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

[Menifeer]

No - EVs will dominate because of FSD

Why would you believe that ICE cars can't do FSD?

 

[Artful Dodger]

Does anyone here any data or anecdotal evidence about how the drop in gasoline sales in Norway is affecting gas stations?

Here's 2 recent articles in the Press:

Norway’s EV Adoption Starts To Affect Oil Demand | OilPrice.com

Electric Vehicles Could Finally Be Reducing Norway's Fuel Consumption | Forbes.com​

Google Scholar provides this result:

Hasan, Saiful. Impact on crude oil demand by electric vehicles in China: adopting measures similar to Norwegian EV policy. MS thesis. Nord university, 2017.​

 

[EVNow]

I don't think that's the correct interpretation: the correct interpretation IMO is that while they support EVERYONE paying for a better future, they obviously see the futility of them volunteering to pay a sum. It's a classical game theory paradox: collective action works so much better than individual action.

No - they want someone else to pay for it. Not them. I bet most of us Tesla owners would be willing to pay $10 a month to cool the planet.

Carbon tax fails even in WA. By big margins.

That is why new green deal makes sense. It gives everyone (except some of the rich), a clear, practical benefit.

 

[neroden]

Sooooo, a piece of information which I hadn't noticed: the Saudi PIF still owns their Tesla stock as of the end of March 2019. I think we can assume they still own it now.

EDGAR Filing Documents for 0001567619-19-010477
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1767640/000156761919010477/xslForm13F_X01/primary_doc.xml
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/...919010477/xslForm13F_X01/form13fInfoTable.xml

So the top (known) owners of Tesla are now:

Elon Musk with 34,102,560 shares as of May 20
Bailie Gifford with 13,244,526 (hardcore long-termers)
Capital World with 9,424,994 (I know very little about them -- they bought a lot in Q1)
Tencent with 8,347,094 (as of Feb 2018, but I doubt they sold)
Saudi PIF with 8,277,080
Vanguard with 7,737,842 (all index funds)
Blackrock with 6,472,686 (these are bad guys IMHO, run by a Fink)
Jennison with 5,132,969 (despite recent position trimming, I think they're long-termers)
Fidelity (FMR) with 4,634,797 (some funds divested after change of manager, other funds stayed in)
Larry Ellison with 3,000,000 shares
State Street with 2,857,414 (mostly custodians for other people, so no information there)
Goldman Sachs 1,854,825
T Rowe Price 1,674,337 (as we know, they dumped 7 million shares in Q1, which was really bad for their investors)
BAMCO 1,645,059
Invesco 1,613,059
Norges Bank 1,415,110
Geode 1,182,372 (never heard of them)
Two Sigma Advisers 1,144,367 (never heard of them -- just bought in in Q1 -- market timer? A quant, not fundamentals based)
Morgan Stanley 1,132,249
Deutsche Bank 1,047.903
Citadel 1,012,397 (just bought in in Q1 -- market timer? -- big on risk management)

Every other institution is below a million shares. (ARK is at 753,850.) The next one is Jane Street Group at 970,212, all bought in Q1, and they're another quant. Note that some companies like Two Sigma have multiple subdivisions, and another subdivision of Two Sigma (Two Sigma Investments) shows up later.

I looked up Capital World: "Since 1931, Capital Group has been singularly focused on delivering superior, consistent results for long-term investors using high-conviction portfolios, rigorous research and individual accountability." So they claim to be long-termers.

There could be other unknown big investors like Ellison and Tencent who aren't "institutional" and don't have to report. In fact, I bet there are. But not counting them, I'd say that 91.6 million shares are in the hands of people I consider long-termers (including Fidelity's remaining shares, though that's uncertain).

Another way to look at it -- shares outstanding are about 178.19 million. Of those, 99.01 million are held by "institutions" (which apparently includes the Saudi PIF but does not include Musk, Ellison, or Tencent).

Of those, if we include Fidelity's remaining shares and Capital World (which I would), about 40.18 are held by identifiable likely long-termers (including Vanguard's index funds). This leaves 58.83 held by unreliable, short-termer or quant institutions.

There are 43.63 million shares sold short as of the end of May. They can currently cover from the shares held by unreliable, short-termer institutions.

