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.
I advised her that, if she doesn't like one ply toilet paper, she try folding twice to make 4 ply toilet paper -- I know I had to, when visiting the Bay Area Mother Ship of my US-based employer in the past. Somehow, the sight of that toilet paper did not make me suddenly want to change employers.

The rumours about employees having to buy toilet paper are apparently unfounded, unless she has very stingy colleagues. Perhaps it's just her bringing more high quality toilet paper, but apparently she does not want to share with colleagues ,-).
 
Norway is a special case. 100% taxes on new ICE purchase distorted both the new and used markets. So a $50k car that's $100k new might be 60k after 3 years. But who will buy a 3 year old ICE for 60k when a new Model 3 costs 50k?

You really can't apply that to other markets, where that same ICE is 30k after 3 years.

You're seeing it all wrong.

Zero-emission cars are getting subsidies in Norway, polluting cars are being taxed.

In a world that desperately needs to reverse CO2 and NO emissions, these punitive taxes should be applied to all ICE vehicle in every state and country, immediately IMO.

The revenue should be spent on renewables.

It's only with this type of change that we'll start to turn things around.

Also note that if the estimates quoted below are correct, then the ICE taxes in Norway are not punitive, they simply charge the true cost of an ICE car, which is more than the car's purchase price:

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.

I.e.:
  • 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

Which means that for Norway it's common sense to severely restrict and then ban ICE cars, just like it's common-sense to charge more for radioactive fuel, to cover the rod removal and safe long term nuclear waste storage costs - which clean-up costs wind and solar energy does not have.

Except that for ICE cars the waste is currently emitted straight into the atmosphere, "for free", in a free-loading fashion, causing various sorts of damage - hence the mis-pricing.

There's no more freeloading for the ICE industry in Norway.
 
Yeah let’s not legitimize that account folks. That person Tweeted “please follow me and I’ll follow you back!” multiple times, “Smoking weed at work!”, violated an NDA, multiple toilet paper pictures, etc.

Clearly a troll or disgruntled employee, and clearly not a legitimate source of info (unless you’re Fred or Business Insider, lol).

Suggest not viewing the feed. Views to her posts will only embolden the troll.

Also, the Twitter tags used in her tweets are TSLAQ magnet, so I first thought it's a parody account - but it's not funny enough for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vaamo
the stock price action is so frustrating. I have the feeling that some big institutional investor had to exit since the beginning of the year because of the bad Q1 and retail investors just don't have as much buying power to keep the price at a level where it should be, I mean a valuation of 32 billion really seems like a good deal to me when I think about the next 5-10 years, too bad not enough investors think that way at the moment, but I am holding comfortably, not gonna sell anything.
 
My take on the China Model 3 price announcement is that this is a good sign that demand is strong. If demand was low I find it hard to believe Tesla would announce the pricing as it is all but certain going to reduce the number of orders placed from China for the rest of Q2/Q3.

I hope that's the case, but unfortunately there is another possible explanation: Chinese sales could be much worse than expected at the moment, and so they might have concluded that they can bring in more cash from pre-orders than continued poor sales.
Yet another explanation is that Tesla may be hoping for orders from people who are waiting for full pricing information before ordering, i.e. a lot of people in China may be waiting to see how much the locally-produced SR+ is going to cost before deciding which version to order. Some of these people may end up purchasing higher trims or even S/X.

Or there could be some other very different reason - e.g. concerns about people ordering from the competition if Tesla doesn't open orders soon, or even the hope of generating a very large number of pre-orders to help to support the share price by destroying the narrative that Tesla's demand has collapsed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
. This is so much fun (and profitable) t

Tesla however, really do need to get the word out there, and never close their stores or test drives.

Tesla underestimates the power of the test drive. Closing stores and thinking people will do their test drive after paying for the car is a mistake.

People will pay for a test drive and buy the car but primarily in that order.

But if Tesla charge turo rates for Test drives it can be a new profit center.
 
Last edited:
I have been surprised by a local reduction in gas pumps already, and we are not an EV-friendly community. Our local Circle K dug up the parking lot maybe 6 months ago or more, to replace 4 gas pumps with 2. Quite surprised to see that, maybe this is a corner case because they make more on the cupcakes and beer in the store than they do on gas, or maybe some strategic move company-wide. Can’t find anything on the web about it.

In Norway Circle-K are putting up charge points at their petrol stations. They are ahead of Shell and Esso in this respect. I have no idea about their plans in other countries.

Zero-emission cars are getting subsidies in Norway, polluting cars are being taxed.

Not quite. No subsidies. Only lack of various taxes. Originally cars were taxed as luxury items here based on price and engine size. And heavily taxed - in Sweden cars cost only half of this.

