, by Tesla, that the car, "May do the wrong thing at the worst time."

No wonder the NHTSA has not been blaming FSD for accidents.

I guess I should be immune to these kinds of egregious FUD articles but this one really bothers me. A generation ago the Washington Post was a respected and trusted institution for accurate news. What happened? So much hate and FUD, from the article's title to quoting the hired guns Missy Cummings and Phil Koopman. Yes, the same Missy Cummings who was recused from Tesla cases while at the NHTSA due to conflict of interest as a paid board member of a competing ADAS company NHTSA Safety Advisor Dr. Mary “Missy” Cummings ordered to recuse herself from any matters relating to Tesla.

In one paragraph they talk about the rapid escalation of Tesla FSD drivers, from 12,000 to 400,000, and then just 2 paragraphs later Koopman has to hedge his acrimony by stating "We need to understand if it’s due to actually worse crashes or if there’s some other factor such as a dramatically larger number of miles being driven with Autopilot on.” Ya think?

Is it Bezos or just their own "we hate Elon" echo chamber? The authors have also written articles like "Elon Musk's Twitter Pushes Hate Speech, Extremist Content". So yeah it seems like they're out to get him. But a naive reader might actually believe this drivel and erroneously choose a less safe vehicle to drive because of it. Which is a shame. And wrong.

Link here (although I'm not wild about giving them more clicks):

17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/

 

[2daMoon]

Okay, what I really want to know, right now,... is the weekend over?

I'm braced to see what happens in Episode 12 of that thrilling new drama series, TSLA's Green. The best soap opera on the internet these days, and, without ads.

If the weekend still isn't over yet I may need to fortify myself somehow in order to manage this ever-building feeling of anticipation. If you know what I mean, and I think that you do.

P.S. I also saw mention of a SciFi spin-off coming soon, Beyond the Bollinger Band

​

 

[Tony73]

In principle, Tesla could generate solar energy offsite to offset supercharger usage. Electrons are fungible after all.

I think Elon has already said that all SuperCharger sites are already buying "green" solar, wind, or hydro electricity. Sure, some/most of the electrons may be coming from other sources, but Tesla is doing everything they can to offset that. Hopefully that FUD will stop when Tesla finally gets solar and batteries installed at most locations.

Most supercharger locations do not have the space for solar to be anything other than a gimmick. Buying renewables where possible or generating an offset is effectively the same thing. Elon has often been mocked for saying superchargers will generate their power on-site with solar and deservedly so.

 

[Tony73]

The problem with generating energy off site is that the cost of paying electrical wires, especially those needed for high voltage are extremely expensive.

It makes sense to be connected to the grid in areas where existing infrastructure are already in place. But not everywhere you can find high voltage, 3 phase power lines that supercharging requires.

What could change the game though, it’s the mega pack. It’s got enough storage that it can power the supercharging, and recharge by either solar arrays or low power single phase lines (240v, single phase lines max out at around 25kw)when it’s not being used. Making it extremely attractive to places where doesn’t have the high voltage lines, but could see some decent demand like near National parks where demand is very seasonal and makes bringing high power lines too expensive or downright impossible.

You don’t need wires. Electrons are fungible. If Tesla generates enough clean energy offsite to offset a supercharger which uses fossil fuels, the net effect of the SC is zero. The SC pulls dirty energy, Tesla offsets dirty energy elsewhere. Google has been doing that for years; directly buying renewables where possible and investing in renewables to offset the rest of their energy usage

 

[Captkerosene]

I guess I should be immune to these kinds of egregious FUD articles but this one really bothers me. A generation ago the Washington Post was a respected and trusted institution for accurate news. What happened? So much hate and FUD, from the article's title to quoting the hired guns Missy Cummings and Phil Koopman. Yes, the same Missy Cummings who was recused from Tesla cases while at the NHTSA due to conflict of interest as a paid board member of a competing ADAS company NHTSA Safety Advisor Dr. Mary “Missy” Cummings ordered to recuse herself from any matters relating to Tesla.

In one paragraph they talk about the rapid escalation of Tesla FSD drivers, from 12,000 to 400,000, and then just 2 paragraphs later Koopman has to hedge his acrimony by stating "We need to understand if it’s due to actually worse crashes or if there’s some other factor such as a dramatically larger number of miles being driven with Autopilot on.” Ya think?

