Seeking Alpha

The ripple effect from Tesla's Gigafactory

  • The new Gigafactory from Tesla Motors (TSLA) could consume as much as 17% of the current global lithium output in a development that could ease concerns on oversupply, forecasts Goldman Sachs.
  • The EV automaker is expected to build the large facility in either Nevada, Arizona, Texas, or New Mexico - regions which are all close to major lithium factories.
  • Panasonic (PCRFY) will play a major role in the roll-out of the Gigafactory. Shares of the ADRs were up over 10% this week as enthusiasm built up over some of the potential down the road for the company in battery production.
  • Goldman notes that lithium producers such as Rockwood Holdings (ROC) could be well-positioned if Tesla's Gigafactory helps support market demand for lithium.
  • A rising tide lifts all lithium boats: If lithium demand improves, other companies to watch in the lithium-ion battery industry include Arotech (ARTX), Polypore Internationak (PPO), Western Lithium (WLCDF), FMC Corporation (FMC), EnerSys (ENS), and Sociedad Quimica y Minera de Chile (SQM).
  • Related ETFs: LIT
From other sites
Comments (71)
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    Elon Musk's Gigafactory may be designed to meet the needs of 500,000 cars a year but, it will have much more room for expansion.

     

    I predict that Tesla will not only come up with a new model for 2019-2020 (after the Model E and based on the the bi-yearly rate for new models) but with 2, based on the higher R&D Tesla will be spending.

     

    Elon Musk's ability to under-predict is well know despite frequent under-estimations by naysayers. By adding the necessary correction factor to his under-prediction, I read Tesla's sales at 2020 to be 800,000 to 1,000,000 cars. And yes, that includes at least 2nd car factory operating by then.
    1 Mar, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • SharkDude
    , contributor
    Comments (639) | Send Message
     
    This company is still very young. To predict how many cars they will sell in 6 years is insane.
    1 Mar, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • the_value_vulture
    , contributor
    Comments (204) | Send Message
     
    "I read Tesla's sales at 2020 to be 800,000 to 1,000,000 cars."

     

    The financial community is baffled at how this stock has been bid to the stratosphere and its disconnect to Any reality. The answer lies here. The company's valuation is built on hope, dreams, and fantasy.

     

    Analysts and professional forecasters can't even get the numbers down on mature industries in a one year time span concerning sales predictions. We now have a 6 year prediction with a "Musk correction factor".

     

    Managed to scalp small profit on puts this week but the opportunity to short here is becoming greater as irrationality grows.
    1 Mar, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • jackl1956
    , contributor
    Comments (116) | Send Message
     
    The chinese are choking on smog. The smog is so thick you cannot see, much like the irrational vision of TSLA bears.
    1 Mar, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (1815) | Send Message
     
    Excellent comment! Great comparison! Could not have said it any better.
    1 Mar, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • Johnny04
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    It wasn't irrational. It's based on Elon's past history and predictions. He has said a lot of crazy things that many people thought were impossible, but he proved them wrong. The timeline may not match exactly but close enough for investors. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt him now, especially since most of the hard stuff are now in the past.
    1 Mar, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    I plan on buying one of those Coal powered Tesla's once they get the price below $50K
    1 Mar, 11:49 PM Reply Like
  • kickgas
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    @1980XLS,
    I sense sarcasm.
    Renewable sources of electricity (like solar - thermal and photovoltaic, and geothermal) that are nearly carbon-neutral are growing rapidly in this country (U.S.). Hydroelectric (dams) dominate the Northwestern U.S. while Nuclear is a major player for the Eastern seaboard.
    Even if all the Electric Vehicles WERE driving on coal-powered plants, they would still emit less climate altering carbon dioxide than a gasoline powered car. How so? Chalk it up to EFFICIENCY. The heat from the coal plant is used efficiently to turn turbines generating the electric power plant, yet the internal combustion engine is less efficient and generates unharnessed heat which is one measure of its inefficiency. The car motor itself displays efficiency. No energy is wasted "idling" at traffic lights. When decelerating, the Electric Vehicles recharge their batteries during the regenerative braking (which also saves us the need for much brake pad replacement). Proof of this efficiency is in the E.P.A. mileage rating of 94 MPGe. (That is, 89 miles using the electrical energy equivalent to the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline.)