178.19 + 43.63 = 221.82 -- that's the number of million shares held by people who think they have long positions. Subtracting the institutions, this is 122.81 million held by non-institutional investors. Of this, 45.45 million is held by Musk, Ellison, and Tencent, with 77.36 million being held by the rest of us, including big investors who don't have to disclose (like Ellison didn't have to disclose before joining the board). Up to 8.9 million shares doesn't have to be disclosed unless you're an institution, though I doubt any hidden investor owns that much.

But I basically think nearly all the individual investors are long-termers.

I can't figure out how much money is in S&P index funds globablly, but there's $449 billion in Vanguard's mutual fund,$39 billion in Schwab's, $184 billion in Fidelity's, $28 billion in T Rowe Price's $271 billion in SPY ETF, $182 billion in iShares ETF, $114 billion in Vanguard's ETF, and probably a bunch of others with <5 billion each. So that's 1.27 trillion minimum, probably more The S&P market cap itself is 22.93 trillion, so S&P 500 funds are perhaps 5.5 percent of the S&P market cap. So an S&P 500 addition would be a purchase of about 5.5% of the shares outstanding of TSLA at least or 9.8 million shares. Enough to cause a large rally. This is why S&P inclusion is such a big deal for so many companies.

Though I don't know how much the "small" S&P index funds add up to. And closet indexers are believed to amount to 1.3 trillion in assets, about equal to the big S&P index funds, so small funds and closet indexers who aren't already in TSLA might nearly double this number.

Still not enough for a short squeeze IMHO. In order for a short squeeze to be possible, we need to see at least 15.20 million shares disappear from the institutional holdings list, or be taken by obvious long-term holders. Since some long-termers may trim their holdings and some individual investors may be short-termers, and there will likely be more dilution from stock options, it would need to be more than this. So S&P addition is probably not enough to cause a short-covering rally, though it might. However, if we see 5 or 6 million shares disappear from the short-term institutional holder list into the hands of individuals, long-term institutions, or strategic investors like Tencent, then the S&P inclusion, which is likely to be in 2020, would be fairly likely to cause a short-covering rally.

 

[TradingInvest]

Yes, but a ~20% drop requires roughly a 20% share of EVs in the US fleet.... that's over 50 million cars.

If the US (as of 2018) has ~1 million EVs on the road, and sales of 350k right now, and sales increase by 40% per year, we don't hit 50 million cumulative sales until ~2028.

Someone explained this. Here is an extreme example: if company XYZ offers a great EV at $500 each, the ICE demand will drop to zero right away, people will hold onto their old cars and wait for the $500 EV. If EVs are shown to be cheaper and way better, the ICE demand will drop very fast. I think that tipping point is coming.

To understand the adoption curve, study Norway. Next year very few people will buy ICE cars in Norway. People say that's because Norway has high tax on ICE vehicles. That's the point. When EVs are cheaper and better, people switch quickly. EVs' cost will drop ~5% a year, while ICE vehicles will go up a few percent each year. We are reaching the tipping point very soon. On top of that, the autonomous driving tech will change the balance suddenly. I think by 2025, the whole world will be like Norway today. The EV production capacity may not get there yet, the ICE demand will drop off the cliff.

 

[ggr]

Like the new ID3-based Camper-Bus TEchnology Demonstrator?

ID BUS-TED​

My next door neighbor (buying a Tesla tomorrow) has a VW Vanagan he's restoring. It has a sticker on the back: "Volkswagen: turning owners into mechanics for over 50 years!" -- it's pretty old.

 

[neroden]

I actually think FSD is ICE incumbents last best hope at many more years of foot dragging re transitioning to EVs.

Agree.

If ICE incumbents get access to FSD, the vastly improved safety will be widely reported on. I think the strong majority of consumers, at least in their actions, will vote for “let’s buy an FSD ICE today” (10X less likely for me and my family to be hurt in accident) over, “let’s get on that 5 year waiting list for one of those FSD EVs in very short supply.” I think it’s even possible that at least some of the governments who’ve called for ICE bans in the future will soften to allow plugin hybrids on the grounds that FSD is a life saver and EVs are simply in a shortage due to a lack of batteries.

Agree.

This is likely an aspect of why Elon is moving so aggressively, even for him, towards FSD.

Agree. He needs to make sure that nobody buys an ICE because of "self-driving". So Tesla always has to be better than the ICE competition in that regard.

