Seeking Alpha

Toyota to end supply deal with Tesla early

  • Tesla Motors' (TSLA) deal to supply Toyota (TM) with battery packs and motors for the latter's rechargeable RAV4 electric crossover vehicle will terminate in 2014, the U.S. company has said, as the Japanese firm is "expected to end" the current model this year.
  • Toyota, which owns 2.4% in Tesla, had said in May 2012 that it would purchase parts for 2,600 electric RAV4 EVs over three years in a deal that was initially expected to be worth up to $100M.
  • However, Toyota has sold a mere 1,594 RAV4 EVs since 2012 through April. In Q1, Tesla earned $15.1M from the agreement.
  • Separately, Toyota intends to boost the production of its Camry sedan at its Kentucky plant by 100,000 units after it stops outsourcing some of the production to Fuji Heavy Industries' (FUJHF) facility in Lafayette in Indiana. Fuji could produce a new SUV in Lafayette when the Camry contract ends.
Comments (121)
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    Toyota fancies the ZEV loophole that enable its FCVs to dump green house gas emissions outside the preview of the California Air Resources Board because the pollution from FCVs occurs back at the Steam Reforming facilities of Linde and Air Products Inc. (also in California mind) and further upstream at the Marcellus shale and similar during the fracking of Natural Gas.

     

    But hey, so long as it is not tailpipe emissions and the government is paying for infrastructure who cares?

     

    A superb idea to encourage vehicles that are incompatible with renewable electricity without a 300% cost and efficiency hit.
    11 May, 05:46 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    Everyone should have seen this coming.

     

    Toyota pushes hybrids and hydrogen cars.
    Hybrids are their cash cow.
    They have also been on the offensive when it comes to EVs.
    http://bit.ly/1mLRnHw

     

    With the hydrogen cars, they get 6 more credits than their rav4 EV per hydrogen car sold. That is kind of a huge deal. The problem is you can essentially only get sales for hydrogen cars in CA or a small town in I believe SC. Closest hydrogen fuelling station would be in SC for me; never make it there on a tank of H2. There is no significant infrastructure set up; It's the old chicken and egg problem- not a critical mass of cars to justify a station; people not buying the cars because there are no stations. To justify an H2 car, the fuel has to be "free" and in a direct path; if you have to go 10 miles out of your way to find a station; wouldn't be worth it.
    On the flip side, back when I got my Tesla, the closest SC charger was in Connecticut. Never needed to use it, still never needed to use a SC station- charge at home.

     

    Just because politicians and a company labels something as "green" does not mean it is going to sell- there has to be a compelling reason or the advantages have to far outweigh the disadvantages for the consumer.
    11 May, 05:48 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @Dan

     

    http://bit.ly/1mLRnHw

     

    Woaaa wait just a goddamn minute.

     

    I thought the environmental problem that FCVs were trying to solve was gasoline and diesel?

     

    Hmmmm. Something to think about.
    11 May, 06:02 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    @ ford
    It's kind of interesting to notice the companies pushing hydrogen fuel cells are the ones with weak EV programs.
    They are the ones who are either outsourcing the tech, are only making compliamce cars or giving extremely low plug in hybrids.
    11 May, 07:31 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    The one pushing the hardest is Toyota.

     

    Coincidentally the one losing the most customers to the Tesla Model S.

     

    They are pretty much all rushing to get an FCV to market before the 2017 Gen III becomes available - even if they have to pay to subsidise the vehicles and the hydrogen.
    11 May, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "the companies pushing hydrogen fuel cells are the ones with weak EV programs."

     

    This is a key point missed by Tesla bears who claim automajors will crank out deadly competition for Tesla whenever they feel like it. If the automajors who are pushing fuel cells (which is most of them) had decent EV technology in their pipelines, they would not be spending one dime on fuel cell vehicles, which are more expensive, dangerous, and lacking infrastructure. These automajors will not have Tesla-class technology for many years, and by that time Tesla will eat not only their luxury-car lunch but also their mass-market dinner.
    11 May, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter wrote "Tesla bears who claim automajors will crank out deadly competition for Tesla whenever they feel like it. "

     

    Come on, all this swagger talk for a company that has never made any money and is supplying 0.03% of the market? Puh-leese. Can't we even get a weekend off from that?

     

    The car companies are not making their plans around Tesla. Tesla's competition is economic. They have no serious prospect of producing a car that can get into the mainstream at this stage, so there is no point in anybody chasing them -- and nobody is. They are a company worth watching, but not worth emulating.

     

    If pure EVs ever make any sense as a high volume product, the big companies will be there. And the suggestion that Toyota doesn't know what they are doing is beyond absurd. They have ev programs. They are producing plug-in hybrids. They are testing the iRoad, which is a pure EV. They have advanced Lithium-air development underway.

     

    But they are not convinced it will ever make sense to build a vehicle that has to push around 1200 pounds of toothbrush batteries everywhere it goes. And frankly, Tesla's experience is pretty good evidence that this IS NOT going to happen. They have a tiny cohort of buyers who are willing to totally disregard economics as a fashion statement. Tesla has not been able to substantially improve the cost picture moving from the Roadster to the S and on to the X. Why should anybody follow that?

     

    Clearly hybrids make very strong economic sense and EVs are simply not going to come anywhere close to challenging that this decade. The other car companies are looking at what happens after 2020. They simply have no reason to respond to Tesla at this stage. Tesla will get their share of affluent status seekers and that's basically the whole story.
    11 May, 10:24 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    When TSLA has a $35k car that outperforms the volt and prius you are going to see a lot of changes where manufacturers do chase TSLA.

     

    How about an electric truck made out of aluminum? Ford is trying to build an aluminum truck. All Elon has to do is create an aluminum truck that kicks ass and Ford is going to take notice.

     

    The batteries are the limiting factor of production. Nothing else. That will change once the factory is built.

     

    Once the factory is built you will see all new sources of funding pouring into TSLA. People will be attracted to the fact they actually can mass produce cars once 500k batteries are rolling out the door.

     

    Think farther into the future than the next year or next quarter. Long term investors are doing just that.
    11 May, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "They have ev programs. They are producing plug-in hybrids. They are testing the iRoad, which is a pure EV."

     

    The iRoad is a 3-wheel ET (electric trike). Like I said, Toyota does not have Tesla-class technology, and will not for many years.
    11 May, 10:45 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    TSLA is a moving target. Toyota may never catch them.
    11 May, 10:49 PM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter wrote "The iRoad is a 3-wheel ET (electric trike). Like I said, Toyota does not have Tesla-class technology, "

     

    Have you ever driven in Shanghai, Bangkok, or even London?

     

    Some of these cities make a vehicle as big as an S quite impractical, and with that tiny back seat, they certainly aren't a good car for a chauffeured drive.
    11 May, 10:52 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "Some of these cities make a vehicle as big as an S quite impractical, and with that tiny back seat, they certainly aren't a good car for a chauffeured drive."