     

    But 1980XLS, if you ever DO buy a Tesla Model E you won't feel that Harley exhaust boom when you gun the accelerator on your Tesla. It's called "stealth racing." Try it. As you've likely heard the Model E should be available in 2017 for under $50,000 nicely appointed and carry you 200 miles on a single charge. Lots of room for growth with that.
    2 Mar, 02:41 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    I will need to charge my TSLA at night, while I sleep, while the sun does not shine.

     

    So I can burn rubber in my Tesla during the day.

     

    I prefer coal. It is black, like the night

     

    Coal is American, Just like the diesel from the Bakken to extract the coal and the non renewable, raw materials for the batteries.

     

    I am pro America.

     

    Go Tesla!
    2 Mar, 02:58 AM Reply Like
  • Ethics-
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Paying for a stock priced at 1000000 $ per sold car is rational then?
    2 Mar, 05:01 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. Cat
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    Dear Ethics-,

     

    For those who aim at growth stock, valuation is a matter of vision and forwarding looking thinking. Keep staring at current figures or the past, you will miss a lot of beautiful thing around you. Have you missed 2002-3's Apple?

     

    I am not saying the question you raised is worthless. I am sure those rent/yield seeking investors will appreciate it very much. What I am trying to say is you should ask yourself whether you are looking at tesla stock price through the glasses of rent seeker when doing your exercise of valuing stock price of Tesla.
    2 Mar, 05:58 AM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8661) | Send Message
     
    GM is priced @ ~$6500 per car or truck unit.

     

    Tesla is priced ~86x per unit MORE than an average of the established car manufacturers.

     

    GM is a better buy for long term investors at this point but if you've owned TSLA stock since it was valued fairly you may wish to buy puts or otherwise protect your profits.
    2 Mar, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    I wouldn't buy puts. Momentum stocks can go a long way. Look at (NFLX) and (AMZN). Remember (YHOO) and (CSCO) in the 90s? If I had (TSLA), I would sell half every time it doubles. If I buy (TSLA) now, yes, I would buy puts to hedge against a fall.
    3 Mar, 06:59 AM Reply Like
  • gofmarat
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    second the 2 factories needed
    1 Mar, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Surf Dog
    , contributor
    Comments (825) | Send Message
     
    Under promise and over deliver seems to be his way.

     

    There will also be advancements in battery technology that will enhance range, reduce charging time and lower cost by using materials that are more plentiful and cheaper.
    1 Mar, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • SharkDude
    , contributor
    Comments (639) | Send Message
     
    Yeah. Like he is "flooding the market" with 40k cars a year. Massive flood.
    1 Mar, 03:29 PM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    What happens when Solar City saturates the US, EU and China with rechargering stations?

     

    Expand to Canada, Mexico. So. America, Eastern Europe, Greece, Turkey, India, Australia and the other Asian Tigers.

     

    Tesla can't flood the world market for 20 years with 5 different models if they wanted to.
    1 Mar, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • There-is-hope
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Another play in the space that has yet to gain visibility is UQM...they were working with CODA, Saab...at some point, they may actually get some traction. They recently raised money and have a solid CEO.

     

    Disclaimer: I've been long ARTX and UQM for years (patience is a virtue i suppose...) and long TSLA since the $30s. At least I got one right :)
    1 Mar, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • James Peartree
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Great comment. Also check out UQM's partnership with Regen Nautic. http://bit.ly/13U2dPD The CEO of this still private company is Pierre Caouette, known by boat builders to be the "Elon Musk of nautical electric"
    1 Mar, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • There-is-hope
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Can you say range anxiety for an electric-only boat? But I could see military applications for a hybrid/stealth boat for instance.

     

    Speaking of ARTX and UQM today. All I can say is fi-na-lly. Still not selling.
    4 Mar, 01:05 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    If Lithium demand improves the price will go up. Musk will have to buy a Lithium mine.
    1 Mar, 02:52 PM Reply Like
  • SharkDude
    , contributor
    Comments (639) | Send Message
     
    That is funny. 6 months ago lithium was in short supply. Now we suddenly have a surplus? According to Goldman? Yeah right.
    1 Mar, 03:28 PM Reply Like
  • SharkDude
    , contributor
    Comments (639) | Send Message
     
    Does anyone find it interesting Panasonic has 80 Billion in revenue and a lower mkt cap than TSLA?
    1 Mar, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1903) | Send Message
     
    I don't think Panasonic's LI ion battery business makes a profit.
    1 Mar, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (2253) | Send Message
     
    Electric cars have the headstart but don't count out Hydrogen Fuel Cells just yet!
    1 Mar, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Umm.
    I count them out due to the number of Fuel stations or lack there of.