At first I didn't understand why Musk was spending time and money on Autopilot at all. Then I looked at the ICE companies' advertising of their driver assist features and I went -- that's why. He has to make it clear to the public that Tesla's better than that.

 

[Mr-T]

New Model 3 owner, here. I didn’t buy my Tesla because I was trying to “Save The Planet”. I bought it as an early adopter to support evolution of the technology to a more efficient mode of transportation. I’m under no illusion that I’m not creating pollution by getting an EV. Essentially, an EV shifts the source of pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant. An EV vs traditional car are pretty much of a wash when you consider the eco impacts of manufacturing, all the way back to the hole that the raw materials come from. But, electrical propulsion is significantly more energy efficient than an ICE. And while the bulk of the electrical energy used to charge the battery and thus drive the car comes from fossil fuel sources, electrical energy can be captured from any number of renewable sources. Studies I have read show EV’s creating up to a 25% improvement in the overall environment impact over traditional cars, largely through improvements in energy efficiency.

 

[Nocturnal]

OTA
No it's not, not really. American's are practical folks. Those 70% just think that there's nothing you can spend $10 on that will actually help the climate. But those folks will buy a $40K Tesla, especially when its obviously better deal than a $30K Camry:

• cheaper to operate
• longer lifetime
• more fun/performance
  
• better resale value
  
• safest car on the road
  
• OTA updates keep it fresh
• FSD when its ready

Those folks have friends who will buy a $45K Model Y and a $50K Pickup. That's how we win this. Given the carrot and stick approach in America, we just need to show them there's a better way than getting the shaft.

Cheers!

I don't see it that way. If they are buying the Tesla it's because of those features. They clearly aren't willing to just spend more for climate reasons. If they were then hybrids would have been far more popular.

Someone explained this. Here is an extreme example: if company XYZ offers a great EV at $500 each, the ICE demand will drop to zero right away, people will hold onto their old cars and wait for the $500 EV. If EVs are shown to be cheaper and way better, the ICE demand will drop very fast. I think that tipping point is coming.

To understand the adoption curve, study Norway. Next year very few people will buy ICE cars in Norway. People say that's because Norway has high tax on ICE vehicles. That's the point. When EVs are cheaper and better, people switch quickly. EVs' cost will drop ~5% a year, while ICE vehicles will go up a few percent each year. We are reaching the tipping point very soon. On top of that, the autonomous driving tech will change the balance suddenly. I think by 2025, the whole world will be like Norway today. The EV production capacity may not get there yet, the ICE demand will drop off the cliff.

It should be easy to estimate. If Norway has a 20% surcharge (effectively or a 20% discount on EVs) and that is forcing the mix to from 90% ICE 10% EV to 60% EV to 40% ICE then that suggests that a similar drop in EV prices here in the US should result in similar change in buying habits. (toss in a factor for Norweigans probably being more environmentally etc.)

New Model 3 owner, here. I didn’t buy my Tesla because I was trying to “Save The Planet”. I bought it as an early adopter to support evolution of the technology to a more efficient mode of transportation. I’m under no illusion that I’m not creating pollution by getting an EV. Essentially, an EV shifts the source of pollution from the tailpipe to the power plant. An EV vs traditional car are pretty much of a wash when you consider the eco impacts of manufacturing, all the way back to the hole that the raw materials come from. But, electrical propulsion is significantly more energy efficient than an ICE. And while the bulk of the electrical energy used to charge the battery and thus drive the car comes from fossil fuel sources, electrical energy can be captured from any number of renewable sources. Studies I have read show EV’s creating up to a 25% improvement in the overall environment impact over traditional cars, largely through improvements in energy efficiency.

That is not correct. EVs are better for the environment after a few years of use, including manufacturing at today's power plant mix. (faster for high mileage owners) Said mix is improving pretty quickly as well. And there is certainly a HUGE value in pushing pollution away from where people live and work. ​

​

 

[ZachF]

Does anyone here any data or anecdotal evidence about how the drop in gasoline sales in Norway is affecting gas stations?

Because Norway is a prosperous country with a large middle class I'd expect gas stations to have relatively high margins, and the convenience store sections to generate enough revenue, while selling gas itself is mostly at the margins.

But it would be nice to see what the trends are. Are gas stations closing? Are new ones opening? Are they stagnating or deteriorating?