A while back the car taxes started changing gradually - and now they are based on engine pollution. So no taxes for electric cars. And less taxes for hybrids.


Source: Live in Norway
 
Also note that if the estimates quoted below are correct, then the ICE taxes in Norway are not punitive, they simply charge the true cost of an ICE car, which is more than the car's purchase price:



I.e.:
  • 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

Which means that for Norway it's common sense to severely restrict and then ban ICE cars, just like it's common-sense to charge more for radioactive fuel, to cover the rod removal and safe long term nuclear waste storage costs - which clean-up costs wind and solar energy does not have.

Except that for ICE cars the waste is currently emitted straight into the atmosphere, "for free", in a free-loading fashion, causing various sorts of damage - hence the mis-pricing.

There's no more freeloading for the ICE industry in Norway.

I now see there was a typo in my post, plus a missing word, it should have read "Zero-emission cars aren't getting subsidies in Norway, polluting cars are being taxed appropriately."
 
In Norway Circle-K are putting up charge points at their petrol stations. They are ahead of Shell and Esso in this respect. I have no idea about their plans in other countries.



Not quite. No subsidies. Only lack of various taxes. Originally cars were taxed as luxury items here based on price and engine size. And heavily taxed - in Sweden cars cost only half of this.

A while back the car taxes started changing gradually - and now they are based on engine pollution. So no taxes for electric cars. And less taxes for hybrids.


Source: Live in Norway

Yes, sorry, was a typo I made that should have read "aren't getting subsidies". Car taxes should currently be based on pollution. As this becomes less of a factor in the coming years, it can gradually shift to a model based on vehicle weight and usage - i.e. for infrastructure maintenance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christine69420
it shows a truly staggering lack of intelligence to post inside information and criticize your employer whilst naming them and yourself on twitter. Maybe she is high? I'd have sacked her by now.
But also I dont even get why she thinks those numbers mean anything. She does realize there are multiple GA lines right?
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Carl Raymond
I hope that's the case, but unfortunately there is another possible explanation: Chinese sales could be much worse than expected at the moment, and so they might have concluded that they can bring in more cash from pre-orders than continued poor sales.
Yet another explanation is that Tesla may be hoping for orders from people who are waiting for full pricing information before ordering, i.e. a lot of people in China may be waiting to see how much the locally-produced SR+ is going to cost before deciding which version to order. Some of these people may end up purchasing higher trims or even S/X.

Or there could be some other very different reason - e.g. concerns about people ordering from the competition if Tesla doesn't open orders soon, or even the hope of generating a very large number of pre-orders to help to support the share price by destroying the narrative that Tesla's demand has collapsed.

Yes, exactly, and I'd also add that:
  • such events will expand brand awareness and build organic demand,
  • plus all these factors of motivation are not exclusive and it's very likely a combination of all these factors that Tesla China used as a justification for this event.
My guess is that the main motivation is to bring clarity and stop the Osborning of current Tesla sales in China by a future product with an unknown but likely significantly lower price. I.e. the current situation is the perfect Osborn Effect setup for China sales to be hurt by the expected Shanghai SR+ production which begins "in a couple of months".

By announcing the price Tesla China can bring pricing and feature set clarity - which might push quite a few customers over the fence to order one of the currently available products made in the U.S.A.
 
the stock price action is so frustrating. I have the feeling that some big institutional investor had to exit since the beginning of the year because of the bad Q1 and retail investors just don't have as much buying power to keep the price at a level where it should be, I mean a valuation of 32 billion really seems like a good deal to me when I think about the next 5-10 years, too bad not enough investors think that way at the moment, but I am holding comfortably, not gonna sell anything.

We just have to wait patiently until something good happens. I hope the end of Q2 is that time.
 
the stock price action is so frustrating. I have the feeling that some big institutional investor had to exit since the beginning of the year because of the bad Q1 and retail investors just don't have as much buying power to keep the price at a level where it should be, I mean a valuation of 32 billion really seems like a good deal to me when I think about the next 5-10 years, too bad not enough investors think that way at the moment, but I am holding comfortably, not gonna sell anything.
Is it though? Don't forget about the debt, the cash burn, the high probability of default priced by the CDS. If it was cheap shares would be getting snapped up right now. They're not. And it's not like Musk hasn't made his predictions about the future public.
 
Is it though? Don't forget about the debt, the cash burn, the high probability of default priced by the CDS. If it was cheap shares would be getting snapped up right now. They're not. And it's not like Musk hasn't made his predictions about the future public.

yeah because paid muppets like you come out of the woodwork and misconstrue manipulate and misinform everyone and everything