     

    EVs don't really need fueling stations.

     

    When marketing a car, a customer has to know ahead of time where they can fuel it.

     

    Gas stations- given
    EV- common electrical plug at your home.
    Hydrogen stations- I've seen 1 in my travels in CA.

     

    Can't market a car if there is no where to fuel it.
    1 Mar, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (2253) | Send Message
     
    the refuelling stations are coming, Toyota is already starting to build in California.

     

    Think about it- the major auto companies have a vested interest in having HFC become viable because otherwise TSLA is going to gobble them up.

     

    Like I said, electric has a head start but that will change.

     

    3 hours to recharge your battery or 5 minutes to pump hydrogen into a tank?
    1 Mar, 05:59 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Toyota and the like do not have enough capital to make enough fuel cell stations; and they have to go up all within a few year period.

     

    Not saying it can't be done; but it is cost prohibitive.

     

    In order to make Fuel cells competative, Toyota and the like have to spend 15-100 Billion dollars to set up the infrastructure in the US.

     

    That is a huge gamble; and it has to be done in the course of 5 years to be competative with EVs.

     

    And if hydrogen vehicles don't take off, that is a huge write down.

     

    Now from the consumer end:
    Why should I as a consumer purchase a hydrogen car?

     

    There is no reason to vs a gasoline car
    1. Lack of fueling stations
    2. Costly fuel
    3. Unfamilarity of consumers with the product
    4. Dubious environmental benefits ( industrial hydrogen comes from steam reforming of methane)

     

    There has to be a reason or market driver.
    Here's EVs
    1. Cheaper refueling
    2. Familiarity with electrical plugs
    3. Batteries- everyone has used them before
    4. Potential to use green resources.
    1 Mar, 06:37 PM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (2253) | Send Message
     
    you raise many good points but overlook the overarching economical and political factors of the present deep-pocked players - Oil Companies, auto manufacturers, service stations, etc who will fight tooth and nail to see EV stymied.

     

    The existing gas stations will be retrofitted to accommodate hydrogen refuelling and the big money will be behind them...
    1 Mar, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • tombland
    , contributor
    Comments (152) | Send Message
     
    It doesn't take "3 hours to recharge your battery"!

     

    Have you even looked at what Tesla's superchargers are capable of? Now think ahead a few years and imagine how much quicker they'll be then.

     

    Even if someone took a huge gamble by building a hydrogen fuel station network, it won't be free. Electric has already won.
    1 Mar, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Yes, there are deep pockets; but thise deep pockets have to play it extremely carefully

     

    So here's the problem with oil companies: they make methane, which could be sold as natural gas OR used for steam reforming for hydrogen.
    Well, if they offer the hydrogen at a lower price than what the raw material costs- they could get in trouble for predatory pricing.

     

    Yes, auto dealers fight against Tesla, but technically they are lossing the battles; and in federal court Tesla has a good chance of winning due to interstate trade laws.

     

    Manufacturers- they'll see Tesla as a threat when it is too late; happens all the time.

     

    Gas stations- retrofitting is rather difficult since it requires unique equipment. Hydrogen is a royal PITA to store. They make most of the money off of the food inside the stores.

     

    Then there is ill will towards oil companies- we all remember in the US a few years ago when gas shot up to $4/gal on average and the media started asking people how the a cutting back. Think people are looking for a way to get away from it.
    1 Mar, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (2253) | Send Message
     
    All good points.

     

    There will be a battle however and it may very well be that EV win out in the long run. or perhaps a hybrid using hydrogen fuel.

