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

[Motor Mouth]

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

You seem to be assuming coal or petroleum production of electricity. That's highly regional, but increasingly untrue. If the worst case scenario is that the vehicle becomes increasingly non-polluting with time and mileage (even assuming the dirtiest possible power generation) and it starts out at a "wash" (as you contend), it is still a highly environmental thing to drive an EV.

 

[BioSehnsucht]

9-hour UAW strike ends with deal for workers who supply parts to Ford, FCA, Tesla

The Saline factory, originally built by Ford, went through a series of ownership changes and was acquired by the French company Faurecia in 2012. Workers built instrument panels, center consoles and other interior parts.

Well, guess we know what's next on the vertical integration chopping block!

If I was a supplier to Tesla and had unionized employees (at least UAW ones) I would be worried about being made obsolete by vertical integration to avoid production disruptions.

Of course, with only a single day's impact, I suspect the actual disruption will be minimal, and may not even be felt this Q.

 

[Fact Checking]

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

The Japanese government played a role in the breakdown of merger talks between Renault and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles earlier this month, weighing in with concerns that the combination could harm Nissan, people familiar with the matter said.

Japan signaled its misgivings over the deal to the French government, said the people, asking not to be identified speaking about the negotiations.​

That was what I was reading between the lines as well when the FCA merger failed:

Another, more hypothetical argument regarding the FCA-Renault merger is that FCA's goal might have been to control Renault against Nissan's wishes and interests, from the very beginning. The 'Nissan needs to be in the loop' wording by the FCA source in particular suggests that up to that point Nissan was not in the loop ... which is weird.

I.e. basically a hostile takeover attempt directed at Nissan's EV tech, assuming FCA saw an angle to dominate the Nissan board after the Renault takeover-merger? But this is just speculation.

Effect on Tesla: FCA will need Tesla's CO2 credits even more, and still doesn't have a viable route to EV production by 2022 when the steepest fines start cutting in.

I.e. FCA could be transferring 2-3 billion dollars to Tesla every year, until the inevitable ICE endgame sometime around 2025.

 

[ggies07]

For some with larger egos, they won't be able to handle a quiet car.

They can glue playing cards to the Aero covers and let them slap the fenders.
Robin

The new loud is quiet. There's your 21st century slogan!

 

[TradingInvest]

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

There are some very detailed studies, the conclusion is that today EVs are much cleaner than ICEs when all the factors are considered. More importantly the grid is getting cleaner every year. More and more people are adding solar panels on their roofs.

 

[RobStark]

TESLA.COM still way better than GM.COM

like sears.com to amazon.com... GM.COM so stuck in past.

Nobody thinks of going to GM.com or FCAU.com

They got to Chevrolet.com or Jeep.com etc

 

[capster]

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.

Inexpensive EV's with moderate range are at least as much of a threat as Tesla's cars to the markets for ICE cars and oil.

In our neighborhood, we have a family of five (all are drivers) with 2 Bolts and 2 or 3 ICE cars. There is resource contention for the Bolts -- everyone in the household prefers to take one of the EV's over an ICE car.

While this family wants to and can afford to get one or more Tesla's when the leases on their Bolts expire, many families will choose inexpensive EV's when they are available. These families, like our neighbors, may keep their ICE cars for various reasons, but the utilization of these will go way down.

It seems likely that someone will provide the less expensive EV's, if the ICE car OEM's continue to keep the price for their EV's high and supplies low.

If you toss in ride sharing as another way to change utilization and demand, it is easy to see that the tipping point will come sooner rather than later.

 

[sixela]

In Europe there are lots of cheaper EVs that are quite functional. In France the Renault Zoe sells a lot more than the Model 3...

 

[BioSehnsucht]

View attachment 421480

I’m not sure. Phase one probably smaller, but I couldn’t find an estimate of the square feet. On the latest video I see the tall part of the building that may be offices is 10 stories tall. It will be interesting how dense the plant will be and if the plant will be multiple stories. I’d guess they’ll have the inventory distribution processes they wanted in Fremont.