Is it Bezos or just their own "we hate Elon" echo chamber? The authors have also written articles like "Elon Musk's Twitter Pushes Hate Speech, Extremist Content". So yeah it seems like they're out to get him. But a naive reader might actually believe this drivel and erroneously choose a less safe vehicle to drive because of it. Which is a shame. And wrong.

Link here (although I'm not wild about giving them more clicks):

17 fatalities, 736 crashes: The shocking toll of Tesla’s Autopilot​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/06/10/tesla-autopilot-crashes-elon-musk/

Next year's headline, "The shocking toll being locked out of the NACS has had on Rivian."

 

[Artful Dodger]

My guess is that Tesla will dip into that 10% Profit flow and accelerate the installations a bit. It's not like they're not putting in SC's like mad at the moment; they'll just get a bit madder.

Tesla's plan to accelerate Supercharger deployment has been in the works for some time now. All this came out before the Ford/Tesla Charging Partnership announcement:

• Tesla Will Soon Open Supercharger Network to Other EVs | Edmonds.com - "Magic Dock" (Jul 12, 2022)
• Opening the North American Charging Standard | Tesla - "NACS std opened 4 all" (Nov 11, 2022)
• Congress: Tesla Superchargers and Plugs should be the U.S. Standard for EVs | Aptera (Nov 11, 2022)
• Deep Learning on Twitter: "I guess Ford is interested in switching to NACS @elonmusk $F $TSLA @sawyermerritt @WholeMarsBlog" / Twitter (Jan 17, 2023)
  
• Tesla's key to EV adoption: Superchargers everywhere | Autonews.com (Apr 23, 2023)

There was also a leak from a Tesla Staff meeting last year on Supercharger deployments. The plan was to double the number of sites in 2023 (still looking for a link to the source, but Google wants to serve up GM/F right now...). Pretty sure that meeting was discussed here on TMC at the time.

Cheers!

 

[Bet TSLA]

The authors have also written articles like "Elon Musk's Twitter Pushes Hate Speech, Extremist Content". So yeah it seems like they're out to get him. But a naive reader might actually believe this drivel and erroneously choose a less safe vehicle to drive because of it. Which is a shame. And wrong.

The problem with this is that the statements about hate speech and extremist content are verifiably true, so that tends to make the statements about FSD seem more reasonable. Enabling Tesla FUD is an unfortunate side-effect.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I guess I should be immune to these kinds of egregious FUD articles but this one really bothers me. A generation ago the Washington Post was a respected and trusted institution for accurate news. What happened?

Warren Redlich did an epic take-down on this FUD earlier today:

Washington Post is a LYING RAG - & More Tesla News | Warren Redlich (Jun 10, 2023)

 

[MikeC]

LA had one of those a couple years ago - September 2021. It went on to more than double in the next 3 months. Hmmm.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1441142173588545536

 

[Electroman]

probably 10 industrial inverters plus switchgear yada yada.

I am no electrical engineer, but why do you need inverters in a Supercharger setup with solar panels and Megapacks?

Solar generates DC, which is stored in a megapack as DC, which then is pumped into the car as DC.

 

[Artful Dodger]

I am no electrical engineer, but

... but, you're Electroman!

DC cable runs can only go a few hundred feet before losses become significant. Inverters are often mounted right on the Solar racks at the wiring collection point. Some Solar Panels now even have the DC-AC inverter right in the panel itself, which then outputs AC power synchronised to it's connection string's frequency.

At any rate, Megapack expects and is setup to receive AC input from the grid, and normally outputs AC. It's at the Supercharger cabinet itself where the (usually 480V AC) is rectified and converted to DC to power the car's DC fast charge.

Roughly (IAANAEE).

 

[Tronguy]

I am no electrical engineer, but why do you need inverters in a Supercharger setup with solar panels and Megapacks?

Solar generates DC, which is stored in a megapack as DC, which then is pumped into the car as DC.

Well, I actually am an electrical engineer. And can think of several reasons off the top of my head.

