Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
The cost of reduced safety of ICE cars vs EVs is also extremely significant and would be valued in the $thousands. EVs benefit from front crumple zone, lower centre of gravity and lower combustion risk.

Good points - also here are some other, less obvious safety advantages of EVs:
  • Significantly lower polar moment: this reduces injuries in side crashes - the car can rotate faster and thus prevent/reduce injuries. Several hundred kg heavy front-mounted ICE engines on the other hand, especially on premium and luxury cars, increase injury risk in side crashes.
  • "Much lower throttle reaction latency": throttle reaction latency of an EV is in the milliseconds, while up to a second even for gasoline ICE engines (even longer for diesel engines). In slippery road conditions, when the car starts sliding, every millisecond counts in terms of reducing risk of an accident/injury. There's also been near-accident situations where Tesla drivers escaped via instant acceleration.
  • Battery pack armor and structural support increases passenger safety, while ICE engine mounting/structural support doesn't. This is because the battery pack is placed right below the passenger compartment, providing significant stiffening to the innermost protective structural elements. Important in side crashes, where the crumple zone is much smaller.
  • Tesla cars have well balanced buoyancy and mass distribution, while most ICE cars are front heavy and sink quickly and in a hard to escape fashion when submerged. Tesla cars on the other hand can float for hours when submerged (!), and are easy to escape from. This is an important safety feature in flood situations.
All of that results in significantly lower personal injury claims in Tesla cars - which is one of the leading cost factors of insurance of premium/luxury cars.
 
Last edited:
It's really hard to keep up with this thread from the horrible signal to noise ratio. So in order to do my part to keep this thread with higher S/N ratio, I've made a separate thread on my thoughts that Tesla may always stay undervalued due to systemic market irrationality. It may be helpful for people to curb their expectations on the medium term stock price of Tesla.

Tesla may always be undervalued

I don't think this sort of pessimism is warranted. Tesla's fundamentals continue to improve; it's macros that are keeping it down now (macros translate to higher prices and/or less disposable income, aka demand fears). The longer the macros hold it down, the better its fundamentals will be once the fear is out of the market.
 
Fair enough, let me back up this claim I made:

"Secondly, an ICE car does around $50k damage to health and environment during its lifetime, so there's nothing 'punitive' about taxing them much higher. In fact the equal treatment of ICE cars in many other countries is a hidden subsidy."​

I'm basing this figure on the following study from 2015:

If we only try to estimate the economic effect of 3.2 million premature deaths per year which are directly related to vehicle tailpipe emissions, the study comes up with a per gallon of gasoline damage figure:

"Illustrative calculations indicate environmental damages are $330-970 billion yr−1 for current US electricity generation (~14–34¢ per kWh for coal, ~4–18¢ for gas) and $3.80 (−1.80/+2.10) per gallon of gasoline ($4.80 (−3.10/+3.50) per gallon for diesel)."

"These results suggest that total atmosphere-related environmental damages plus generation costs are much greater for coal-fired power than other types of electricity generation, and that damages associated with gasoline vehicles substantially exceed those for electric vehicles."​

From $3.80-$4.80 per gallon damages figure we can estimate average per ICE vehicle lifetime damages:
But note that the figures in this 2015 study are conservative, in particular the $3.80-$4.80 per gallon of fuel health damage figure is based on a global average of health costs of:

"Climate-health calculations therefore use a Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) of $1.7 million (for 2010), which is the nominal US-based VSL of $7.5 million adjusted to account for carbonaceous aerosol exposure- and population-weighted country-specific income differences from prior analyses (UNEP 2011)."​

That's polite formulation for: "third world people are 4.4x cheaper for the ICE industry to kill."