     

    So you think the back seat is bigger in an iRoad? Actually the Model S back seat has been modified for China, to make it better for the chauffeured.
    11 May, 10:57 PM Reply Like
  • King Rat
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    Ford Prefect... No, not at all. Toyota is gaining customers left and right. Tesla selling up to 35000 cars this year? Toyota sells more than that in a week.
    11 May, 11:57 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    What Ford Prefect meant is that the #1 car FORMERLY owned by Model S owners is the Toyota Prius. Tesla is taking buyers from all the automajors, but taking the most from Toyota.

     

    << Add in Toyota’s premium Lexus division and more than 1 in 4 (25.4%) Model S owners were in the Toyota family of cars at time of purchase. >>
    http://bit.ly/1h4vQQR
    12 May, 01:20 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "Have you ever driven in Shanghai, Bangkok, or even London?"

     

    I have driven in Kuala Lumpur. The drivers were very fast and half insane. I would much rather venture among them in a Model S, which is built like a tank, or in the forthcoming Gen3, which is expected to be smaller but just as safe, than in an iRoad, which looks like it could be crushed by a cow such as grazed in the center of KL traffic circles.

     

    Also note that the iRoad has a range of 30 miles. Toyota technology has some catching up to do.
    http://bit.ly/SRT21b
    12 May, 01:42 AM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @cparmalee "And the suggestion that Toyota doesn't know what they are doing is beyond absurd. They have ev programs. They are producing plug-in hybrids." well, they (Toyota) really don't know. Their plug in hybrid gets 11 miles on electricity. http://bit.ly/1roZF6M

     

    i loved my Prius for 8.5 years and 168,000+ miles, but they lost me when they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to a plug in hybrid by Calcars (2 guys in a garage) and they started fooling with fuel cells (Yes hydrogen is the most abundent element in the universe, who has spaceships to go collect it though, otherwise it is really tied up with other elements)
    12 May, 02:43 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter, "So you think the back seat is bigger in an iRoad? "

     

    The point is that cities with big congestion problems already favor smaller vehicles and vehicles like the iRoad could eventually take up a significant part of the market. This article / thread is about Toyota, and I was simply pointing out that Toyota has a technology plan that is forward thinking, but doesn't put all its eggs in one basket. We certainly should expect to see pure EVs from them, perhaps not until they go into production with Lithium-Air, and this would be for small vehicles, of which the iRoad is one example. The broader part of their product line would be served by plug-in hybrids and/or fuel cells.

     

    There is no indication that anybody is following Tesla into building full sized pure-EVs cars with huge, expensive batteries. That suggestion is fanciful.
    12 May, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "There is no indication that anybody is following Tesla into building full sized pure-EVs cars with huge, expensive batteries."

     

    My point exactly.
    12 May, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter wrote "I would much rather venture among them in a Model S,'

     

    And there are some others like you. No problem with that. However, the norm in these congested cities is smaller vehicles. The iRoad is an experimental vehicle that carries on from similar efforts by Carver One, BMW and Vespa. Toyota has taken that much closer to commercialization than the others (except for Vespa, which is in production, but it truly a motorcycle.)

     

    The speed is artificially limited as Toyota develops the control system. They may decide they never want to offer that as a commercial product.
    12 May, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "They may decide they never want to offer that as a commercial product."

     

    My point exactly.
    12 May, 11:04 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter and FP wrote that some S buyers used to drive Prius.

     

    Is that supposed to be some shocking revelation? Some people who dine on filet used to eat T-bone steaks. Some people who used to go to a shooting range for target practice now shoot skeet. Some people who play in softball leagues as adults used to play baseball in high school.

     

    Where is the news here?
    12 May, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • cparmerlee
    , contributor
    Comments (1574) | Send Message
     
    Peter replies "My point exactly" on two posts.

     

    And mine as well. You are holding out hopes that after having 10 years to watch Tesla, the big companies aren't capable of going Tesla's direction or even understanding it. I really think the good people at BMW, Toyota, Ford, Volvo, Mitsubishi, Kia, Nissan and the others are a bit smarter than you are willing to credit them.

     

    The bulls seem to have this notion that what Tesla is doing is inevitable to be the dominant solution in the auto industry, and that all the other companies simply don't understand technology, markets, manufacturing, consumers, and money. If that is what you believe, you are certainly welcome to that belief. And there is some probability that is correct. I think that probability is quite low, but that's just my opinion.
    12 May, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee

     

    I think fantasising and fawning over Toyota's competency is a bit overblown in the light of 6.4 MILLION recent recalls http://cnnmon.ie/1oJ0qWI

     

    Toyota was comparatively great in the days that it innovated JIT production and trounced the US car makers with reliable economy vehicles. Now the reliability mantra is tarnished and the ethics of this company are down the swanny.

     

    Desperately lobbying for the US government to help pay to to stave off the Tesla Gen III with a fraudulent environmental pitch for FCVs is just the last straw. Has the US not had enough of funding Japanese aggression in business already?

     

    P.S. If you really want to know who believes Tesla Gen III is a major event in the auto industry, look no further than Toyota.

     

    One more thing - if FCVs were that great environmentally, why market them against EVs at all? Why not go after ICE - much bigger market with much more pollution to address.

     

    May they rot.
    12 May, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee

     

    I have in fact been to all three places (Shanghai, Bangkok, London).

     

    That is where the S-Class cars are at (obviously), not so much driving around in the paddy fields or former coal mining communities.
    12 May, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @cparmerlee

     

    Yes it is inevitably the dominant solution.

     

    Why, solar price dropping rapidly below the cost of fossil fuels, Tesla is the only one serious about being ready to catch it.

     

    The other thing, Toyota in particular is caught up in trying to scam the public that fracking shales is great for the environment. Well it isn't. By the time they figure out that no amount of subsidies for fossil fuel hydrogen filling stations will overcome the public back-lash to this attempted fraud then they will have pretty much spent their remaining brand value (that remains after endless vehicle recalls) and be technologically more like 15 years instead of 10 behind the curve set by Tesla.

     

    “Recent development of the United States’ tremendous shale gas resources has not only helped directly cut electricity and transportation costs for consumers and businesses, but is also helping to reduce the costs of producing hydrogen and operating hydrogen fuel cells. While American automakers and private industry have made significant progress, H2USA will bring experts together to identify and solve key infrastructure challenges, including leveraging low cost natural gas resources.“

     

    Does that sound environmentally friendly to you?

     

    Guess who is a partner to this little frack fest while declaring zero emissions freedom for all the darling little children of the world and an end to the terrible inconvenience of nasty EVs - ahhhh

     

    Outrageous bunch of ******* crooks!
    12 May, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "The bulls seem to have this notion that what Tesla is doing is inevitable to be the dominant solution in the auto industry, and that all the other companies simply don't understand technology, markets, manufacturing, consumers, and money."