     

    But you can bet that the Auto companies are going to try and make a go of it with Hydrogen, they have to, and Toyota has already begun to promote the new vehicles with other car manufacturers also about to follow suit.
    1 Mar, 07:27 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Supercharging may not take 3 hours, but it does not top off the battery to max range either. Not to mention the additional beating battery take rapid charging vs low & slow.
    1 Mar, 11:52 PM Reply Like
  • kickgas
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Hydrogen fuel cells don't make sense from a practical scientific view point. The hydrogen has to be sourced from one of only two sources.
    1. Methane or similar finite fossil fuel. During the conversion carbon dioxide is released in the same amount as if it had been burned.
    or
    2. Electrolysis from water. This requires electricity. The amount of electricity consumed in the process is greater than the energy potential of the hydrogen (following Newton's law of thermodynamics). Even if the source of electricity had been a renewable, non-polluting like solar, that electricity would have provided more work had it been sent down the electrical wires to your electric vehicle/home/business. Electricity is the great multiuser energy source. Electrical outlets are found in virtually every building. It travels to your building at near the speed of light - not by truck or train or ship or pipeline to get to various fueling stations (not one in your house, I bet and not always open 24 hrs a day). Batteries will become more commonplace and affordable for storing that electrical energy when it is in excess and then dispersing it when the energy is needed.

     

    HYDROGEN is inherently riskier to store and transport (explosive - can you say Hindenburg?) and bulky (fuel cell cars lose most of their trunk from the hydrogen tank) and is Houdini-like in it's ability to escape out of tank connections and through seals due to it being the smallest atom in the universe.

     

    The people who really understand these basic principles are aware that hydrogen is a non-starter versus electric vehicles. The primary reason hydrogen fuel cells are still receiving any research dollars after 30 years of unfulfilled promises is because of the interests of big oil and the traditional auto industry trying to pretend they were working on "the future" and to distract from the logical solution of the EV which truly will dramatically alter the course of their legacy businesses.
    2 Mar, 03:21 AM Reply Like
  • anyon
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    And electricity is free!
    2 Mar, 04:27 AM Reply Like
  • Mr. Cat
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    @kickgas, I just given you one "Like". But I really think your comment deserves much much more than that for its knowledgeable and easy to understand contents. Great!
    2 Mar, 06:31 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    avyon,

     

    Supercharging is free too!
    2 Mar, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • kickgas
    , contributor
    Comments (103) | Send Message
     
    Here is a very worthwhile to read link (not too long to read in 3 minutes)
    http://bit.ly/TVJ2mi
    To a recent report where fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen."

     

    Hydrogen Fuel cell research received a big boost from a presidential initiative by President George Bush in 2003. (source: http://1.usa.gov/1mZYw3n ) probably because of pressure form the oil and gas producers since Methane can be a source for making hydrogen.

     

    Regarding hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the scientist Bossel says: "Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”

     

    The article goes on to say:
    "Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues."

     

    My summary of his findings:
    You need to use electricity to make the hydrogen which then gets converted back to electricity by the car's fuel cell to drive the electric motor (yes fuel cells use electric motors). The hydrogen is acting as only the energy carrier between the electrical power plant to the car motor but loses 70% of that energy in the process. Example from the article: The entire electrical output from 3 power plants provide enough electricity to make only enough hydrogen capable of carrying the energy of just one of those power plants. Not a workable economic solution for the worlds energy shortage. HYDROGEN is not naturally occurring, it has to be synthesized. It is not an energy SOURCE, it is an energy CARRIER. But electrons distance traveling cheaper and batteries have now come of age as Elon Musk is helping to commercialize battery electric vehicles (as are Nissan, BMW, Mitsubishi among others).

     

    Elon Musk follows first principals of physics. He won't stop until renewable energy sources are up to speed to replace the world's traditional finite energy resources before they are squandered by burning them. Today the world has the resources and technology to provide all of current human energy use by renewable means. Transitions can be difficult but can work with the right implementation strategy. Elon is helping by showing that we shouldn't be afraid to invest in this future. He is betting the vast amount of his fortune in it. And the numbers and strength of those following him is growing.
    3 Mar, 03:11 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    "And electricity is free!" Nothing is free. Think, if electricity demand rises do to (TSLA), then the electric utilities will just raise your electric bill.
    3 Mar, 07:02 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Micheal,
    "Think, if electricity demand rises do to (TSLA), then the electric utilities will just raise your electric bil"

     

    Not necessarily, here's a number of questions for you to answer to determine if the cost of electricity will increase or decrease.