If we correct for that factor and price the 'cost of life' in the U.S., we get 7.5/1.7*3.80 = $16.7 per gallon health damage caused by gasoline vehicles, and $21.1 for diesel vehicles, which correct the life time damage figures upwards significantly:
  • average estimated life time health damage caused by gasoline cars with U.S. pricing = ~$134,000
  • average life time health damage caused by diesel cars with U.S. pricing = ~$170,000
But it gets even worse for the ICE industry, the "premature deaths" related to air pollution do not include other ICE emissions related damage, such as:
  • The already ongoing damage and harm from global warming, such as the 200 billion dollars Hurricane Harvey, which hurricane and rainfall was very probably amplified by global warming into a catastrophic event:
    • Global Warming Tied to Hurricane Harvey [Scientific American]
    • The direct Hurricane Harvey damages alone would wipe out all ICE industry profits for the last 2 years. ('Triple damages' and RICO punitive damages due to being part of a criminal conspiracy such as the Dieselgate criminal conspiracy would probably wipe out the ICE profits for the last 10 years, for Hurricane Harvey alone.)
  • Nor does it include the economic damage caused by rising sea levels that are going to destroy, for example, a significant percentage of current Florida coastal real estate value over the next 30-50 years.
  • There's ongoing damage to real estate exposed to vehicle tailpipe emissions in urban environments, with very high depreciation and maintenance costs:
  • The 2015 study cites a global "3.2 million premature deaths per year" from pollution alone, which @ReflexFunds recently argued convincingly (with citations) is probably significantly higher in reality, and also in large part caused by ICE vehicles.
None of these costs are included in the estimates above.

That's wrong (see the citations above), and my cautious $50k figure is probably on the lower end of the real costs.

TL;DR: the real per ICE vehicle life time health and environmental damage cost could be several times $50k if we include all these external costs. Most ICE cars do health and environmental damage that are literally several times the value of the car, and even the high ICE taxes in Norway probably don't cover those damages.
All of that and you still have things left out like catalytic converters dust, oil leakage pollution and the fact that I need to power wash my houses vinyl sidings to remove pollution each year.
 
It's great when all carmakers make serious effort to bring good EVs to the market in a timely fashion.

Unfortunately I think Polestar will never come to the market because Tesla moves too fast. Based on their numbers, Polestar won't be able to compete with Model 3 on anything, including price. I'm pretty sure Volvo guys understand Tesla is not standing still. This Polestar won't even be able to compete with today's Model 3, let alone tomorrow's Model 3 and Model Y. They should just cancel the project and start from scratch. This is hard for them.

Car industry is being disrupted. Many legacy car companies will bankrupt in this process. The earlier they realize this, the better.

I agree; I was making fun of the commentary but I wish they would succeed. But it goes to show the challenge all the ICE makers will have to get across the chasm to profitable EVs. The lack of a competitive product in their pipeline may be one reason that Volvo cancelled their IPO.
 
Fred Alert - Click Only If You Want To Give Him Clicks

Summary: Tesla has been putting out job openings at Lathrop for people with skills in setting up casting lines (aka part of auto production), requiring travel to GF1 to build the lines there. Other job openings also reference the casting lines - for example:

“You will be an integral part of emerging Materials Engineering organization, pursuing our mission to provide Materials, Processes and Joining methods that equip Tesla’s Engineers and Manufacturing Facilities with a competitive advantage in their mission to design and produce products that accelerate the world to sustainable energy. You will drive the integration and commissioning of our electric melting equipment, establish our foundry and drive the development of our new processes for aluminum high pressure die casting.”

Both referenced job postings have since been removed from the site. But the takeaway is clear: Tesla is getting ready to start - or has already started - tooling for Model Y. And there will be an alumium foundry at GF1 for producing high pressure die-cast parts. I imagine they'll have a steel foundry as well? Unless they don't use any custom cast steel parts....
 
It’s simpler than that. We either quit fossils or the Keeling Curve continues its merry climb and the earth keeps warming. Pick a nice round number for the value of leveling the Keeling Curve.

It's a common misconception that if we stop emitting carbon tomorrow, warming would stop. That's not true. Earth's climate is not currently in equilibrium. Cumulative carbon ALREADY emitted has raised the equilibrium (future steady-state temp) by about 0.6℃ beyond current warming.

After we stop emitting carbon, it will take another 40 years to reach equilibrium. Except mankind is not planning to stop emitting carbon (net zero) for at least 30 more years. So the earliest we can hope to reach climate equilibrium is during the 2090s:

If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?

To date, very few countries have followed though on their Paris commitments, and notable some large polluters have abandoned their meager ambitions, all which will deepen and extend the suffering of future generations.

The current climate fight at best may help limit the suffering of our great-grand-children. In all honesty we can no longer reduce the climate events baked in for at least the next 40 years (the "committed warming"), and we won't be able to prove any benefits before the turn of the century.

But it is possible to make climate effects worse, which is what some groups are feverishly trying to do now right now by producing more coal, shale-oil, and methane. That's why we're in this fight, and it's going to be multi-generational.