I would guess it's actually less than 10 stories, and that the spacing of those temporary stairs is misleading, as it seems tight for office building floor spacing. Also, I'm not sure if that's really an office building section. It looks like there's only 3 floors put in, and I would think it odd to put in these floors and then more in between later ... (via Wuwa Vision)





That section may be easily 100 foot tall or more, but in terms of floors, I think it's only 3.

 

[ggies07]

There are some very detailed studies, the conclusion is that today EVs are much cleaner than ICEs when all the factors are considered. More importantly the grid is getting cleaner every year. More and more people are adding solar panels on their roofs.

Yep, here they are. @Mr-T

This one shows that even with EV manufacturing for a Model S - only takes 18 months (depends on driving habits) to be cleaner than an ICE forever (But we all know the gigafactory will be 100% renewable soon, so we won't have to factor manufacturing in anymore)

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf


Then this one shows the grid getting cleaner due to renewables:

New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner

 

[Dutchie]

Tesla Norway deliveries compared to other EV's. Nice to see MX and MS picking up steam too

Registreringer av nye elbiler i Norge

 

[Fact Checking]

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

You are fundamentally wrong on at least four levels to suggest that EV environmental footprint is the same as that of gascars:

• Firstly, it's very ineffective to burn crude oil for transportation energy, only ~20% of which gets transformed into kinetic energy. Even coal plants are well over 60% efficient at generating electricity from fossil coal.
• Secondly, there's a huge seconday cost with burning gasoline or diesel in residential zones, as the poison gases and particulate matter gets emitted right next to some of the most vulnerable population: children and elderly. Even with coal plants very little of the secondary pollution gets into people's lungs, eyes and skin.
• Third, electricity generation is getting greener every year. The majority of new power generation capacity is renewable in 2018 already. So during the lifetime of an EV its pollution footprint gets smaller and smaller. Gas cars on the other hand get worse as they age: engine wear and the limited lifetime of scrubbing systems makes them dirtier every year.
• Fourth, EVs are also using motor power more efficiently, due to regenerative braking that captures and stores a lot of the kinetic energy. Gascars typically waste this energy, further increasing their effective pollution footprint.

TLDR: you are literally wrong about ALL of this, a Model 3 is much, much less polluting than a gascar, even if it uses coal electricity exclusively, which most don't.

But this does not belong into the investor thread, please read up on this topic, inform yourself and particulate in the appropriate TMC thread that discuss EV environmental footprint if you have any other questions.

 

[Motor Mouth]

In Europe there are lots of cheaper EVs that are quite functional. In France the Renault Zoe sells a lot more than the Model 3...

The Korean models seem to be where the action is at the lower/economy level of the market. FWIW - I really like what Kia and Hydai are doing to serve that portion of the market. The more EV's the better.

 

[ReflexFunds]

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

If things play out, whether through an outside entity, like Waymo, or a program via an incumbent, such that they deliver FSD within a year or two of Tesla, they have far greater opportunity to drag their feet. Regulators could potentially tip the scales in various countries to make this happen even if Tesla has a bigger tech lead. That is, tech-wise Tesla could have even a 5-year lead, but regulators in various jurisdictions could stall approval to avoid such an outright lead.

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.


This is likely an aspect of why Elon is moving so aggressively, even for him, towards FSD. Also, likely an aspect of why incumbents are moving aggressively compared to other tech changes.

I really think how things play out among various players re FSD hitting the roads (regulatory authorities being very much among the players) will have a dramatic impact on how much longevity ICE ( increasingly plugin hybrids) will have.

I see zero chance anyone that wins the self driving race will order ICE cars for a commercial service. It is just simple economic self interest. All in cost per mile of an EV AV is 3-4x lower than an ICE AV. It is such a pointless handicap to massively increase your entire cost base for no reason.
I think the race is really between Tesla and the AI/Data first approach, Google and the hardware/lidar first approach and Baidu with potentially the most regulatory support. None of them have any reason to buy ICE cars for a commercial service. Even Cruise has enough independence to choose only EV.

