Seeking Alpha

JRP3's  Instablog

Send Message
Forward thinker, tirelessly fighting against misinformation.
My blog:
  • EV's Are Ready For Prime Time 12 comments
    Jun 21, 2012 9:25 AM | about stocks: TSLA

    As usual John Petersen misses the obvious point in a recent analysis of the potential for electric vehicles.

    The actual conclusion of the OECD analysis is that subsidies may not be needed at all in some EV applications and that in other EV applications subsidies won't help if the product can't eventually exist on it's own. Rather obvious conclusions, but still missing the point that cost is not the over riding factor in personal vehicle purchases. If it were we'd all be driving the cheapest vehicle available. The fact is that EV's can provide a driving experience so superior to an ICE that they are worth a premium to many, just as many options and luxury ICE vehicles are worth a premium to many. The bonus is that EV's provide lowered operating expenses from a much more diverse and cost stable fuel base. With greater volume and continued technological advances EV's will continue to get cheaper as well.

    Petersen also tries to suggest that moving pollution away from population centers will provide no benefit, when clearly it does. He also ignores the potential for dramatic reduction in pollution over all that EV's provide.

    Petersen of course takes a pointless shot at TSLA, which is clearly on it's way to a successful launch of it's ground breaking Model S sedan, which I'm quite confident can stand on it's own without subsidies at this point.

    The desperation in Petersen's articles and the frequency seems to have increased as the launch of TSLA's Model S comes closer.

    Disclosure: I own TSLA and I think EV's are cool.

    Disclosure: I am long TSLA.

    Themes: EV's, Electric Vehicles Stocks: TSLA
Back To JRP3's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (12)
Track new comments
  • Robert.Boston
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
    You make an important point, JRP: consumers do not always--or even generally--buy the cheapest product that meets some minimal standard. My dinner tonight was not rice and beans with a side of water, but diver scallops with snow peas and Bhutanese red rice with a nice sauvignon blanc.


    Are EVs somewhat more costly than ICE vehicles? Possibly, though that depends critically on the future path of gasoline prices, and I generally don't like to "invest" in unstable theocracies. More importantly, BEVs provide a better experience--better driving dynamics, no need for gas stations, "always full in the morning". And, just like my scallops instead of rice and beans, I'm willing to pay a premium for premium product.
    21 Jun 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8325) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » People who haven't experienced an EV don't seem to grasp that simple concept. Now that it's hitting the streets I expect the Model S to be the next "must have" product.
    22 Jun 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Nick Butcher
    , contributor
    Comments (806) | Send Message
    I thought the report was overall fairly poorly done, but the one interesting conclusion (which, of course, John fails to adequately acknowledge) was that even with Renaults fairly inflated prices EV's are in fact already highly economical in some applications.


    I predict Petersons ongoing 'amendments' to his position to follow this trend.


    - EVs are fundamentally impossible given scientific limitations on battery performance
    - OK, EVs are fundamentally possible, but it's fundamentally impossible to have an EV with more than 100 miles range.
    - OK, it's fundamentally possible to have an EV with more than 300 miles range, but full EVs will never be economically viable
    - OK, full EVs will be economically viable in some applications, but they will never be economically viable for mainstream users.
    - OK, full EVs are economically viable for mainstream users, but they will never displace the majority of ICE vehicles for personal transport
    - OK, full EVs have displaced the majority of ICE vehicles for personal transport, but they will never achieve a low earth orbit without external motivation.


    Obviously each assertion will be accompanied by "EV's are evil, polluting, and we're about to run out of battery resources - buy Axion!"
    22 Jun 2012, 09:35 AM Reply Like
  • mkjayakumar
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
    Is it true that JP once pumped up ENER and was strongly recommending a buy, when he was actually dumping the shares ?


    Someone had pointed this out, and JP promptly complained to mommyderator and those posts were removed.
    22 Jun 2012, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • vfx
    , contributor
    Comments (190) | Send Message
    Since authors can complain and get commentors removed, does it work the other way around so a group who feel they are being relentlessly attacked can get an agenda driven author removed?
    23 Jun 2012, 01:51 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8325) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Probably not, he drives too much traffic to this site, but there is a "report abuse" link on every comment which can be used each time he attacks the messenger instead of the message. He of course uses it when he doesn't like the message and can't think of a witty comeback.
    23 Jun 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Nick Butcher
    , contributor
    Comments (806) | Send Message
    You say that as though some of his comebacks are witty... link please?
    24 Jun 2012, 08:07 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8325) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Actually I'm saying he uses the link a lot ;)
    24 Jun 2012, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • fxfx
    , contributor
    Comments (977) | Send Message
    I would say, J.P. is usually very polite and respectful in his comments and articles. You may or may not agree with his assessments and conclusions. Still, when reading through the many comments it is pretty obvious that in 99% of the cases it is TSLA-fans that attack JP (often in clear violation of SA's terms) , not the other way around.


    By the way, you claim a lot a in your short article, but you provide ZERO proof, evidence etc. Seems your instablog is just a tool to attack JP and his articles. but it is a very poor effort since it lacks - so far - any substance.
    9 Sep 2013, 06:32 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8325) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Actually since I wrote this article my predictions about Tesla creating a desirable EV that people will want in spite of it's high price were spot on. The "proof" I presented is in a proper understanding of the very article that Petersen failed to interpret correctly.
    I guess you're new around here but Petersen has a long history of personal attacks and abuse when he can't win an argument. He gets attacked because he's an ill informed blowhard who does not have facts on his side, and he's been constantly wrong about Tesla, costing anyone who listed to his advice huge sums of money. Yet people still give him credibility. What little he does know about lithium batteries and EV's he's learned from me and others posting on his articles. In spite of himself some facts managed to penetrate his brain.
    10 Sep 2013, 09:38 PM Reply Like
  • DMF81
    , contributor
    Comments (13) | Send Message
    I agree EVs are ready for "prime" time. Cost is not the over-riding factor for purchasing a car, unless you are making an economy car. In the case of the OECD study, it has to compare like cars
    In terms of the Tesla Model S, with regards to 0-60 times and the amount of room, there's really not much to compare it to.


    The closest car I can find is an Audi A8, BUT a similarly equipped A8 is slower for the same price and does not have the cargo room.


    I guess if the OECD study had its way we would all be drive Tata Nano's because they are cheap. I would not drive one, it does not have the safety features, acceleration, or amenities that I would like. People pay a premium for those features.


    I agree, you can't hook a "scrubber" up to a tailpipe of a car, but you can do it to a huge industrial power plant or go to an alternative source of energy. There was an article in Car and Driver with a Fisker, and it had the CO2 emitted to charge it.
    If you back calculate it for a Tesla, it winds up being around 98 mpg equivalent, at least for my state. In Vermont, it's an insanely high number.
    He also fails to realize that the target audience are either environmentally concerned people or cost conscious people who at the same time, may be buying solar cells or other alternatives to off-set their cars.
    24 Jun 2012, 08:05 AM Reply Like
  • JRP3
    , contributor
    Comments (8325) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Oh he does actually realize that, he just completely discounts it, as if it's a disconnected event. In his world an environmentally concerned individual would buy a Prius and still buy a large enough solar array to offset the load of an EV, without actually purchasing one. Makes perfect sense, right?
    24 Jun 2012, 10:27 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments

Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.