TL;dr This planet has too many Larry Kudrow's and not enough Elon Musk's. GLTA.
 
24A201D7-9CA1-40E1-BA47-27FA8FF9DD18.jpeg AE604492-BA1F-4945-AD8A-DB77C904CBCA.jpeg
Bullish
 
It's a common misconception that if we stop emitting carbon tomorrow, warming would stop. That's not true. Earth's climate is not currently in equilibrium. Cumulative carbon ALREADY emitted has raised the equilibrium (future steady-state temp) by about 0.6℃ beyond current warming.

After we stop emitting carbon, it will take another 40 years to reach equilibrium. Except mankind is not planning to stop emitting carbon (net zero) for at least 30 more years. So the earliest we can hope to reach climate equilibrium is during the 2090s:

If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases right now, would we stop climate change?

To date, very few countries have followed though on their Paris commitments, and notable some large polluters have abandoned their meager ambitions, all which will deepen and extend the suffering of future generations.

The current climate fight at best may help limit the suffering of our great-grand-children. In all honesty we can no longer reduce the climate events baked in for at least the next 40 years (the "committed warming"), and we won't be able to prove any benefits before the turn of the century.

But it is possible to make climate effects worse, which is what some groups are feverishly trying to do now right now by producing more coal, shale-oil, and methane. That's why we're in this fight, and it's going to be multi-generational.

TL;dr This planet has too many Larry Kudrow's and not enough Elon Musk's. GLTA.

Far worse effects of global warming could kick in far quicker if we do nothing to prevent it, and in the short term we can prevent 4 million + annual deaths from pollution. Beyond convincing people it doesn't exist, it has been part of the fossil fuel industry's FUD game plan to make people believe it is too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming. If people believe it can't be stopped, they are less likely to change their habits to prevent it.

Global warming was never going to be prevented by a global political system far too indebted to fossil fuel interests. It was also always unlikely to be prevented by people choosing to reduce their standard of living for the benefit of their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The solution is technology and economics. It doesn't matter what the governments are planning and what the IEA etc are forecasting, what matters is very soon building new solar + battery storage capacity will be cheaper than continuing to operate existing fully depreciated coal and gas plants. Buying EVs will be cheaper upfront than buying ICE cars, in addition to $5k plus fuel savings, $100k plus health and environment savings and additional safety savings. Solar, battery and EV will be extremely large and profitable industries and capital will flow into the sector to build the necessary capacity.

I'm not saying the problem is solved, and I also agree some warming is already inevitable, but our technology development is fully on track to prevent the worst of global warming and it is important to make people aware of this. We all just to need to work very hard to continue developing solar, wind, battery & EV powertrain technology, ensure it is adopted as quickly as possible and ensure that politicians are not allowed to delay or prevent the transition via renewable & EV taxes & tariffs and fossil fuel & ICE subsidies.

Dymp8Y0UcAAFKiA.jpg:large
 
Last edited:
Far worse effects of global warming could kick in far quicker if we do nothing to prevent it, and in the short term we can prevent 4 million + annual deaths from pollution. Beyond convincing people it doesn't exist, it has been part of the fossil fuel industry's FUD game plan to make people believe it is too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming. If people believe it can't be stopped, they are less likely to change their habits to prevent it.

Global warming was never going to be prevented by a global political system far too indebted to fossil fuel interests. It was also always unlikely to be prevented by people choosing to reduce their standard of living for the benefit of their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The solution is technology and economics. It doesn't matter what the governments are planning and what the IEA etc are forecasting, what matters is very soon building new solar + battery storage capacity will be cheaper than continuing to operate existing fully depreciated coal and gas plants. Buying EVs will be cheaper upfront than buying ICE cars, in addition to $5k plus fuel savings, $100k plus health and environment savings and additional safety savings. Solar, battery and EV will be extremely large and profitable industries and capital will flow into the sector to build the necessary capacity.

I'm not saying the problem is solved, and I also agree some warming is already inevitable, but our technology development is fully on track to prevent the worst of global warming and it is important to make people aware of this. We all just to need to work very hard to continue developing solar, wind, battery & EV powertrain technology, ensure it is adopted as quickly as possible and ensure that politicians are not allowed to delay or prevent the transition via renewable & EV taxes & tariffs and fossil fuel & ICE subsidies.