1. Standard Superchargers take in city power, which is AC, and converts it to variable DC, which is fed to the car. (I once stated around here that I thought the car, itself, varied the DC voltage before feeding it to the car’s battery pack and was violently corrected. The car tells the Supercharger what DC voltage it wants and the Supercharger obliges.) An AC to variable DC converter isn’t that wildly complicated, but if one is making a tried-and-true bunch of hardware in bulk, one messes with that carefully, if it all. So keeping the input AC isn’t that crazy.
2. Solar panel systems generally have inverters that take in variable DC from the solar panels and/or batteries and, very efficiently, convert that DC to fixed AC. Note that the DC from batteries is somewhat variable. Again, known building block that Just Works(tm).
3. Even if the solar panel system is always there, if I were designing the system, I’d like an automatic fall-back to city power if something goes wrong with the solar power. Hardware fault, battery runs out of charge, maintenance. Interestingly, standard solar panel inverters with battery systems for, say, houses do exactly that: preferentially provide AC power to the house from the solar panels or charged batteries until both the sun goes down and the batteries run dry. My bet: the solar systems do exactly that.
4. Finally: say that the sun shineth, the batteries are fully charged, and there’s not enough charging cars around to use the energy available from the solar panels. It doesn’t hurt anything not to use all the energy that’s available: this isn’t like a hose with a constant stream of water that’ll spill on the ground. But wouldn’t it be cool to sell that excess energy back to the power company? And, if one does that, that’s a source of revenue. Just like what a standard house grid-tied solar system does for a living.

Yeah, so using AC in the overall Supercharger makes all sorts of sense. And selling power to the local utility certainly pays for any extra hardware.

 

[EQC_]

Most supercharger locations do not have the space for solar to be anything other than a gimmick.

From a power generation perspective, I agree completely.

But, there are other benefits to on-site solar.

In really any location, covered parking (and charging) of any kind is a plus. It will keep people and the car shaded on hot days, out of the rain when it's falling, and if it snows, the cover can be designed to keep parking/charging spots more clear and also eliminate the need to clear snow off the car when you return.

Covered parking on its own is a kindness and a luxury for those who park or charge at any site. If Tesla (or really any business that can control parking or charging spaces for customers, employees, etc.) is willing to build covered parking to provide that luxury value, then replacing the actual roof material (metal, wood, etc.) with solar panels is really a minimal extra cost, and it at least provides some value back to Tesla over time.

In some little-used locations, solar with battery might be able to provide the needed energy to charge for less busy days or even months.

For busier locations, the actual power supplied by solar would probably be "gimmick" level as you noted, but it still sends a basic, visible message of pushing to be more green/renewable. Even if somebody can point at it and say "the solar is only providing 2% of the actual charging," the obvious response is that 2% on-site renewable production is better than nothing, and impossible when filling a car with gasoline.

 

[Artful Dodger]

7 minutes of CyberTruck | A Big Baba Production (6 hrs ago)

 

[inconel]

Has CharIN put out any new message yet since GM's announcement? I know they were almost in tears after Ford announcement.

I see nothing on their webpage. Apparently they should have been shell shocked.

View attachment 945709

CharIN Response to Ford Announcement to use the NACS Proprietary Network – CharIN

Empowering the next level of e-mobility by developing and establishing the Combined Charging System (CCS) as the global standard for charging battery powered electric vehicles.

www.charin.global

This is one of their points why CCS should be the standard. Why are oil companies a stakeholder, is it because they are putting up chargers at their gas stations? But still it is surprising to me that they are explicitly listed here, makes me wonder if they are not a large contributor to CharIN.

• Charge point operators, infrastructure/component suppliers, electric utilities, and oil companies rely on CCS with high open market dynamics.

 

[petit_bateau]

It concerns me a little that there wasn’t an immediate release of new “coming soon” supercharger sites after the announcements of ford and GM to switch to NCAS. They must have known for awhile that this was coming. I would have thought with the extra traffic load that the existing network will now have to bare there would have been some indication of an accelerated installation rate of superchargers.

And how about GM and Ford dealers. Will they finally get involved in a serious way with charging infrastructure? The Canadian prairies are still a bit of a charging desert, but if every ford and GM dealer put in a half dozen chargers with NACS charging facilities it would open up the backwaters a lot as there are dealers everywhere.

Hopefully we will see more on accelerated plans soon.

Jmho

It is somewhat lumpy but is not accelerating in any meaningful way when viewed globally.

Here are the quarterly numbers, globally

Here are the corresponding fleet ratios, globally

Note that the definition of a location has changed in the last quarter hence a wobble in the various numbers.