     

    Question 1: Do you understand the difference between peak load power and base load power?
    Answer: Base load power is more efficient than peak load power if coming from the same feedstock. Base load power is alot cheaper than peak load power since it utilizes the raw materials better.

     

    Question 2: Why don't we have a substantial amount of base load power
    Answer: Because during the night time there is not enough demand and having base load power can not be easily ramped up and down. If we were 100% base load we would over load the grid currently.

     

    Question 3: When do most EVs charge?
    Answer: At night

     

    Question 4: What does Questions 1, 2 and 3 mean?
    Answer: It means that more EVs= more Base load power = Cheaper electrical rates
    4 Mar, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Rik1381
    , contributor
    Comments (1420) | Send Message
     
    A large percentage of EV owners also have solar. My electric bill with a Tesla + solar on my garage is lower than it was before I got both of them.
    4 Mar, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • DeepValueLover
    , contributor
    Comments (8661) | Send Message
     
    A lot of speculation about the unbridled success this company will have in the future.

     

    I've seen this before and only two companies lived up to the hype:

     

    Microsoft and Google.

     

    Hundreds of other companies didn't even come close.
    1 Mar, 04:41 PM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    Funny how the product of these 2 companies (Microsoft, Google plus lithium battery) are inherent in Tesla's technology.

     

    Following the technological progression is like walking on gold bricked road.
    1 Mar, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • awakeinwa
    , contributor
    Comments (308) | Send Message
     
    amazon and apple come to mind. totally underestimated, totally dominated.

     

    Tesla to date has executed near flawlessly. That is why so many people put faith in the future of this stock. Unless evidence piles up demonstrating they cannot deliver on their promises, the stock will continue to rise accordingly.

     

    that people gave my former employer microsoft a decade plus to basically destroy shareholder and employee value without much hoopla shows how lopsided the market can be. Just boil the frog slowly not ruffling the status quo feathers. But once you boil things quickly and ruffle feathers, people start piling on.

     

    Pretty trite and predictable.
    1 Mar, 11:37 PM Reply Like
  • Davephd
    , contributor
    Comments (765) | Send Message
     
    Within 5 to 10 years the lithium ion battery will most likely be replaced by an aluminum ion rechargeable battery.
    1 Mar, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    Go with (SQM) and (FMC).
    1 Mar, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    FMC & SQM both have too small a percentage of lithium to be pure enough play for Lithium speculation. $ROC is the only investment grade one with nearly a pure lithium play after it's recent asset sales.
    1 Mar, 11:55 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    (ROC) is not a supplier of raw material. They are a chemical company which needs to buy raw material.
    2 Mar, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    OK Michael,

     

    Just like you told me CONN is a manufacturer of Appliances & Mattresses.

     

    Check out page 8 of their evaporation pools in Nevada

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1cuKVdG

     

    http://bit.ly/1cuKVdI

     

    http://bit.ly/NB3P67

     

    http://bit.ly/1fzuqxa

     

    http://bit.ly/12CRsn1

     

    Like I said while FMC is a fine company, Lithium is only a portion of their business.

     

    Likewise with SQM, as fertilizer & Iodine are a larger percentage of their business, along with emerging market risks.
    2 Mar, 01:29 AM Reply Like
  • dr_bbz
    , contributor
    Comments (44) | Send Message
     
    ROC does both. They mine the lithium and they process it. Kind of like Alcoa. Go to their web site and you will see they are the best lithium investment in the world.
    2 Mar, 03:14 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    dr_bbz

     

    Yes, they are vertically integrated.
    2 Mar, 03:17 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (1815) | Send Message
     
    The ripple effect is that the Gigafactory will be needed to supply at least 1 million cars per year. That means a lot of things need to come into play. If everyone who wants to get in on the action, gets in, then there could be a lot of money to be made. Lots of jobs made, and a new way of transportation.

     

    The world is both changing and staying the same. There will be turmoil but at the same time, things will improve.
    1 Mar, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • WallStreetBingo
    , contributor
    Comments (20) | Send Message
     
    First Liberty Power Company (OTCQB:FLPC) has expansive Lithium deposits and should be reporting their first revenues in the next quarterly (from antimony sales). I wonder if Tesla will build the gigafactory near a lithium mine to minimize transportation costs?
    1 Mar, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Batteries do use antimony as well.