     

    The bull case does not rest on the notion that all other companies don't understand these things. The sophisticated bull case, articulated by Ford Prefect and others, rests on the historical fact that companies being disrupted are trapped in a situation described in Christensen's book The Innovator's Dilemma. In particular, ICE car manufacturers cannot meet the threat from Tesla without destroying sales of their cash cows and destroying their gargantuan investments in ICE technology. Powerful forces, economic and psychological, make that very difficult.

     

    cparmerlee, your posts display profound ignorance of this historical fact, and of nearly all relevant facts about Tesla. If you ask Ford Prefect politely, he might explain some to you, but you would need to convince him that you are actually interested in educating yourself, and that would be difficult.
    12 May, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • pensaman
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    Solar powered Electrolyser in every home to produce Hydrogen and charge your tank for free will change the picture.
    http://bit.ly/1nRRiPv
    When the Joule Box like Gizmo made by Mike or honda/Plug powered Hydrolizer will change the picture and the Giga Battery project will be dead.
    15 May, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • pensaman
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/1nRRiPv
    Honda powered H2 fuel station cost to come down to kill Giga Battery projects.. Honda Knows, Toyota knows...Hyundai knows. BMW know.
    Mercedes know. To say Hydrogen is dangerous shows your IQ level.
    15 May, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    Report from American Red Cross Disaster Relief was received 5/15/2014at 9:35 a.m.:
    South Carolina - Hazardous Material Incident
    A hydrogen tanker leaked at a weigh station in Anderson County, threatened homes and
    prompted evacuations of nearby residents on Monday.
    Team members from the Red Cross opened a shelter and provided water to the first responders.
    Hydrogen molecules are extremely small and difficult to contain.
    Very small concentrations are highly flammable.
    This is a precursor for Fuel Cell infrastructure
    15 May, 02:57 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    pensaman
    Please enlighten us on the efficiency of the of said hydrogen box.

     

    Also please enlighten us on how much energy is needed to compress the hydrogen to a useable psi to be used in said tank.

     

    Also it should be noted that the water has to be pure (no chlorine or in it).

     

    You do know what happens if you use electrolysis in water that contains chlorine right? You don't get hydrogen, you get chlorine.

     

    Also, anyone andvocating the sodium borohydride car is not exactly telling you everything. Reversing the borax back to borohydride is not at all energy efficient- best I've seen from peer reviewed papers is 17% efficiency using pretty exotic catalysts, high temps and high pressures.
    Then you have to get rid of the borax. That is a PITA.
    15 May, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    Maybe there is a problem with the Tesla Model S drive train? And Toyota would like to stay away from issues.

     

    Owners are having them replaced in droves. No wonder those warranty costs at Tesla just tripled.

     

    http://bit.ly/1gboW2O

     

    "An updated motor mount is part of the replacement procedure now, whereas that wasn't the case last year when I had my firs replacement. The updated motor mounts, according to service, are part of the solution."
    16 May, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Trader8877
    , contributor
    Comments (154) | Send Message
     
    Wow, seems like Tesla has quite a bit of complaints. Could be factor for slowing demand? Why pay $100K for a humming drive-train? What till the Chinese customers learn about this - all hell may break loose?
    17 May, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    There is no slowing demand. The problem is fixed when you bring it to the service center.
    18 May, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Winfield

     

    Before spreading hydrogen FUD you should get up to speed.

     

    http://bit.ly/RLAa2C

     

    You seem to be 10 years behind in your thinking.

     

    Fuel Cells are already powering the most advanced submarines in the world. And trucks, airplanes, forklifts, cars, buses, houses,,...

     

    http://bit.ly/1gfRE2u

     

    Toyota has put their reputation behind Fuel Cells for the next 100 years

     

    http://toyota.us/1iFnfaf

     

    Its going to be interesting.
    19 May, 05:22 AM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (805) | Send Message
     
    Hi bailout,

     

    You really are the copy and paste king here. :-)

     

    You already sent pretty much the same comment to me as you just sent to Winfield.

     

    Time to update the database or we'll begin to think you're just a troll bot.
    19 May, 07:13 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    This guy summed up fuel cells very well
    http://onforb.es/1qQgmex

     

    But hey, let us have a little bragging rights bet. 2015 Toyota comes out right?
    Well, let us see how many they sell, and I'm talking about in consumer hands cars, not at dealerships gathering dust or leased to some weird municipal agency. Legitimate real consumers.

     

    I'm going to say less than 1,500 will be sold in the US in 2015. that is less than what Tesla sold when they came out with the Model S in 2012 (~2700 cars delivered to customers is 2012 I believe).

     

    What do you think... More?

     

    What would compel people to actually purchase a hydrogen car? greeness? If that is your only feature and it costs more, ain't gonna happen.
    19 May, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • SpoiledRottenBrat
    , contributor
    Comments (340) | Send Message
     
    You got it right Cparmerlee. 1200 pound of tooth brush..Ha! Ha! Excuse me!
    12 Aug, 07:47 PM Reply Like
  • slevental
    , contributor
    Comments (121) | Send Message
     
    Ford,
    Do you have a source that calculates the improvement in terms of CO2 when one is using EV ( let's say Tesla) compared with ICE?
    I saw a website that says that there is no real improvement because most of the energy consumed by EV is made by coal/NG power stations. Furthermore, the manufacturing of batteries is problematic as well. And when one adds the 2 sources one can conclude that we may as well stay with ICE...
    11 May, 08:48 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    slevental
    Argonne study states it uses 25500 kwhr to make the Tesla batteries

     

    You can also breakdown the emissions by a percentage. Savocool et al did a good life cycle assessment. Page 11
    http://bit.ly/1iFvo12

     

    Use the percentage- 2012, but it's OK to use 1.5 year old data since nothing more recent.
    http://1.usa.gov/TasNhy

     

    Then do a simple calculation

     

    *caveat- this assumes 24/7 charging, and as such factors in many inefficient peak load plants, so treat that value as the maximum
    11 May, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • WulfherSS
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    See http://1.usa.gov/TagmDc for averaged results and http://1.usa.gov/13xNjjD if you want to run a direct comparison between vehicles.
    11 May, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    wulfherss
    be careful, that uses 2009 data- grid changed alot in 3 years
    11 May, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    O, so here's the calculation based on
    You get around 515-520 grams CO2 per kwhr

     

    coincidentally hydrogen from gas reforming is 664 grams per kwhr- same page 11
    11 May, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Slevental

     

    Here are a few studies comparing EVs to ICE

     

    http://bit.ly/1772b7c

     

    http://bit.ly/1id5mSi

     

    http://bit.ly/1804iwJ

     

    http://bit.ly/1nU5U0N

     

    EVs pollute more.
    15 May, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    actually,
    3 of those links are the SAME study...
    wait for it... the Hawkins study that was widely discredited...

     

    The other one cited was the Weiss "study" which used Hawkins and Lomberg as sources, not to mention he severely screwed up the calculations.

     

    bailout.. you really need to stop using Hawkins, Lomberg and Weiss as your sources.

     

    That is like the people who said a hummer is less polluting than a Prius.
    15 May, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    Also bailout
    Do you think it is appropriate to continue to use the study which uses the following wrong parameters to support your claim?

     

    Hawkins/Norwegian study- used a battery chemistry which no mass market EV at the time used?

     

    Has they are comparing a Leaf type car to leaf type other cars, slow acceleration, etc.

     

    Now, if you take it one step further, look at the pack weight, it is way too high for those materials. consider the Tesla NCA batteries weigh in at 319 kg, the NCM batteries should weigh in at ~100 kg for a 24 kwhr. Of by a factor of 3 is kind of a big deal.

     

    The other materials such as the casing (steel, coolants, fans, etc) are negligible in terms of the LCA.

     

    Next we get to the gem of the 93,000 mile cut off; the low range of the cars. that is skewing data and is highly frowned upon in the LCA community.
    15 May, 08:22 PM Reply Like
  • SpoiledRottenBrat
    , contributor
    Comments (340) | Send Message
     
    $TSLA news has not been so great lately. I think they are in trouble if they can produce real earnings on a quarterly basis.. IMO

     

    http://bit.ly/1rJMBqX
    11 May, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • WulfherSS
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    This news is not bad news as it was fully expected. Toyota has foolishly jumped head first into h2 cars and they don't want EVs to compete with them. The problem is that using electricity to generate h2 only to convert the h2 back to water is a losing proposition as it is and always will be very energy intensive...4W in 1W out. It's a good time to short Toyota.
    11 May, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    The gigafactory concept destroys the assumptions contained in the Argonne labs embedded energy calculations by supplying the factory with wind and solar.

     

    When it comes to energy to power the vehicle, one only need look at the arguments presented to hide the fact that all Hydrogen infrastructure investment for transport is NG powered. That is the existence of night-time wind power that is considered to be "curtailed" - excess to requirement and potentially available for hydrolysis.

     

    According to a report used to sway California that Hydrogen is a good idea there is 12.4GWh of curtailed electricity available in California to use without adding to emissions. That's enough for 1.2 million FCVs to be run by hydrolysis (apparently). More to the point that is enough for 2.5 Million Model S right now at 330Wh/mile - in other words real world spirited driving.

     

    Naturally that night-time wind power is applied to the grid at a time when most EVs on the roads today are charging.

     

    Most importantly, even large and powerful 300KW (400+hp) EVs operating at 330Wh/mile are more than twice as efficient in the use of renewable energy than hydrolysis for a 100KW FCV.

     

    Model S operating from a standard grid is equivalent to about a 57mpg ICE vehicle from a gasoline pollution equivalence but of course the Model S is directly compatible with renewables ensuring that an EV future can extend that range per unit of pollution almost infinitely.

     

    Already in Norway, Model S operates on a pollution equivalent of over 2,900 mpg - that is not a typo, more than two thousand nine hundred miles before inducing the grid pollution equivalent to burning one gallon of gasoline.

     

    FCVs have no such future whatsoever. Accounting for the actual method of hydrogen production (best case - centralised production) the Toyota FCV is operating at an ICE vehicle pollution equivalent of about 48mpg - not even as good as a standard Prius and nothing like as good as a PHEV let alone an EV. Distributed steam reforming (making Hydrogen at the gas station from natural gas) is much less efficient than that.

     

    Hydrogen from Natural Gas presents a cost barrier and a conversion barrier to renewable energy. Although it would technically be possible to relegate fuel cells to the role of range extenders for PFCVs (plug-in FCVs) that would be almost sensible - just a better idea to use methane fuel cells than lose efficiency with the whole hydrogen hoax, it is not practical to do it in reverse where electricity is required to make chemicals. The hydrogen hoax is presented as a replacement for EVs and these vehicles are disingenuously marketed without a plug-in feature as though hydrogen was clean enough, which at 12.5Kg CO2 per Kg it definitely is not. (Equivalent to 1 gallon of gas that by comparison only yields 8.9Kg CO2 when burned).

     

    FCVs are not targeted at replacing 30mpg ICE vehicles. They are targeted at EVs.
    11 May, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • nwdiver
    , contributor
    Comments (308) | Send Message
     
    I do think H2 vehicles are the future.... when we have so much solar PV on the grid that the only thing we can think of to do with the excess energy is split water. However since this process is unlikely to be more than ~70% efficient and "fool" cells are unlikely to be >50% efficient it will be a LONG LONG LONG time before the most productive use for solar PV is splitting water.

     

    Even then any fuel cell vehicle will likely be a plug-in hybrid since batteries "well to wheels" efficiency will likely always be ~twice that of fuel cells... H2 is just more energy dense than a battery will ever be so it will be useful for long trips.
    11 May, 03:54 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "H2 is just more energy dense than a battery will ever be"

     

    Not when you count the high-pressure tank, fuel cell stack, and safety systems (sensors, fans, vents) required to reduce the risk of blowing sky-high.
    11 May, 04:15 PM Reply Like
  • hachre
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Toyota seems to be determined in stepping into irrelevance. Very disappointing.
    11 May, 10:10 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    Toyota happens to be the most successful car company in the world. Their Prius (11 million) has saved the world more pollution than Tesla ever will. I can't believe how Tesla pundits think they are smarter than Toyota's management. Accusing them of losing money by providing HC stations. Look in the mirror. What do the Tesla SC stations provide? The difference is that Toyota has billions and Tesla owes billions.
    11 May, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Parris Boyd
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Camys, RAV4 EVs, you name it - Recall King Toyota is a hoot. Learned my lesson when the engine disintegrated in my MR2 Spyder. Manufacuring defect, all over the Internet for years, Toyota still stonewalls. The avowed crook is now being allowed to ignore compelling evidence of defects in its electronic throttle control, NASA physicist Henning Leidecker is warning of increased risk of unintended acceleration in '02-'06 Camrys, and two attorneys and a TV station are saying Toyota's $1.2 billion federal criminal settlement involved misleading motorists about electronic defects, which is quite at odds with the Justice Department's blabber about floor mats and sticky gas pedals. Read "Toyota's killer firmware: Bad design and its consequences." Embedded systems expert Michael Barr found the following defects in Toyota's electronic throttle control:

     

    * Toyota's electronic throttle control system (ETCS) source code is of unreasonable quality.

     

    * Toyota's source code is defective and contains bugs, including bugs that can cause unintended acceleration (UA)

     

    * Code-quality metrics predict presence of additional bugs.

     

    * Toyota's fail safes are defective and inadequate (referring to them as a 'house of cards' safety architecture).

     

    * Misbehaviours of Toyota's ETCS are a cause of UA.

     

    The "Just Us" Department leaves the public to wonder if Toyota has corrected these issues. Meanwhile, I've been blogging about the way this government protects crooks like GM and Toyota. Search "Beware of Toyota. Their next victim may be YOU..."
    11 May, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    @ford Your comment "FCVs have no such future whatsoever." Evidently based upon your extensive knowledge of FCVs, should be told to Toyota engineers. I guess you can save them the billions they expect to spend bringing this technology to the public. Tell them before they fail and go out of business.
    11 May, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    @Paris The fact that Toyota (GM also) is not the most moral company, doesn't stop them from being the most successful of companies. Their reliability is the best. The Camry and Prius are huge favorites. If Toyota engineers are designing HCVs I assume they know what they are doing, and if anyone thinks that Toyota is worried about Tesla stealing customers they are wrong. Tesla could steal 35,000 sales and it wouldn't be noticed.
    11 May, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle

     

    Please.

     

    I have no idea why you are bashing Tesla in the first place. Did you lose your pension shorting the company or something? In which case blame the bears for misleading you, not the company for doing a great job.

     

    Toyota's FCVs don't even compete for environmental performance with their current Prius. Did you know that?

     

    DOE's FCV study concluded that FCVs offered a 51% emissions reduction vs ICE - amazing right?

     

    NO. The comparison is to a 1994 Ford Taurus (or a 2014 BMW 750i) or anything else you care to mention chuffing 21 mpg.

     

    Model S nails the 2015 Toyota FCV with three times the performance with about 2/3 of the emissions even if the Model S is pulling from a 100% natural gas fired grid.

     

    Honda PHEV is pulling over 100mpge - Toyota FCV = total fraud.

     

    As for sucking on the tax payer - check out Toyota $2 million per station to pollute MORE than a prius - actually approaching twice as much considering these H2 filling stations include on-site SMR with one and a half times the CO2 output of centralised H2 generation.
    12 May, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • Anton Wahlman
    , contributor
    Comments (737) | Send Message
     
    I don't think there is anything new or surprising about the 2,600 Toyotas manufacturing is coming to an end. I believe it was the expectation at the launch of the product in July 2012 that it would come to an end right about now, and that the cars would sell mostly by the end of 2014.

     

    So in other words: All according to plan. This has nothing to do with any other car, fuel cell, BEV, hybrid or otherwise. Whatever those other future cars may be, those are separate stories altogether -- almost all of whom are completely unknown.
    11 May, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Miro Kefurt
    , contributor
    Comments (640) | Send Message
     
    It only proves that EVs have limited market appeal and then when people have direct comparison to ICE vehicle with same features and appearance the EV is way too expensive.

     

    If Model S would be available with V8 for $50,000 the EV would not sell either in any significant volume.
    11 May, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (952) | Send Message
     
    IBM and Microsoft broke up and IBM suffered. Microsoft was started as a contractor for IBM. DOS went on the IBM PC that got IBM in the PC market.

     

    Tesla is a contractor for Toyota. Now they are breaking up. Who will benefit?

     

    WWI, then WWII, IBM breaking up with MSFT, now Toyota breaking up with Tesla.

     

    History repeats itself again and again.
    11 May, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    If you think Elon only has Tesla on his mind, think again.

     

    http://lat.ms/1grz16t
    11 May, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "If you think Elon only has Tesla on his mind, think again."

     

    Who said Elon only has Tesla on his mind? Who said that is necessary? Elon has been running both Tesla and SpaceX quite successfully for 10 years.

     

    Your attempts to smear Tesla are approaching the bottom of the barrel.
    11 May, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • WallStreetDebunker
    , contributor
    Comments (2267) | Send Message
     
    How could anybody expect the RAV4 to be successful without a Tesla grill and nameplate? That would be like expecting a Chevrolet/Rolls-Royce Frankenstein car to be successful without a winged lady on the hood.
    11 May, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    fgrindle,
    We want Elon creating new engineering marvels to keep the attention on all his other ventures. If everything he tackles is a success then he should keep it up. All these technologies will eventually work together. I'm sure while he's designing rockets he's also coming up with new battery technology and potentially new solar technology. He has hired plenty of engineers to help him make his plans profitable for all who invest.

     

    I hope Elon becomes the richest man in the US someday. He definitely carries the potential to do it.

     

    What has Bill Gates done lately? Warren Buffet can't even beat the SP500 anymore.
    11 May, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    I disagree. This Cult seems to think that Musk actually designs everything. The truth is that the Tesla architecture was designed by Martin Eberhard. He was the first person to realize that the standard Panasonic 18650 had very high energy storage for its weight and size. The problem was it only put out about 10 watt hours. Eberhard figured out how to assemble 7,000 batteries In a series parallel container to provide 70KWH. Eberhard also designed the heating and cooling system for the batteries. Musk was asked to join Tesla after the Roadster prototype was running. Musk realized that Tesla had discovered the secret of manufacturing high energy storage battery packs and bought in. He also helped form Solar City as a user of these storage packs.
    The same goes for rockets. Space Xs success is not due to Musk designing the rockets, but of manufacturing all parts in house. NASA engineers hired by Musk were responsible for the designs. No doubt they are pushed to pursue ideas they never tried, such as recoverable rocketry. I consider Musk a combination of Steve Jobs and PT Barnum. What I see at Tesla is that Elon is over his head. He has SC networks in China to build, The model X seals to fix. A Gigafactory without partners. Billions in debt. He skates on thin ice and I guess I agree with BofA that it is a $65 stock.
    11 May, 04:10 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    Isn't it amazing that Elon Musk is the 54th wealthiest person in the USA yet he hasn't designed a thing?

     

    You pretend he's a idiot "over his head" and he's running a circus. If that were the case then all the smartest engineers working for him must also be horrible stupid fools waiting for this all to collapse.

     

    Which is it? Are his engineers great or stupid? or both?
    11 May, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    You should mortgage your house and sell it short then fgrindle. You will be rich soon. Maybe BofA will loan you the money (mortgage) for this wonderful short you're no doubt going to execute soon?

     

    You're the most negative person I've seen post about TSLA. I really do hope you're also the largest short seller posting comments here too.
    11 May, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Pavlof
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    Don't be ridiculous. No one thinks that Elon Musk designs everything. He is no different than any other leader. He gives the vision and the ability for the product to come to being. Are you saying that Tesla or Space X would exist without Elon Musk? I didn't think so.
    11 May, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    Tesla existed before Musk got involved. He provided the funding and guidance for the Model S. The batteries are Panasonic's.Tesla's patents have to do with assembling, heating and cooling the cells. Not the manufacture of the cell itself. Musk gives the vision but when his Vision assumes that he can sell 500,000 cars a year of a car he has yet to design one is permitted to doubt. Also setting up a colony on Mars is off the wall.
    11 May, 05:40 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    I just want to say that I have never shorted a stock and wouldn't think of shorting Tesla. I am long Apple. I don't doubt that Musk will keep Tesla afloat but the idea that by 2020 Tesla will be selling and producing 10,000 cars a week and 60 million batteries to power them sounds very risky.
    11 May, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle Then all your negativity towards Tesla the vehicle and TSLA the stock is merely an altrustic urge to save the longs from themselves? I really am curious as to motives here. If you have no interest in the stock or shorting it, what is your interest
    12 May, 06:09 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    I am 77 years old retired for 14 years. I got interested in Tesla last year when I heard that the stock was being shorted. I wondered why. I had never even seen the car. As I usually check SA for Apple, I started also looking at Tesla. The Tesla story on SA showed a population of Bulls that think that EVs will replace ICE cars in a few years, and that Tesla will dominate the industry! There also are the shorts that think Tesla will fail. I spent my life designing high power switching supplies so I can recognize the problems encountered and how they solved them.
    The problem as I see it is that Miusk as brilliant as he is also is overly optimistic regarding sales. He expects that he can build and sell 10,000 cars a week in 2020 and build 60 million batteries a week in the Gigafactory. This is predicted without an advertising budget! I finally got to ride in a friends Tesla S. Its a very nice car. Impressive quiet acceleration but as a passenger you notice very little difference between the S and an ICE car.
    The Tesla S is not without flaws. The car eats up rear tires due to the drive motor weight in the rear. At high speeds (100 MPH) the cars range reduces to about 150 miles, not good for Autobahn travel. Tesla still hasn't developed a right hand drive for the UK and Hong Kong. The rear seats are not comfortable for a long drive especially if you're tall. The car runs the battery down when not in use. I think Musk has promised more than he can deliver and the bulls have priced the stock based on his promises. I also suspect that Musk is more interested in Space X which really is his baby. He spends three days a week there and only two at Tesla.
    12 May, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    I imagine he will be a lot more involved in TSLA once the gigafactory is started. That's going to be a lot of work for someone.
    12 May, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    That's my point. As you keep adding pins to a jugglers act he eventually drops them. I saw this when Jobs started NeXT. He built a huge robotic plant to manufacture NeXT computers. He predicted a $1000 price for the computer. It ended up costing $3000 and sold very few. Jobs bailed out and sold NeXT to Apple. Jobs is one of my heros. Musk's idea of a colony on Mars sounds crazy, but Space X is lobbying NASA to go there.
    12 May, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle, you have even missed the whole point of Apple.

     

    Jeez.

     

    Jobs knew that the NEXT thing was multicore processing and protected memory. So that's what he did in-between Apple. Result OSX / iOS.

     

    Guess what is powering every single Apple device? Yup - Iterations on Job's software engineering direction he set at NEXT, which by the way Apple paid him handsomely for.

     

    The greatness of men like Musk and Jobs is to a large degree to know what to build.
    12 May, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    He's worth billions. He's going to hire anyone he needs to juggle all his pins. Buffett has a lot going on and it didn't stop him from becoming the richest man in America. He also didn't kill himself in the process of getting there. I imagine Musk is going to work as hard as he needs to and I also imagine his work is his passion. I'm not worried about his crazy days as I'm sure he's paying even crazier employees to work along side him.

     

    Who wouldn't want to work for him?
    12 May, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    Evidently his sales manager in China. I have been Vice President of a division of ABB Electric and I know how difficult tt is to hire good engineers. That's the trouble with Tesla Bulls, they assume Musk is surrounded by brilliant engineers begging for a job and assume Musk can say "design a great GenIII car for me" and it will happen.
    12 May, 01:02 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "I have been Vice President of a division of ABB Electric and I know how difficult tt is to hire good engineers."
    ABB Electric is not Tesla, and you are not Elon Musk.

     

    "they assume Musk is surrounded by brilliant engineers begging for a job and assume Musk can say "design a great GenIII car for me" and it will happen."
    It happened for the Model S, Model X, Merc and Toyota powertrains, DemandLogic, Dragon, Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, and Falcon 9 Reusable. What evidence do you have that it won't happen for Gen3?
    12 May, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    Model X is still in trouble with the seals. They may have to change the rear doors. Selling battery packs and motors to Merc does not require s genius. Toyota has dropped out with the Rav 4. Rockets use different engineers and they are available as NASA lays them off. ABB is not Tesla, it's about 20 x the size of Tesla.
    12 May, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle

     

    Model X is not in trouble with the darn seals at all - that discussion was to give a flavour of the detail they are going into to build a "phenomenal car". Where are you puling this nonsense from?

     

    It was no doubt difficult to hire great engineers to ABB because nobody has ever heard of them and what they do is most likely by the book engineering with a philosophical goal of trying to make a buck and keep the shareholders off their back.

     

    I honestly don't know or care - and that will be true of any engineer in the world. Tesla - that would be a Mecca for engineering talent to do something world changing.
    12 May, 02:12 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "Rockets use different engineers and they are available as NASA lays them off."

     

    NASA engineers never built a fully reusable rocket. No one -- not governments, government consortiums, corporations, or corporate consortiums -- has done that before, ever.
    12 May, 03:31 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    We designed and built all of IBMs power systems in Europe. I designed their first power supply for the IBM PC in 83. You know nothing about ABB. Musk was the person talking about the seals leaking and he sounded concerned, not "flavoring" the discussion. You really interpret things differently. The X is delayed for a reason even if you won't admit it. The Gigafactory is still up inthe air and the last rocket from Space X failed to fire its landing rockets. Back to the drawing boards.
    12 May, 02:29 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    I really don't know or care about ABB. That was actually my point.

     

    OK

     

    Now get this for an act of pure desperation from Toyota:

     

    Seems they are willing to spend $50K per vehicle - that will be a heap of fun for them. I wonder how many lots of $500 Million Toyota has available to buy customers to fend off the Gen III?

     

    (might cost more than $50K per vehicle considering the FCV is basically pants - 0~60 in 10.5 seconds and a bomb under the kid's seats - not so appealing, especially when those "green consumers" appreciate that this is just a frack-mobile).

     

    http://reut.rs/SUbdn0

     

    "While costs have come down significantly, Toyota says a hydrogen car's fuel-cell propulsion system alone still costs it close to $50,000 to produce. That's partly why some Toyota money managers want a more conservative pricing strategy - of $50,000-$100,000 - said one individual on the 2015 FC car launch team."

     

    What's more, executives and engineers say Toyota is willing to sell the car at a loss for a long while to popularize the new technology - just as it did with the Prius, which, with other hybrids, now accounts for 14 percent of Toyota's annual sales, excluding group companies, of around 9 million vehicles.

     

    As a result, drivers in key "green" markets such as California may be able to buy the car for a little more than $30,000-$40,000, after government subsidies - if management approves a pricing strategy put forward by a group of managers and engineers. General Motors Co's Chevrolet Volt, a near-all-electric plug-in hybrid, for comparison, starts at around $35,000 in the United States.

     

    The stakes are high - for global automakers, oil producers, economies, and the environment.
    12 May, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    "the last rocket from Space X failed to fire its landing rockets"

     

    Pardon?

     

    I believe that might be a dishonest smear amongst the snide comments?
    12 May, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "The X is delayed for a reason"
    One reason is the Model S is a bigger hit than Tesla expected, so they have put more resources into ramping up production and tweaking the car for local markets (software interface, right-hand-drive, executive back seat). Another reason is they are testing the X enough to avoid the recalls common with other brands.

     

    "The Gigafactory is still up inthe air"
    Groundbreaking starts next month.

     

    "the last rocket from Space X failed to fire its landing rockets"
    No, you are one flight behind the times. The last rocket achieved a soft landing (in a raging sea storm) for the first time in history.
    12 May, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @Fgrindle Whose rocket failed to fire it's landing jets? seriously? really?
    Actually who is the only company that can successfully land a rocket.
    I would suggest you go back and look. It landed as it was supposed to
    here is a link. I've been watching rockets and spaceships go up and blow up since ~1959 anybody can light a torch. landing one is a lot harder
    http://www.spacex.com
    I am still wondering your motives of warning longs about investing in Tesla and TSLA. is it pure altruism or what. if you are not a short or a long....
    13 May, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    http://lat.ms/1grz16t
    12 May, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle

     

    Indeed - successful soft landing of SpaceX Falcon 9R.

     

    Not failure to fire landing rockets at all.

     

    Now comes the real test - do you have the integrity to retract misleading comments?
    12 May, 03:17 PM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @ fgrindle... directly from your link "After the Falcon 9 blasted off and the second stage was jettisoned, the first stage fell back to Earth before reigniting its rocket engines to cushion its attempted landing in the Atlantic Ocean.
    Although SpaceX was unable to recover the first stage because of a storm and unsafe sea conditions, the company received data that said the rocket carried out a soft landing. The data was so promising that engineers believe SpaceX will be able to launch and return a booster by the end of the year.
    "The data is very clear that it shows a soft landing," Musk said. "I think this bodes very well for achieving reusability."
    13 May, 09:58 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    I apologize if Elon said it was successful I was wrong. I guess I read it as a fact that they lost contact with the rocket. Musk's quote "data indicates" seemed to indicate they still weren't sure if it was a soft landing.
    12 May, 05:03 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle

     

    That is bigger of you than most of the bashers here have proven capable of.

     

    Thank you.
    12 May, 08:31 PM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle, likewise, thank you. from playing the video game LunarLander. infinite fuel would have been great, just blast all the way down instead of judicious fuel management. the first LEM almost ran out of fuel
    13 May, 10:02 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    I really don't want to see Tesla fail. I like Musk. The Model S is a great car. But as an observer with no chips in the game, I see people who love the car also love the stock. Two different things.
    Jobs got $400 million for NeXT I think. That allowed him to pay back IBM and Ross Perot. The Next software became OSX. Interesting when Jobs died his worth of $8 billion consisted of $2 billion of Apple stock and $6 billion of Disney! That's what he got for Pixar.
    12 May, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "I see people who love the car also love the stock. Two different things."

     

    The car is an indication of the intelligence, vision, and tenacity of the creators. Those qualities strongly influence the longterm trend of the stock (not always the short-term). People who love the car expect more such cars and other remarkable products from the company, which is also growing at an explosive rate. Those are good reasons to love the stock at any price in the recent range, if you are a longterm investor.
    12 May, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    There are plenty of things wrong in this world, the very least of them in my opinion is a market willing to give Musk access to the serious capital required to challenge some of those things and change them for the better.
    12 May, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    California is rolling out the hydrogen super highway. Lots of locations

     

    http://bit.ly/1i6GPtw

     

    Buses, cars, trucks, forklifts, submarines will be increasingly running on hydrogen for the next 100 years? Even those Elon Musk rocket ships like it.

     

    Tesla seems to have missed the paradigm shift to fuel cells that other car makers are embracing.

     

    Lots of great success in China too!

     

    http://bit.ly/1mkmMx9

     

    Toyota is claiming this is the technology for the next 100 years? That is quite the statement coming from the #1 car company on the planet.

     

    http://toyota.us/1iFnfaf

     

    Toyota is known for its cautious approach with the Prius hybrid which is now the best selling car in California. At only $30,000 per car and ultra low operating cost, its no wonder buyers are scooping them up. The Toyota FCVs have been thoroughly tested for many years now and will be coming faster than most people think.

     

    "Owing to its overwhelming success with hybrid vehicles, it has taken a long time for Toyota to be convinced of the benefits of launching other forms of electrified vehicles. Now, however, Toyota is focusing on FCVs, which it sees as possible successors to its popular hybrids, while it remains cautious about EVs (see United States: 1 October 2013: Toyota chairman reaffirms commitment to 2015 FCV, hybrids, says no real market for EVs). Toyota is believed to have developed 100 beta-test FCVs, each with a reported electric range of 440 miles."
    12 May, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    That's right, lots and lots of lovely taxpayers money wasted on a serious environmental fraud whose only purpose is to buy customers for fear they might go electric.

     

    Toyota's FCV looks it will cost Toyota $50K per unit to put it in the market next to $200 million of taxpayer's money to make somewhere to fill it up.

     

    All for the sake of a 43 mpg equivalent vehicle by pollution equivalence - already trounced for performance and environmental credentials by its own 50mpg-e gasoline Prius.
    13 May, 02:34 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Ford

     

    Just maybe you are a bit short sighted? If cars, trucks, buses, forklifts, submarines, spaceships and other vehicles are all running on hydrogen maybe they are taking that future into account by rolling out the hydrogen super highway in California, Norway and other countries? You need to look ahead just a little bit.

     

    The FCV tests have been underway for years in cars, etc

     

    http://bit.ly/1mkmMx9

     

    http://bit.ly/OySsCw

     

    Toyota FCVs will be cheap and sell by the millions just like the Prius. The Prius hybrid is only $30,000 and is the best selling car in California. Toyota is just rolling out their FCVs which will be the next big seller. Toyota plans a lot, before actually doing anything. So patience is needed.

     

    Some analysts project Toyota FCV sales at 5 trillion yen.

     

    The Toyota formula for success has been high volume and low price and they claim they can do it for FCVs. Some big breakthroughs have been made. The EV buzz is transitory due to high cost vehicles, high operating costs and battery pollution.

     

    Say it aint so!

     

    PS long TM, short TSLA
    13 May, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    Oh suddenly because it is a polluting technology you are all future looking and starry eyed.

     

    Anyway:

     

    Of course it ain't so.

     

    "PS long TM, short TSLA - good, at least there is some justice in the world."

     

    FCVs are more expensive than the Model S while delivering 1/3 of the power and 1/4 of the performance.

     

    Toyota FCV is a total dog, nothing about it is even as good as the current Prius and they will need to sell it at a $65,000 loss each to even have a hope of adoption.

     

    Not sure Toyota can afford sell a million FCVs - does it have $65 billion to spend on trying to compete with Tesla while Tesla actually makes money per vehicle? That is the $65 Billion dollar question.

