David at Imperial Beach

Long-term horizon, gold, etf investing, tech
David at Imperial Beach
Long-term horizon, gold, ETF investing, tech
Contributor since: 2014
Announcements like the Bosch one are practically a daily occurrence in the battery industry. And always at about the same stage of development: They've gotten some lab experiment to work, and first possible production is always quoted as five years away, but they have not even considered yet how to package it or manufacture it. Somehow in five years we almost always see nothing on the market. Usually we never hear from this particular development group again.
Advanced battery technologies are never cheap. They invariably cost more than conventional batteries at first. And after including all the necessary packaging usually they aren't any better at energy density either. Battery technology moves relatively slowly compared to electronics. Tesla is far more likely to get blindsided by some new electronics that get developed somewhere than by a new battery technology.
Case in point: Musk initially played down any autonomous driving features in Tesla's future. But then his rhetoric started to change and Tesla began to hire engineers to work on autonomy as he realized that Tesla needed to be in the forefront in this area or be left in the dust by other luxury car makers.
Mercedes and BYD? Strange combination. One renowned for premium cars of the highest quality, the other renowned for the most cheaply made and lowest quality batteries possible. So I ask myself, would I buy a Mercedes EV with BYD batteries? Not on your life. I might lease one if the contract specified that I could get fresh batteries free of charge whenever I wanted.
Mr Musk is not going to stop being cool just because Porsche comes out with an electric car. And as long as Mr. Musk is cool, he can get coolness to rub off on Tesla. There is no competition for Mr. Musk, therefore there is no competition for Tesla. Porsche doesn't have a CEO talking about hyperloops and funding rocket programs to Mars out of his back pocket.
All auto manufacturers rely greatly upon outsourced components. Tesla is actually more vertically integrated than the majority of auto manufacturers.
Why not? After they start accepting deposits for the Model 3 in a few months, they still have new models that they can announce at any time. Musk has already tipped his hand that he would like to build a pickup and a revised Roadster. After that the Model S will be overdue for a facelift.
Actually, tomfrompv, the snake charger is very much more real than the swap station and something along those lines *will* be offered for sale (and possibly be implemented in the supercharging stations.) Why? Because this is something customers really want and are willing to pay for. They aren't willing to pay for swapping when supercharging is being offered for free. Don't believe me? Watch the meetings with Model S customers and shareholders from a couple of years ago. Everyone wanted Tesla to come out with an inductive charging pad you could just park on and recharge like a cell phone without having to plug in. They were very disappointed when Elon broke the news that an inductive pad would lose about 10% of the electricity so it wasn't something they were considering offering.
The whole point of defaulting would be to stay in the EU and continue to use the euro. If they drop out, then they can print their own currency again and avoid defaulting.
But the problem is much bigger than Greece alone. If Greece drops out of the euro, then the precedent has been set and the euro collapses because Spain, Italy, France, Ireland and Portugal would all leave as well. The problem is that Germany is exporting far to much to its neighbors and not importing nearly enough. If you run a trade surplus, you *must* lend the difference, and now Germany no longer wants to do that either.
The whole point of the game is to kick the can down the road as long as possible. Politicians are second only to cockroaches in their ability to survive for one more day.
Yes, if you drive carefully (make full use of regen braking, rarely touch the brake, limit your top speed to about 70-80 kph and avoid jackrabbit starts), you can achieve 508 km in favorable weather. But more normal driving or more challenging weather conditions will cut down on that range. The software in the car is smart enough to adjust its estimates based upon your particular driving style and current weather conditions, so you may never see 508 km estimated driving range in *your* vehicle.
I believe the value to customers is that the state-of-the-art paint center will paint more cars faster and more perfectly. Presumably the primary reason for the investment was to remove a production bottleneck, so future customer wait times will be reduced.
A better link is this one, which shows the graphic in context: http://bit.ly/1JUZevj
To summarize: Lithium is *not* listed as one of the seventeen rare earth elements.
Contrary to popular belief, Tesla should be trying to get better control of the China market, not turn the whole brand over to a JV that may skin them alive. It looks to me like their initial managers deliberately sold dozens or even hundreds of cars to scalpers (probably for a kickback) all across China and didn't have the best interests of the company at heart. When American management made it clear that they weren't planning to deliver the cars in first-come-first-serve order, the SHTF because the scalpers weren't able to take delivery unless they actually lived a reasonable distance from the nearest service center. If the scalpers couldn't take delivery before "real" customers, they couldn't sell to the impatient ones for the highest bid and make a profit.
Tesla has shown that they have highly talented, adaptable management that are committed to doing whatever it takes to penetrate their major markets. They got rid of the dishonest Chinese managers. They will soon put this early misstep behind them.
American garages allow 20 feet to park a car, because a 1959 Cadillac is about 19 feet long. A Model S is 16 1/3 feet long.
Tesla does not use rare earth metals. Lithium and cobalt are not rare.
There are countries in Europe that do not have net metering and they have been clamoring for solutions. The Netherlands is one such.
The Tesla announcement wasn't just about residential units. It also included solutions for businesses and utilities. At present I would expect businesses to be the most interested in these devices for load-leveling purposes. Companies often are eligible for cheaper rates from utilities if they are able to voluntarily tolerate rolling brownouts with little or no advance warning. In addition, companies are charged based on peak loads, and the time of day of those peak loads. Tesla is using their own business storage units internally to load-level some of its highest usage supercharging stations as well as its factories.
Utilities will probably also be interested eventually, but they will be harder to convince. Probably what will have to happen is that PUCs will have to create incentives in the rate system for storage capacity.
In California at least half of all blackouts occur during high usage periods on summer afternoons when A/Cs are going full blast. In the winter, a storm in California doesn't normally last for weeks at a time like in the midwest and east. A storm generally blows through in about 12-48 hours.
Some California areas (e.g. the area of San Jose I used to live in) have very unreliable power. I could be pretty sure of at least one outage per year, sometimes two, because of seasonable vulnerabilities both summer and winter. In summer the A/C load would pop a transformer somewhere and black out the neighborhood. In winter, the storms would whip tree branches into the overhead lines and break them. There was also a danger of rolling brownouts that could escalate to blackouts if the utility got short of power. There's more than coolness factors at work in selling grid independence.
A Powerwall unit is not exactly your average, plain-jane commodity product. It includes quite a bit of proprietary technology, in particular a lot of management software that is anything but commoditized.
I'm with you. I think $300M is actually a pretty conservative cash burn for as young a company as Tesla is, and as capital intensive as the fields it's competing in. If Tesla were not developing new product lines and expanding its sales network into new markets and building a gigafactory they would be making money. The fact is, they are doing all of that and spending only net $300M/yr to do so. As of that 2014 report, they still had $1.9B in cash assets, so they aren't hurting for money any time soon, despite whatever rumors you are reading on Seeking Alpha.
Maybe both. Panasonic for cars, Samsung for Powerwall. Or maybe both suppliers are building the exact same cell and they supply both product lines from the one pool. It would be most convenient for the factory if the batteries were interchangeable. You get in a shipment of batteries and you don't care which supplier they came from, they get used in whatever products there are orders for.
Actually, neither the battery cells nor the motors are standard issue commodities. Tesla makes the motors to spec in house, and the battery cells are made to spec by Panasonic.
Your memory is faulty CP, it's the Model 3 that makes Musk salivate over profits, not the X. The X will still be funding the development of the 3.
Maybe you are unaware that Tesla has added a more luxurious backseat option. I don't expect their misstep in China to have any long term impact. Management seems determined to do whatever it takes to make China work, including fire workers and start over in the personnel department there.
The front grille looks like they couldn't decide whether to copy Bentley or BMW. They went with mostly Bentley + a hint of a BMW divider.
It has Bentley style, kinda. It actually looks like a Japanese knockoff of a Bentley. Not badly done, but definitely derivative rather than innovative.
Too bad they didn't do a retro version of the 1956 Continental Mark II. Lincoln has never been able to build on that excellent beginning. Instead they prostituted the Continental name with the bloat-sedan L. C. We're no longer living in a bloat-sedan world.
The Fed wants to maintain the illusion that they are independent of Congress as long as possible, and thus capable of maintaining the value of the dollar. But when the dollar has already lost 98% of its value since the founding of the Fed, that illusion is already pretty non-existent.
Vatican appointed an "auditor-general" last year. He has the power to audit any Vatican organization he wants to at any time: http://reut.rs/1wJLLD9 I don't expect those audits to be published on the Vatican's website any time soon though.
It's an odd argument to make: Ford, a company with an entire fleet of vehicular offerings, is recommended on the basis of one (1) new offering that is expected to be popular. I could add that the new Mustang, too, is expected to be popular. Even two models does not necessarily result in outperformance for an auto company's stock. Looking at the competition and the economic speed bumps ahead internationally, and looking at Ford's past performance, I'd say that F is fairly priced and doesn't have a lot of upside potential unless we see substantial improvements in the global economy, which is not yet on the horizon despite the best efforts of the world's central banks.
Lucky you, jerry-j. In the area of San Jose that I lived in power outages were at least a yearly event, and often there were multiple outages per year. In summer a transformer would be almost guaranteed to blow some hot summer day, and in winter there was always the danger of power lines being brought down by high winds and other storm-related damage. And my bill was usually over $100 per month as well, even though I'm a very frugal energy consumer.
Why would they need to add people for battery swap stations? Swapping is completely automated.
They didn't. Author has his number wrong. The correct number was $2.3B, of which $1.9B remains unspent. Potential shorts need to do their due diligence. The company recently made retooling investments in their Fremont factory to handle greater numbers of vehicles and to produce the X, the dual drive S versions, and later the 3. The company also continues to add supercharging stations and service centers and to stock the service centers with more spare parts. All of these expansionary expenditures will enable the company to satisfy higher levels of demand and grow the company in future quarters. Shorting the company even before they become demand constrained is way too premature.
Where are the numbers in the article to back up the author's claims? The author claims cash flow is a problem for Tesla. I don't see any cash flow numbers documenting the extent of this alleged problem. One number the article does include is wrong. Tesla raised $2.3B in convertible bonds, not $1.6B. And with most ($1.9B) of that money left in the bank, it's not been spent on other things as TFTF alleges.
Those of us who follow Tesla closely can clearly see that the company is spending money about as fast as it is earning it and this is according to plan. Within bounds, this is perfectly normal and acceptable for a company with such tremendous growth potential. The company currently anticipates no need to raise additional funding for at least the next year or two. By then the X and the P85D will be selling well and the 3 will be starting production.