Note how the connector growth rate is now well behind the fleet growth rate. It is now 6%/qtr for connectors and 12%/qtr for vehicles, whereas just over two years ago connectors were running ahead of vehicles. So quite a relative decline unfortunately.

Whilst that may be all that is required to support Tesla sales growth, it is not what is required to support widespread geographic adoption. Conceptually we would expect - as a minimum - to trend towards a situation where the entire planetary road system has an available Supercharger (or equivalent) at either 100-km spacing or (bare minimum) 200-km spacing, i.e. to fill in the blank spaces. I appreciate that the transport corridors and major conurbations are the priority right now, but at some point those gaps need filling in. Home charging is all very well for those originating from within a gap, but is not adequate for those needing to traverse a gap. (Yes, one can imagine "rent my home connector" business models may be helpful, but we need to offer users a minimum utility equivalent to fuel station coverage). Anyway the direction of travel for actual Supercharger numbers is I am afraid not as good as I would like it to be. Whether that is due to constraints within Tesla, within Tesla's suppliers, or on the site/grid availability side I do not know.

Anyway it looks like we will now converge towards three global light vehicle connector/charging standards, so doing the full global tour will require fewer clunky adaptors:
- Europe, Taiwan, Oceania = CCS2
- North America = Tesla NACS
- China = GB/T and Type 2 (not sure if they are still duals or if things are developing)

So in this respect the thing to watch is which way the uncommited areas go (especially South America) and whether Japan folds on Chademo and picks either NACS or CCS2 so as not to be deadended. It looks likely that MiddleEast/Africa will go down the CCS2 as the European networks push southwards.

 

[insaneoctane]

Does anyone know if a newly installed Supercharger with solar, in California, has the ability to dodge the current standard NEM 3.0 if Tesla is a "virtual power plant"? If not, then California's latest NEM 3.0 standard would force ANY energy sent into the grid to only quality for wholesale costs ~$0.08/kWh. That would seriously impact Tesla's vision to install PV and BES at Superchargers. They would draw energy for $0.50 to $0.60 per kWh (when cars exceed PV/batteries), but only receive ~$0.08/kWh once batteries are full and no one is charging? I just don't understand how Tesla can operate SCs in California for any profit....

 

[aubreymcfato]

From a power generation perspective, I agree completely.

But, there are other benefits to on-site solar.

In really any location, covered parking (and charging) of any kind is a plus. It will keep people and the car shaded on hot days, out of the rain when it's falling, and if it snows, the cover can be designed to keep parking/charging spots more clear and also eliminate the need to clear snow off the car when you return.

Covered parking on its own is a kindness and a luxury for those who park or charge at any site. If Tesla (or really any business that can control parking or charging spaces for customers, employees, etc.) is willing to build covered parking to provide that luxury value, then replacing the actual roof material (metal, wood, etc.) with solar panels is really a minimal extra cost, and it at least provides some value back to Tesla over time.

In some little-used locations, solar with battery might be able to provide the needed energy to charge for less busy days or even months.

For busier locations, the actual power supplied by solar would probably be "gimmick" level as you noted, but it still sends a basic, visible message of pushing to be more green/renewable. Even if somebody can point at it and say "the solar is only providing 2% of the actual charging," the obvious response is that 2% on-site renewable production is better than nothing, and impossible when filling a car with gasoline.

I'll add that if the cover prevents your car from becoming scorching hot in summer, you actually *save* a lot of energy for not using the air conditioning.
I agree that there is a lot of virtue signaling, but parking spots, with commercial and residential rooftops, are literally one of the best places where to put solar panels.

 

[CorneliusXX]

This is one of their points why CCS should be the standard. Why are oil companies a stakeholder, is it because they are putting up chargers at their gas stations? But still it is surprising to me that they are explicitly listed here, makes me wonder if they are not a large contributor to CharIN.

• Charge point operators, infrastructure/component suppliers, electric utilities, and oil companies rely on CCS with high open market dynamics.

Not sure about the US, but in EU all the major energy suppliers have dabbled in setting up charging networks. Shell owns the Ubitricity network I use to charge at home from the street light. BP Pulse and Shell Recharge are two competing fast charging networks. Not surprising they are involved in setting the standards.

It also appears that every man and his dog is a member - Rio Tinto is a miner and there are a bunch of other fields included too.