Dymp8Y0UcAAFKiA.jpg:large

Remember that steel, concrete and agriculture must also become carbon neutral, or carbon negative. These are not so ‘easy’, since steel and concrete cannot be made sexy like a Tesla, clean products must win on price alone. The simple solution to this is a carbon tax to allow the new tech to scale.
 
I disagree completely, far worse effects of global warming could kick in far quicker if we do nothing to prevent it, and in the short term we can prevent 4 million + annual deaths from pollution. Beyond convincing people it doesn't exist, it has been part of the fossil fuel industry's FUD game plan to make people believe it is too late to prevent the worst effects of global warming. If people believe it can't be stopped, they are less likely to change their habits to prevent it.

Global warming was never going to be prevented by a global political system far too indebted to fossil fuel interests. It was also always unlikely to be prevented by people choosing to reduce their standard of living for the benefit of their grandchildren and great grandchildren. The solution is technology and economics. It doesn't matter what the governments are planning and what the IEA etc are forecasting, what matters is very soon building new solar + battery storage capacity will be cheaper than continuing to operate existing fully depreciated coal and gas plants. Buying EVs will be cheaper upfront than buying ICE cars, in addition to $5k plus fuel savings, $100k plus health and environment savings and additional safety savings. Solar, battery and EV will be extremely large and profitable industries and capital will flow into the sector to build the necessary capacity.

I'm not saying the problem is solved, and I also agree some warming is already inevitable, but our technology development is fully on track to prevent the worst of global warming and it is important to make people aware of this. We all just to need to work very hard to continue developing solar, wind, battery & EV powertrain technology, ensure it is adopted as quickly as possible and ensure that politicians are not allowed to delay or prevent the transition via renewable & EV taxes & tariffs and fossil fuel & ICE subsidies.

Dymp8Y0UcAAFKiA.jpg:large
Reflex, I think you and Lodger agree with each other more than you think, and I agree with both of you. The quicker we can stop pumping these gases into our atmosphere the better and it's going to be a tough sell until something dramatic happens which scares the crap out of everybody. One possibility is food supplies, like fish, rapidly disappearing because their food cannot survive in the heated up oceans. Another is rapid uncontrollable flooding in populated areas worldwide because of glaciers melting far quicker than envisioned, due to the world becoming hotter quicker because of the methane released by the melting tundra in Siberia, which will cause the atmosphere to retain heat far more than CO2.

It's the cascading effects which can and will happen far quicker than we (by that I mean the general population of the world) can currently conceive. I truly feel that it is only something along those lines that can convince us to change our ways, and I hope by then it won't be too late, but I fear it's going to get a lot worse before it starts to get better.

Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but I had to get it off my chest... was starting to get heavy and I don't even have a brother.
 
Remember that steel, concrete and agriculture must also become carbon neutral, or carbon negative. These are not so ‘easy’, since steel and concrete cannot be made sexy like a Tesla, clean products must win on price alone. The simple solution to this is a carbon tax to allow the new tech to scale.

Definitely a carbon tax is the solution here. The problem is the fossil fuel and ICE lobby are too powerful to allow it to be implemented.

Once Solar, batteries and EVs have dealt with the fossil fuel and ICE industries, the remaining carbon emitting industries, dairy farming, concrete etc, don't have enough lobbying power/political clout to prevent a carbon tax from being introduced. Of course there may be carbon free technological solutions to those industries by then anyway.
 
Definitely a carbon tax is the solution here. The problem is the fossil fuel and ICE lobby are too powerful to allow it to be implemented.

Once Solar, batteries and EVs have dealt with the fossil fuel and ICE industries, the remaining carbon emitting industries, dairy farming, concrete etc, don't have enough lobbying power/political clout to prevent a carbon tax from being introduced. Of course there may be carbon free technological solutions to those industries by then anyway.

Carbon neutral steel and concrete tech does exist. But without a carbon tax, it cannot usurp the entrenched polluting processes.
 
It's really hard to keep up with this thread from the horrible signal to noise ratio. So in order to do my part to keep this thread with higher S/N ratio, I've made a separate thread on my thoughts that Tesla may always stay undervalued due to systemic market irrationality. It may be helpful for people to curb their expectations on the medium term stock price of Tesla.

Tesla may always be undervalued

If you you believe, based on "so far so good thinking" and anticipated models, it is true by definition that TSLA will always be undervalued. Then there will be Model IIS and Model II3, ...etc.