 

[Mr-T]

You are fundamentally wrong on at least four levels to suggest that EV environmental footprint is the same as gascars:

• Firstly, it's very ineffective to burn crude oil for transportation energy, only ~20% of which gets transformed into kinetic energy. Even coal plants are well over 60% efficient at generating electricity from fossil coal.
• Secondly, there's a huge seconday cost with burning gasoline or diesel in residential zones, as the poison gases and particulate matter gets emitted right next to some of the most vulnerable population: children and elderly. Even with coal plants very little of the secondary pollution gets into people's lungs, eyes and skin.
• Third, electricity generation is getting greener every year. The majority of new power generation capacity is renewable in 2018 already. So during the lifetime of an EV its pollution footprint gets smaller and smaller. Gas cars on the other hand get worse as they age: engine wear and the limited lifetime of scrubbing systems makes them dirtier every year.
• Fourth, EVs are also using motor power more efficiently, due to regenerative braking that captures and stores a lot of the kinetic energy. Gascars typically waste this energy, further increasing their effective pollution footprint.

TLDR: you are literally wrong about ALL of this, a Model 3 is much, much less polluting than a gascar, even if it uses coal electricity exclusively, which most don't.

But this does not belong into the investor thread, please read up on this topic, inform yourself and particulate in the appropriate TMC thread that discuss EV environmental footprint if you have any other questions.

I did not say The EV footprint is the same as ICE cars. I said EV’s, cradle to grave come out 25% better in terms of Environmental impact.

 

[Papafox]

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

I think you're missing the point that sustainable clean energy is replacing fossil fuel sources of electricity at a good clip and it'll accelerate tremendously as better battery technologies make the storing of electricity far less expensive in the not so distant future (picture PowerPacks with Maxwell DBE technologies). An EV can take advantage of this transition, an ICE vehicle can't. BTW, I power my Tesla and my house 100% with solar energy produced by the Papafox Energy company, which is located on the roof of my house.

 

[Buckminster]

Fred alert:
https://electrek.co/2019/06/21/tesla-model-3-supercharging-faster-software-update/
No need to click - all you need to know: - 30 mins to 80%!

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

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.

You seem to be getting quite a bit of flack for this. For the record, you're right (UCS says EV emissions is equivalent to 50mpg car, because of high levels of coal power plants), but only for today. As the grid continues to green (Ohio's emissions equivalent used to be 44mpg just 2 years before!), your model 3 will pay back it's CO2-debt sooner, so it will actually produce less pollution relative to a hybrid.

Keep in mind that the UCS study had one major flaw in the study. It assumed the electricity to produce the batteries also came from coal. But the model 3's batteries are built in a factory that sources all its power from renewables (Nevada has a considerable amount of hydro and solar), with no natural gas provided to the factory at all. So that CO2-debt isn't as high as what the study assumes. Enjoy driving your car!

 

[Mr-T]

Well, I am just a new Model 3 owner. I cannot afford to go off grid like that. Re read my original comment. I said as much. No, I did not miss the point.

 

[Mr-T]

You seem to be getting quite a bit of flack for this. For the record, you're right (UCS says EV emissions is equivalent to 50mpg car, because of high levels of coal power plants), but only for today. As the grid continues to green (Ohio's emissions equivalent used to be 44mpg just 2 years before!), your model 3 will pay back it's CO2-debt sooner, so it will actually produce less pollution relative to a hybrid.

Keep in mind that the UCS study had one major flaw in the study. It assumed the electricity to produce the batteries also came from coal. But the model 3's batteries are built in a factory that sources all its power from renewables (Nevada has a considerable amount of hydro and solar), with no natural gas provided to the factory at all. So that CO2-debt isn't as high as what the study assumes. Enjoy driving your car!

Thank you. Buying a Tesla is my way of getting us closer to that day. I driving it! It’s a real “gas”!