Pezpunk
Active Member
i love that show, but they've taken a bunch of cheap shots at Elon Musk on it.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
i love that show, but they've taken a bunch of cheap shots at Elon Musk on it.
This might be OT, but Australia’s fires have pumped out more emissions than 100 nations combined
"Reports put the total area burned in recent weeks at more than 10 million hectares (25 million acres). That’s well ahead of the devastating Amazon fires last year, which covered more than 17 million acres. And it’s nearly 13 times the area burned during California's 2018 fire season, which was the deadliest and most destructive in state history."
"Reports put the total area burned in recent weeks at more than 10 million hectares (25 million acres). That’s well ahead of the devastating Amazon fires last year, which covered more than 17 million acres. And it’s nearly 13 times the area burned during California's 2018 fire season, which was the deadliest and most destructive in state history."
To be fair, how many of us keep saying 'This time will be the short squeeze'. The big difference is that our expectations are built on logic rather than conspiracy theories.
Count us in for two! Sounds like great fun, and neither my wife nor I have ever been to Alaska.
Would be great if feasible to make it in our S100D. Certainly looks like it, given a little planning - a glance at the map shows quite a few NEMA 14-50 and J1772 spots.
No excuse needed for (re)posting such a photo!
At first I had to imagine that FCA would try to negotiate a pooling agreement with Tesla that would be significantly cheaper than the fine.
On reflection:
Tesla, having shown great prowess in high stakes negotiations such as the GF1+3 placement, would be expected to counter that the entire auto industry is lined up to pool their CO2 emissions with them, so the ICE maker winning the pooling agreement could be expected to get only a modest discount relative to the actual fine.
This was another. The void was full of "terrible" things.
In the shareholders meeting Elon was specifically asked why the volume for Giga 3 was set at 500k / year when China is such a big market. Elon's answer was 500k is an interim target and long term he could see that factory doing a million per year.
P.S.
This was my first post on this board but a long time lurker so hello everybody and I just want to say a huge thank you to all the contributors who provide such a rich source of information. If it wasn't for this thread and the posters here I would have long cashed out of Tesla in the dark days of H1 2019. Instead I doubled down on calls. This place really is the one of the greatest sources on not just Tesla but all kinds of wonderful topics.
@Artful Dodger
@Fact Checking
@generalenthu
@Aeon
@ammulder
Regarding how/when the penalties are administered, I found this reference:
COMMISSION DECISION of 17 February 2012 on a method for the collection of premiums for excess CO2 emissions from new passenger cars pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council
EUR-Lex - 32012D0100 - EN - EUR-Lex
It's dated 2012, but is included as a link in the 2019 emissions policy document, so I assume it is still valid.
Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars - Climate Action - European Commission
In it, it states (Paragraph 4, emphases mine):
For the purpose of establishing the amount receivable ..., the manufacturer is to be notified by the Commission of the provisional calculations of its average specific emissions of CO2 in the preceding year, the specific emissions target and the difference between its average specific emissions and the specific emissions target for that year, and must, in accordance with Article 8(5) of that Regulation, be given the possibility to verify those calculations and to notify the Commission of any errors within 3 months from receipt of the provisional calculations.
So as I speculated in this reply to @KarenRei #123149 it appears that accurate sales figures for pool model mixes need to be reported for the Commission to compute the actual emissions (and the resulting penalties) and this is done annually. So emissions attributable to 2020 vehicle sales would not be assessed until 2021 and the manufacturer has an additional three months after they are handed the bad news to check it for errors. So I would guess that they don't have to pull out their checkbooks until sometime in the first half of 2021.
Unfortunately, this doesn't really shed any light on when FCA would need to pay Tesla for sales of pool vehicles. To get an accurate answer, FCA/Tesla should wait for the final sales figures for 2020 and do the calculation with and without the inclusion of the Tesla ZEVs, and use that as a basis of payment. This would indicate that payment for 2020 Tesla sales wouldn't be assessed until 2021.
But that may not be how the agreement was structured. An estimate of the ZEV penalty reduction value could have been stipulated with payments from FCA to Tesla upon report of Tesla 2020 ongoing sales figures, perhaps on a monthly basis. This would allow much earlier realization of 2020 FCA revenues. Unfortunately, I have seen nothing on the wording of the pooling agreement.
To answer @Aeon question, I'll refer to my original assessment of the FCA/Tesla pooling arrangement.
#103499
All assumptions and references are given there, so I won't repeat them. For 2020, it looks like FCA is looking at a total penalty of around €1.8 Billion. This computation is complicated by the inclusion of "Super-Credits" and the unique 2020 phase-in rules (described and referenced in the linked post). To completely retire this 2020 penalty would require about 174,000 Zero Emission Vehicle added by Tesla to the FCA fleet (assumed to be equal to the 2018 FCA sales numbers and average emissions). Because of the Super-Credits, the penalty reduction values of the ZEVs work out like this:
First 22,000 ZEVs reduce the penalty by about €19,500 each (total €429 million).
Next 152,000 ZEVs reduce the penalty by about €9,000 each (total €1,368 million).
These are the kind of numbers that might be part of a stipulation in the pooling agreement, or they may somewhat accurately represent what really happens in 2020.
In any case we can apply whatever numbers we feel comfortable with regarding total Tesla EU sales and the penalty reduction percentage "bounty" each vehicle is worth to FCA. If we think Tesla will sell 100,000 cars in the EU this year and FCA will pay 50% of the penalty reduction value to Tesla, the pooling should bring in:
[(22,000 * €19,500) + (78,000 * €9,000)] * 50% = €565 million. This hypothetically still leaves FCA on the hook to the EU for €660 million (but paying out €565 million + €660 million is better than €1,800 million).
The following post shows the same thing, but with a hypothetical FCA/PSA/Tesla pool. Since the announcement of the FCA - Peugeot merger, I have seen no information on the implication for pooling with Tesla, so this is speculative.
#104405
Because of the much larger (and just as polluting) FCA-Peugeot fleet, the 2020 penalty exposure without pooling would be around €6 billion! To completely retire THIS penalty would require pooling with around 560,000 ZEVs!
First 108,000 ZEVs reduce the penalty by about €18,600 per vehicle.
Next 452,000 ZEVs reduce the penalty by about €9,000 per vehicle.
For our same hypothetical 100,000 Teslas at 50% bounty, the pool should pay Tesla:
100,000 * €18,600 * 50% = €930 million. A better deal because ALL of the Teslas attain Super-Credit status.
When the 2019 fleet sales and emission levels are published, I'll update the assessments, but I doubt anything will change them significantly. Any changes to Tesla revenue would be driven by native FCA or PSA ZEVs which would presumably be used to snatch as many Super-Credits as possible.
Last edited:
Right. It appears that Tesla has included open-source software in their cars without living up to the license conditions for this software. If true, this opens Tesla to lawsuits for copyright violation by the writers of the software. In principle this can be serious, in reality typically no much happens. However, someone well-funded could decide to fund an effort from otherwise unfunded and legally un-organised open-source developers against Tesla.
Since there are many open-source software licenses, it can be quite complex to make sure that one adheres to all licenses of software used (although that is not an excuse for failing to do so).
These license conditions can typically be met by distributing your own source code that builds on top of the third party one you are relying on - to those who use the software. So in this case Tesla would just need to make the software available to the buyers of their cars. But since these buyers themselves are free to redistribute the software, Tesla might as well make it available to everyone. Still in doing this, Tesla can hope to recoup some of the goodwill they seem to have lost with the open-source community by previously not adhering to the conditions set forth in the various software licenses.
From the upload to github, we can surmise that Tesla has brought the quality of their code of to some not-too-terrible standard - because anyone on the lookup for a Tesla software exploit will now be poring over this code, and Tesla naturally expects this. Still, Tesla can hope that some (hopefully non-critical) issues will be reported to them - I do believe they are still paying out bounties for such reports.
So this is good news in more than one way.
Thanks for the detailed post!
I think one source of my confusion was that I was thinking the penalty was 3K/car, but not putting it together that one Tesla offsets penalties for ~3 cars @ 125 g/km, so Tesla might earn up to 9K/car sold (modified for whatever the discount structure of the deal is relative to the no-deal penalties).
I am still assuming FCA will claim some or all of the supercredits with whatever qualifying vehicles they can sell themselves, so I'm not sure how much of the supercredits to count on going through to Tesla as part of the pool.
112,217 (see Tesla Europe Registration Stats)
In the center of the third picture you posted there is a small access road that has been made wider and has gotten an exit ramp from the already paved road. Some trees have been cut down for this. Access road will be covered with gravel.
Time offset? Two hours in order to look for a specific question and reply is a lot of content to scroll through
Thanks!
Most of those are also built on hopes and dreams rather than anything concrete, but at least it's by people hoping for something positive rather than betting on the failure of one of the most important companies to humanity's future.
I think someone ( @neroden ?) made some noise over this open source issue years ago. Needless obscurity security in my opinion, and instead opens up attack vectors of a judicial nature, as opposed to hacks and cracks that they tried to avoid.
Just release the dam code and abide by the conditions. Or pick a secretive distro if preferred, and pay a small fee for it.
But what do I know, right?
This may be the perfect German reply.
Time offset? Two hours in order to look for a specific question and reply is a lot of content to scroll through
Sorry it's at 1:16:45. I thought I had shared the link with relevant timestamp but obviously code didn't transfer across.
Yeah, I was thinking of sharing that earlier.... but really, there's not much to see.
More interesting out of Germany: here's VW's Diess whining about Europe trying to force the auto industry into a "painful transition", and by "painful transition" he means having a mere 30% of vehicles being electric by 2030.
“There’s a misperception about the automotive industry.”
Meanwhile, his company's EVs be like...
Earl of Frunkpuppy on Twitter
To be fair he said 30% of the on road fleet by 2030, not 30% annual sales.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