     

    I have played UAMY in the last two years with some good success.
    1 Mar, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • LL888
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I wonder if Warren Buffet has looked at Tesla. BYD is the Chinese EV car company he invested a few years back. But Tesla is way much better company in almost every dimensions.
    2 Mar, 04:18 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    No way!!!!!!!!!! (TSLA) is not Buffett's style. Way overvalued. Too much hype.
    3 Mar, 07:05 AM Reply Like
  • vandeley
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    Buffett doesn't invest in bubbles, he invests in companies that make money.
    3 Mar, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • teslalithium.com
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    TSX listed v.SF announcing lithium acquisition adjacent the RB Energy minesite in Quebec, symbol TSX-v.RBI
    2 Mar, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • teslalithium.com
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    TSX listed v.SF acquiring ground adjacent Lithium battery grade minesite in Quebec of RB Energy, v.RBI. TESLA announced gigafactory will produce the equivalent of current world production of Li batteries, so makes sense more than 10 mine will be required, probably more!
    2 Mar, 08:35 AM Reply Like
  • krreagan
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Hydrogen is a myth. Too much infrastructure needed.
    2 Mar, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • LYogi
    , contributor
    Comments (2253) | Send Message
     
    Tell that to Toyota Hyundai, etc. They aren't going down without a fight:

     

    http://bit.ly/1kHAGrv
    2 Mar, 09:02 AM Reply Like
  • 50 cent it is
    , contributor
    Comments (1461) | Send Message
     
    Lithium is very highly volatile when heated to a high temp like say you would find in a car accident or explosion
    2 Mar, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    Yes, so is gasoline. As is any fuel or energy storage medium
    2 Mar, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • 50 cent it is
    , contributor
    Comments (1461) | Send Message
     
    Ok fichana
    Whatever you say. Hmmmmm
    2 Mar, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1920) | Send Message
     
    You are talking about lithium which is in it's metallic state, there is very little pure, metallic lithium in a battery operated car. Most is already oxidized or reacted to form lithium complexes or ions.
    Actually the lithium is only like 4% of the wieght. Please familiarize yourself with the full electrochemical reaction.

     

    Ions are not as reactive- the are already reacted. Li+, not really reactive. Chem 101

     

    Now, like all fuels, or high energy dense materials , you could have an issue with anything if heated to extreme temperatures, everything burns.

     

    Heck I had a lead acid battery violently react and melt down in a regular car. I've had a fire in a regular car, without an accident- power steering fluid (if I remember correctly) leaked on the exhaust pipe.
    2 Mar, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • 50 cent it is
    , contributor
    Comments (1461) | Send Message
     
    Thanks,Dan
    That is good info
    4 Mar, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • hneumann
    , contributor
    Comments (619) | Send Message
     
    "This company is still very young. To predict how many cars they will sell in 6 years is insane"

     

    Indeed. To predict the geopolitical factors regarding Lithium mining is insane also. There are a lot fewer big Lithium mines than oilfields. Maybe Musk should switch to batteries without Lithium ASAP. Agree that the infrastructure issue with hydrogen is much more complicated and the ERO(E)I has to be looked at also.
    2 Mar, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • azgog
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    Tesla will build the gigafactory in the Southwest and use Solar City's expertise to operate it mostly on renewable energy. The rest of the present auto industry will see 2 small red lights in the distance - these are Tesla's tail lights as they lead the way into the future.
    2 Mar, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    " Solar City's Expertise"

     

    In what, financial engineering , and accounting tricks?

     

    Solar City is little more than a residential installing contractor.

     

    And that's in residential scale rooftop installations, not large, utility scale projects.

     

    Their expertise is in maximizing obtaining subsidies from taxpayers.

     

    Even the Gravy Train's batteries will be dead someday.

     

    They have never even been profitable. And they certainly won't be when the subsidies "Sunset" (Pun intended)
    4 Mar, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Bryant
    , contributor
    Comments (5615) | Send Message
     
    Companies can and do expand into new markets. (SCTY) seems well positioned to help (TSLA). And that might have been Elon's plan since the start. I am investing in (RGSE), but may look into (SCTY).
    4 Mar, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    Just ignore the accounting irregularities in SCTY.

     

    It's different this time.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    4 Mar, 11:13 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector