Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
LOL!
0.01*2^6= 64%
And no such plans to double production each year are in place. So not even remotely likely to happen.
Cheers!
- Status
LOL!
0.01*2^6= 64%
And no such plans to double production each year are in place. So not even remotely likely to happen.
Cheers!
Makes sense in a way. China did $400M turnover or some 3500's S/X last quarter. That's worth protecting. Especially because a few key other key markets may be less likely to absorb those cars due to changing regulations (thinking mainly about the US and the Netherlands here). Due to healthy margins the hit on the bottom line won't be too severe and in light of the GF3 deal it's probably best to show that local market a bit of extra special love.
Possibly because you only visit this forum for EV related information which has a bit of a bias issue in claiming that no one else is serious about battery manufacturing ('where will they get the batteries').
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Mathematically jbih has you there, because 2025 lasts till end of Dec and the statement is 'in', not 'by' 2025. So 2^7 is the factor.
But agree, doubling each year is beyond even Tesla. Solar was doubling every two years, wind every four.
LG Chem supplies bloody everyone; they need a lot of capacity. Even Tesla has at varying times been a major consumer of their cells. Last I saw they were roughly tied with BYD as the third / fourth largest cell producer in the world (after #1 Panasonic and #2 CATL). CATL and BYD are heavily consumed within China itself, so it's only logical that LG Chem would be a major supplier outside of it; the next closest competitor is Samsung, and they're (again, last I saw) at only half the volumes of LG Chem.
Careful not to conflate total cell production with cells that go into EVs, however. When Tesla talks about 40GWh/yr as the global production rate and Giga representing half of that, they're talking specifically about cells for EVs. But other products consume li-ion cells as well.
Last edited:
Actually the picture has another important message included that I would like to highlight.
If the stock market goes down usually people are looking for the one reason why and we have a lot of "smart" people called analysts or press people who explain their version of the truth in retrospect. They may be right with elements but the undeniable truth is that nobody knows the truth why a market went down. Its a pretty complex melange of elements influencing each other and most of those are not even visible. People are looking for easy answers and that's why they tend to repeat an easy answer avoiding to tell or amid the truth that they do not know. They get what they ask for, easy answers. You find this behavior everywhere be it in private live, politics or business.
Shorts and Bears of Tesla are in a similar situation. They have a gut feel or conviction influenced by a melange of reasons why Tesla and why EVs cannot and will never be successful and go with an easy answer why Tesla is in their view doomed. Its a feeling they follow and not a profound fact balancing deep thought process. Humans are wired by feelings and we learned to survive to follow feelings because you learn to run before you start to think if a Tiger shows up in front of you otherwise.... you know the answer. Those feelings are supported by findings or facts that may be even true although in the grand scheme of thinks the influence on the company and stock price is likely low. The picture above shows that you can turn every positive into a negative to support your conviction and make you feel good.
Facts do not resonate with their convictions confirmed by friends or peers and of course you can always argue them and call them wrong. This we watched in the last years with many of the shorts burn their fingers and many more very likely burn them even more. The last time I looked it up shorts lost $6 bn still the amount of people shorting Tesla is impressive and that in a market where they would have made a lot of money shorting almost every other tech stock in the last month but Tesla.
Facts do not matter it is emotions and emotions you cannot really argue. The picture above shows that every so called fact leads to the simple answer that Tesla is doomed. If facts do change and they do over time the picture does change and they find a reason to confirm they are right and have always been right and its only a question of time until Tesla is out of business. People in that category are the people I call dump shorts. The smarter shorts do question themselves and their argumentation. Some of them left lately and 3 of them made public statements about why they have been wrong and interestingly they went even from a short into a long.
Its never too late to be right so I applaud them speaking out loud and changing course.
I believe what you and many others are struggling with is that the stock price is not necessarily driven by fundamentals, technicals, news or the stock market in the short term. The correlation of the above points and the stock movements does fade. Many reasons for that and not just one or two.
The last time I did make short term call bets on Tesla was when they went up from 190 to 380 early in 2017. I did abandon every short term trade be it swing or options ever since as in my view the stock is in a sidestep and finding environment and the movement is not predictable.
Stay long and add in weakness is the right strategy to win in a market we are in.
If EV growth in China is 83% (I think Sept. 17 to Sept. 18), I think 100% is not too far off. How long until smartphones took over the market?
Even if it’s until 2028 or so, government mandated 100% EVs by 2040, and even 2030, is inconsequential.
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
Lol, what problem are they trying to solve? Modern airplane propellers reach peak efficiency of about 85-87% at crusing speed/altitude (a Model 3 RWD is 90%, a Model S is 82%). What is their claimed efficiency for their electrodynamic thruster, even theoretically? I highly doubt they're gaining anything with this scheme.
Do you think these guys ever put a pollution sniffer behind this ionized-gas generator? I bet it makes more NOx and ozone pollution than its weight in volcanoes. Don't they know that ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas, and is toxic in large quantities? Maybe these guys can get a job in the WH as Science Advisor. SMDH.
Sheesh, what a turkey! And just in time for Thanksgiving! (I blame the Public Education system, for producing reporters with such shocking lack of critcal thinking skills)
To launch the age of electric air transport, we don't need "electrodynamic thrust": we need high energy density rechargable batteries. Elon says 400 Wh/Kg is needed for commercial airplanes to be economical. Tesla's current bty tech is around 280. We'll get to 400 in about 5-6 years at the current annual rate of improvement of 7%.
Cheers!
P.S. That 'blue glow' they talk about? That's the ozone generator at work: (skip to 5:30)
Carl Raymond
Active Member
The price action seems man made. That was my conclusion, based on the daily plunge into the mid morning dip, and subsequent meek recovery we saw so often, and saw return last session.
I have been told firmly that the people who do this do it for profit on the stock trade. But they also do harm. There are so many industries who would love to see Tesla harmed, then why would they not do it in this completely anonymous way? For mere millions, the difference between their short selling wins and losses, they can extend the life of an oil industry worth trillions.
I find it hard to believe that *all* the shorts are merely chasing a dollar on the trade, when so much more is at stake. These are the people who deliver climate change disinformation, they do not have a moral compass.
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
Yes, its classic Confirmation Bias and is best avoided if you want to be healthy, wealthy and wise.
Cheers!
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
"China's New Energy Vehicle Mandate Policy (Final Rule)", published January 2018, only specifies China's EV targets for 2019-2020.
Annual mandatory requirements for New Energy Vehicle (NEV) credits are:
- 2018: No requirement (8% cancelled due to Industry pushback)
- 2019: 10% NEVs
- 2020: 12% NEVs
- 2021 and beyond: To be determined later
P.S. Love your SPIRIT! And we will get there, no matter how much they fight us.
CH33RS!
Last edited:
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
Empirical evidence from someone with 20 yrs experience supports your assertion:
I've never seen such a long term short (over 3 years) of this size (average $8.6 bn since 2016) that is pretty much immune to price moves and mark-to-market losses (over -$6.3 bn since 2016). Short sellers have continuously & tenaciously followed their thesis regardless of price.
This is literally why I'm here at TMC, why I am long TSLA, and why I hold no other equities. Tesla is an existential fight for the future of civilization, and the stakes are high.
Cheers, mate!
EDIT: Let's get some music up in this place! I dunno, maybe oh, some STARSHIP?
Last edited:
Lol, what problem are they trying to solve? Modern airplane propellers reach peak efficiency of about 85-87% at crusing speed/altitude (a Model 3 RWD is 90%, a Model S is 82%). What is their claimed efficiency for their electrodynamic thruster, even theoretically? I highly doubt they're gaining anything with this scheme.
Do you think these guys ever put a pollution sniffer behind this ionized-gas generator? I bet it makes more NOx and ozone pollution than its weight in volcanoes. Don't they know that ozone is a powerful greenhouse gas, and is toxic in large quantities? Maybe these guys can get a job in the WH as Science Advisor. SMDH.
Sheesh, what a turkey! And just in time for Thanksgiving! (I blame the Public Education system, for producing reporters with such shocking lack of critcal thinking skills)
To launch the age of electric air transport, we don't need "electrodynamic thrust": we need high energy density rechargable batteries. Elon says 400 Wh/Kg is needed for commercial airplanes to be economical. Tesla's current bty tech is around 280. We'll get to 400 in about 5-6 years at the current annual rate of improvement of 7%.
Cheers!
P.S. That 'blue glow' they talk about? That's the ozone generator at work: (skip to 5:30)
... we need high energy density rechargable batteries. Elon says 400 Wh/Kg is needed for commercial airplanes to be economical. Tesla's current bty tech is around 280. We'll get to 400 in about 5-6 years at the current annual rate of improvement of 7%.
If that turns out to be true and I would love it to be then Tesla will have a new business unit in about 5 years called Tesla Air.
Elon has already a working model in his head and just needs to plot it down like he did with cars, batteries and rockets. He talked about it in the Rogan podcast/video as well as before and you can see that he has a pretty concrete understanding how to do it. With no other battery company being able to produce the energy density on a battery level Tesla Air would dominate that market.
To achieve the sustainable transportation goal after road is well on the way the next two logic developments are sea and air...
Artful Dodger
"Ducimus, lit"
Lol, whilst scanning the continuum for other manifestations of the mind of Elon, I came across this early Neuralink prototype: (shh, Topic Secret)
CH3ERS!
Are you saying use of a China based Tesla subsidiary to bypass US taxes? Otherwise, I'm not seeing the advantage to the local sale.
If the total sales go up producing more profit overall (lower GM * more cars), that would help.
Other possibilities:
They are doing a Euro style final assembly at the new GF to reduce import costs.
Depending on content source, imported (to the US) parts could go straight to China to reduce the tariff impact both ways.
Musk has already stated that Tesla would not build the plane. Which is understandable. I'm sure he'd much rather have it as part of a private company rather than a public one.
Tesla's really not a leader in density. The emerging solid state producers are going to dominate that. Tesla is about getting $/kWh down. For electric aircraft, you can afford to pay more, but you have to have extreme density in order to be able to reach your cruising altitude / velocity with enough energy left to actually cruise. And for electric aircraft, both the optimal altitude and velocity are very high.
Having actually done a number of calcs on this, I know exactly where Musk is going. VTOL lets you minimize your wing area / wetted area and optimize your wing shape for very high speed travel, and electric motors/batteries have ample power for rapid climbing / acceleration. Without VTOL, you have to have enough wing area for low velocity lift. Density drops off rapidly at high altitudes. Note how climbing just 50% higher than a typical cruising altitude (10 km / 32800 feet) halves the density:
And it just keeps declining like that. Also: the higher the cruising velocity, the more passenger miles you can get out of the aircraft per day, which is key in terms of profitability.
Fuel-propelled aircraft are limited in altitude and velocity by their ability to provide sufficient oxygen, challenges with preventing flameout, and at very high speeds, "frozen" reactions (combustion doesn't have time to complete before the fuel-air mixture leaves the engine). Electric aircraft aren't limited suchly. So you just keep climbing and accelerating, and your ability to cover distance for a given amount of energy keeps rising. Once you go supersonic, drag starts falling, and keeps falling up to hypersonic speeds (although it never gets as low as subsonic... but it's a lot less than the transsonic regime).
In short, small increases in energy density will make large - and in fact, increasingly large - differences in electric aircraft range.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Agree as well, it's misleading, purposely. Any company hiding the actual price of a product is trying to deceive. Be better, Tesla.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