It's also hard to find data on gasoline consumption on roads for Norway. The World Bank dataset of "per capita gasoline consumption in the road sector" ends at 2012, after a steep drop:

View attachment 421592

The XLS dataset is at:

https://api.worldbank.org/v2/en/indicator/is.rod.sgas.pc?downloadformat=excel​

I suspect much of the drop was due to improvement in fuel economy and high gasoline prices, but also the beginning of the EV revolution.

Here is energy data on Norway and most other countries:
IEA Sankey Diagram

According to this, the energy consumption of oil products for road transportation is:

(Norway, petajoules)
2007: 146.1
2008: 142.4
2009: 138.1
2010: 131.6
2011: 130.5
2012: 130.3
2013: 129.9
2014: 131.7
2015: 132.2
2016: 127.2

They don't have any data after 2016 yet though

 

[ZachF]

Interestingly here is Norway's road energy consumption from electricity (petajoules):

2013: 0.1
2014: 0.2
2015: 0.7
2016: 1.2

One electric petajoule can replace about 3 oil ones, so if you put that data with the data above Norway's overall transportation consumption is flat and electricity is taking a larger and larger share of the total.

It would be interesting to see the data for 2017 and 2018.

 

[SteveG3]

At first I didn't understand why Musk was spending time and money on Autopilot at all. Then I looked at the ICE companies' advertising of their driver assist features and I went -- that's why. He has to make it clear to the public that Tesla's better than that.

I’ll see your agreement, and raise, lols,

When Tesla first revealed FSD as a clear priority with great determination (fall of ‘14, maybe ‘15?),

I thought it was a huge error... creating a huge opening for the company’s mission to be derailed in a

-stick head out and be first with FSD
- fatalities inevitable
- fatalities and lawsuits played up in media to take down the company (and buy many more years for the fossil fuel economy)

potential scenario


while all that is still possible, I now see it more as we’ve both discussed... being at the forefront re FSD potentially being make it or break it re Tesla’s basic mission, the conversion to EVs part, not hitting a dramatic slowdown. At some point in the past few months (Q1 call) to my ear Elon pretty much said this, although somewhat cryptically.

 

[RobStark]

Japan played a hidden role in breakdown of Fiat Chrysler, Renault deal, report says

 

[brian45011]

No. Far from it. They managed to cover costs of exploitation for the first time this quarter.

Thanks. Valuation of un-profitable enterprises (or segments of un-profitable enterprises) is often a crap shoot. Something about voting versus weighing.

 

[TradingInvest]

Sooooo, a piece of information which I hadn't noticed: the Saudi PIF still owns their Tesla stock as of the end of March 2019. I think we can assume they still own it now.

EDGAR Filing Documents for 0001567619-19-010477
SEC FORM 13F-HR
SEC FORM 13-F Information Table

So the top (known) owners of Tesla are now:

Elon Musk with 34,102,560 shares as of May 20
Bailie Gifford with 13,244,526 (hardcore long-termers)
Capital World with 9,424,994 (I know very little about them -- they bought a lot in Q1)
Tencent with 8,347,094 (as of Feb 2018, but I doubt they sold)
Saudi PIF with 8,277,080
Vanguard with 7,737,842 (all index funds)
Blackrock with 6,472,686 (these are bad guys IMHO, run by a Fink)
Jennison with 5,132,969 (despite recent position trimming, I think they're long-termers)
Fidelity (FMR) with 4,634,797 (some funds divested after change of manager, other funds stayed in)
Larry Ellison with 3,000,000 shares
State Street with 2,857,414 (mostly custodians for other people, so no information there)
Goldman Sachs 1,854,825
T Rowe Price 1,674,337 (as we know, they dumped 7 million shares in Q1, which was really bad for their investors)
BAMCO 1,645,059
Invesco 1,613,059
Norges Bank 1,415,110
Geode 1,182,372 (never heard of them)
Two Sigma Advisers 1,144,367 (never heard of them -- just bought in in Q1 -- market timer? A quant, not fundamentals based)
Morgan Stanley 1,132,249
Deutsche Bank 1,047.903
Citadel 1,012,397 (just bought in in Q1 -- market timer? -- big on risk management)

Every other institution is below a million shares. (ARK is at 753,850.) The next one is Jane Street Group at 970,212, all bought in Q1, and they're another quant. Note that some companies like Two Sigma have multiple subdivisions, and another subdivision of Two Sigma (Two Sigma Investments) shows up later.

I looked up Capital World: "Since 1931, Capital Group has been singularly focused on delivering superior, consistent results for long-term investors using high-conviction portfolios, rigorous research and individual accountability." So they claim to be long-termers.

There could be other unknown big investors like Ellison and Tencent who aren't "institutional" and don't have to report. In fact, I bet there are. But not counting them, I'd say that 91.6 million shares are in the hands of people I consider long-termers (including Fidelity's remaining shares, though that's uncertain).

Another way to look at it -- shares outstanding are about 178.19 million. Of those, 99.01 million are held by "institutions" (which apparently includes the Saudi PIF but does not include Musk, Ellison, or Tencent).

Of those, if we include Fidelity's remaining shares and Capital World (which I would), about 40.18 are held by identifiable likely long-termers (including Vanguard's index funds). This leaves 58.83 held by unreliable, short-termer or quant institutions.

There are 43.63 million shares sold short as of the end of May. They can currently cover from the shares held by unreliable, short-termer institutions.

178.19 + 43.63 = 221.82 -- that's the number of million shares held by people who think they have long positions. Subtracting the institutions, this is 122.81 million held by non-institutional investors. Of this, 45.45 million is held by Musk, Ellison, and Tencent, with 77.36 million being held by the rest of us, including big investors who don't have to disclose (like Ellison didn't have to disclose before joining the board). Up to 8.9 million shares doesn't have to be disclosed unless you're an institution, though I doubt any hidden investor owns that much.

But I basically think nearly all the individual investors are long-termers.

I can't figure out how much money is in S&P index funds globablly, but there's $449 billion in Vanguard's mutual fund,$39 billion in Schwab's, $184 billion in Fidelity's, $28 billion in T Rowe Price's $271 billion in SPY ETF, $182 billion in iShares ETF, $114 billion in Vanguard's ETF, and probably a bunch of others with <5 billion each. So that's 1.27 trillion minimum, probably more The S&P market cap itself is 22.93 trillion, so S&P 500 funds are perhaps 5.5 percent of the S&P market cap. So an S&P 500 addition would be a purchase of about 5.5% of the shares outstanding of TSLA at least or 9.8 million shares. Enough to cause a large rally. This is why S&P inclusion is such a big deal for so many companies.

Though I don't know how much the "small" S&P index funds add up to. And closet indexers are believed to amount to 1.3 trillion in assets, about equal to the big S&P index funds, so small funds and closet indexers who aren't already in TSLA might nearly double this number.

Still not enough for a short squeeze IMHO. In order for a short squeeze to be possible, we need to see at least 15.20 million shares disappear from the institutional holdings list, or be taken by obvious long-term holders. Since some long-termers may trim their holdings and some individual investors may be short-termers, and there will likely be more dilution from stock options, it would need to be more than this. So S&P addition is probably not enough to cause a short-covering rally, though it might. However, if we see 5 or 6 million shares disappear from the short-term institutional holder list into the hands of individuals, long-term institutions, or strategic investors like Tencent, then the S&P inclusion, which is likely to be in 2020, would be fairly likely to cause a short-covering rally.

Great analysis. I agree short squeeze is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

However, if there is positive development, some investors are likely to add the stock on it's way up. End up the long-termers could hold a lot more shares than today. This is the case with VW short squeeze. Shorts can't count on all the shares from weak hands.

 

[Mr-T]

I don't see it that way. If they are buying the Tesla it's because of those features. They clearly aren't willing to just spend more for climate reasons. If they were then hybrids would have been far more popular.

It should be easy to estimate. If Norway has a 20% surcharge (effectively or a 20% discount on EVs) and that is forcing the mix to from 90% ICE 10% EV to 60% EV to 40% ICE then that suggests that a similar drop in EV prices here in the US should result in similar change in buying habits. (toss in a factor for Norweigans probably being more environmentally etc.)


That is not correct. EVs are better for the environment after a few years of use, including manufacturing at today's power plant mix. (faster for high mileage owners) Said mix is improving pretty quickly as well. And there is certainly a HUGE value in pushing pollution away from where people live and work. ​

But to where you push the pollution? There is no “away” to throw anything. The ecology is a closed-loop system. That is just shoving the problem into someone else’s back yard

 

[Artful Dodger]

This is likely an aspect of why Elon is moving so aggressively, even for him, towards FSD.

Per the AGM, Tesla is moving aggressively on Battery cell manufacturing and FSD.

Let's take a deep dive into just one of the recent job postings on Tesla.com to get a glimpse into plans for the near future:

Equipment Engineer - Battery Cell | Mfg | Fremont, CA | 16 April 2019

Title: Equipment Development Engineer
Location: Fremont, CA

The Role:

In addition to developing manufacturing processes and equipment, Process Development Engineers work with cross-functional teams throughout the entire product lifecycle. You will work closely with Design Engineering, Quality and Production to take battery design changes and new battery designs from initial concept through prototype development and into full production.

Responsibilities:

• Drive development of new/innovative/improved manufacturing process and automation equipment from proof of concept through to full scale production
• Build proof of concept equipment designs with minimal resources
• Write detailed, verified specifications for equipment suppliers to quote/build against
• Write detailed equipment acceptance tests
• Adept at the design review process for manufacturing equipment
• Familiar with DFMEA to drive robustness into equipment
• Drive acceptance testing at vendor and factory sites
• Manage external equipment integrators from equipment development through buyoff
• Create detailed Manufacturing Instructions to document new processes
• Ability to estimate CapEx and OpEx for equipment designs
• Experience with building robust equipment (low maintenance, etc.)
• Experience with one or more of:
  • Battery cell manufacturing
  • Roll to roll coating equipment
  • Continuous wet deposition equipment
  • Automated mechanical assembly
  • Power electronics
  • Industrial chemical process equipment
  • Industrial lasers
  • Long-term reliability testing equipment

Paging @mongo Sounds like a busy year, wot?

The successful Candidate should be a #PEng who meets these

Requirements:

• BS/MS Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Manufacturing Engineering or equivalent
• Multiple new equipment installations
• Multiple new product startups
• 5+ years of manufacturing engineering or development experience
• ...

Follow the link above for the rest of the requirements I left out!

TL;dr Tesla is moving aggressively into battery cell manufacturing.

Cheers!

 

[neroden]

OT general principles of the Great Energy Transition

But to where you push the pollution? There is no “away” to throw anything. The ecology is a closed-loop system. That is just shoving the problem into someone else’s back yard

By replacing direct on-site-of-use fuel-burning with electricity, and centralizing the energy production into the electrical generation, it becomes much easier to clean up the pollution. We have lots of ways of making electricity in a pollution-free manner, but they're location-dependent (hydro needs a river, solar needs open space with sunlight, wind needs places with high wind).

How do you make an indivdual house pollution-free? Well, step one is to electrify everything, and step two is to make the electricity pollution-free.

Electricity is becoming pollution-free very fast. By contrast, it's taking a long time to replace fuel-burning space heating, process heating, transportation, and even snowblowers with electric.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Sorry to hear that. Did you get the license plate number? We need to be able to report all such incidents, especially if caught on video.

I thought I had it saved, but mostly parking lot clips by the time I thought of pressing the download button. Needs to be instinctive to save interesting stuff.

Maybe the younger generation will save us.

Are you kidding me??? Younger people are going to burn us alive when they put it all together!

I'm pissed off just today for hearing about the fires 50 yrs ago on the Cuyahoga river. Doesn't speak well fo r the dark side of humanity, and they are still in play everywhere including right here today on this forum I'm sure.

 

[TradingInvest]

Agree.


Agree.


Agree. He needs to make sure that nobody buys an ICE because of "self-driving". So Tesla always has to be better than the ICE competition in that regard.

At first I didn't understand why Musk was spending time and money on Autopilot at all. Then I looked at the ICE companies' advertising of their driver assist features and I went -- that's why. He has to make it clear to the public that Tesla's better than that.

True FSD will naturally enable ride sharing, each car will get a lot of miles, more gasoline cost, more pollution. California said FSD testing has to be done by EVs, because they don't want so much pollution. At least for ride sharing, I think FSD ICE cars can't compete with EV, either for political reason, or for cost reason.

How fast can battery production/mining ramp? I think it can go as fast as demand goes. When there is clear profit, businesses can move fast. Tesla will get into mining.