     

    Whatever. That is the high cost of vehicles you are looking for.
    13 May, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Ford

     

    Just a note but you keep saying "Tesla actually makes money per vehicle? "

     

    Tesla has never made any money. Just look at the Q1 2014 report and its the long tale of losses and climbing debt to cover the losses.

     

    http://bit.ly/1g9Nklt
    15 May, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • melissabrittany
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    The deal between Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA) and Toyota Motor Corporation (TM) which was finalized in May 2012 that Tesla Motors to supply battery packs and other components for Toyota’s electric RAV4. Now Tesla Deal With Toyota May End This Year. See More: http://bit.ly/1iHFbzh
    13 May, 04:03 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1247) | Send Message
     
    The FCVs have a major advantage in that they can deliver more energy than batteries for the price and weight. EVs for trucks require too expensive a battery pack to be successful. Don't expect Tesla to attempt trucks and buses, that will be FCV.
    13 May, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Ford Prefect 1969
    , contributor
    Comments (2282) | Send Message
     
    "The FCVs have a major advantage in that they can deliver more energy than batteries for the price and weight."

     

    No they don't.

     

    Hyundai Tucson costs Hyundai $145,000 each to make. That's three times more than the cost price of a Model S.

     

    Toyota FCV reportedly $100,000 USD - about double the cost of a Model S.

     

    And the Hyundai and Toyota are crap.

     

    In the case of the Hyundai its 1.6 litre gasoline ICE version thrashes it on every metric - price, emissions, range, durably, access to fuelling, power:weight, 0~60 acceleration.

     

    The whole thing is a total hoax.

     

    Same deal with the Toyota - the Prius trashes it on every metric too - emissions, price etc same list.

     

    The Honda Accord Hybrid makes a total fool of both of them.

     

    As soon as renewable electricity hits price parity with the grid (5 cents per KWH in 2013 in Austin Texas seems like it's getting there) then clean EVs (well to wheel) will forever have a 3:1 fuel price advantage over clean hydrogen.

     

    Right now not only is Hydrogen as dirty as it gets (worse than coal per unit energy) when produced centrally in an efficient reforming plant, what is actually proposed in many cases (and paid for by CARB for crying out loud) is distributed SMR which is running at 150% of the pollution.

     

    That puts a Kg of hydrogen way out there at 18.7Kg CO2 per Kg - nearly double that of gasoline. The idea of FCVs being more efficient is also pure baloney. 51% more efficient that what? Answer a 1994 Ford Taurus or a 2014 Porsche Panamera 4 3.6 litre at nearly 300 horsepower.

     

    What kind of klutz would buy a Toyota FCV even if it was 100% emissions free and green like a wet lettuce? The fact that it is polluting HARD and stands for nothing more compelling than the proliferation of hydraulic fracturing and contamination of ground water by gas drilling across small town USA - oh and the displacement of actually useful environmental progress. Who is supposed to be a customer for one of these things?
    13 May, 04:44 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    FCVs coming with free hydrogen?

     

    http://bit.ly/1lulzDi
    13 May, 05:10 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (805) | Send Message
     
    Wonder where they got that idea, bailout.

     

    Any guesses?

     

    But it is lease only with a nice deposit so I guess they're covered.
    13 May, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Ford

     

    Actually all the FCVs coming out will be priced similar to EVs with a 3 minute fill up and longer range.

     

    http://bit.ly/1mkmMx9

     

    But the neat thing about Fuel Cells is that they are used in submarines, trucks, buses, forklifts, cars and a whole lot more.

     

    Plus hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe. You can even get a solar powered system that will make hydrogen from water at home.

     

    http://bit.ly/1nRRiPv

     

    Water covers 3/4 of the earth's surface so there is no shortage of H2O.

     

    Start with water and end with water as the bi-product. On the space shuttle they even drink the water.
    15 May, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • winfield100
    , contributor
    Comments (705) | Send Message
     
    @Bailout "hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe"

     

    all you need is a spaceship to go gather it a number of lightyears off.
    (or use the photons produced by conversion of H to He 8.3 light minutes away) (BTW, are you out of your teens or early 20's yet?)

     

    Otherwise the H2, (otherwise known as hydrogen) is very tightly bound to other elements
    16 May, 10:27 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Winfield

     

    61% of the human body consists of Hydrogen atoms
    71% of the earth is covered by H2O

     

    Too bad for you, you cant see all the hydrogen.

     

    You can even use your poop to power your FCV
    http://bit.ly/1eVCwHe

     

    Super Clean and Super Green. Recycling.

     

    http://bit.ly/1nRRiPv

     

    Just add water to your solar powered hydrogen system and bingo! ... you can run your house and car on it.

     

    Some cars have a water tank instead of a gas tank!!! One liter of water will run the car for an hour. No messy polluting heavy batteries to carry around.
    http://bit.ly/1gbfWL2
    16 May, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (805) | Send Message
     
    bailout,

     

    Basic chemistry for idiots: there are mixtures and compounds. Mixtures are things that may often be easily separated but the basic constituents remain the same; compounds are molecular structures that are generally stable and may only be changed by chemical reaction and the application or release of energy (usually heat or light).

     

    Hydrogen occurs on earth ONLY as part of compound molecules containing more than just hydrogen. It does NOT occur anywhere as part of a mixture that can be easily separated out. Put simply: we don't have any freely available H2 to run a fuel cell. The general sources of hydrogen are water (H2O) and Methane (CH4), but obviously any other hydrocarbon or organic molecule (principally comprised of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon) can be used.

     

    Yes, hydrogen is everywhere.

     

    Unfortunately separating the hydrogen from its parent molecule needs a great deal of energy. To get hydrogen from methane, the principal source of hydrogen today, you have to use steam reforming, a very energy intensive process that also releases a large amount of C02 - that's where the C in the CH4 goes. Other possible processes are being investigated, but the hydrogen so produced has less available energy to be used in combustion or a fuel cell than the methane you started with. The fuel cell is not so efficient either so you get a double waste of energy for no good purpose no matter how you get the H2 from the CH4.

     

    Oh, yes. And most of that methane is fracked natural gas. Very green - NOT!

     

    Getting H2 from water is equally futile. Use electricity to separate the water into H2 and O2 and you have your hydrogen. But the process is not very efficient. Run the H2 through a fuel cell to produce electricity and you have a second inefficient process. So electricity -> H2 -> electricity is doubly inefficient. Far simpler to store the original electricity in a car's battery at a much higher efficiency!

     

    But even when you've got the hydrogen you're not finished yet. It has to be pressurized to between 5,000 and 10,000 lb/sq. in. so that you can squeeze enough into a car's fuel tank to drive 300 miles. To put that in perspective, normal atmospheric pressure is a little less than 15 lb/sq. in. and the tank in a HFC car contains gas at a pressure of up to two to four and a half TONS per square inch trying to get out!

     

    So you need an ultra high pressure industrial pump to provide that degree of compression. Another energy intensive and inefficient process as none of the energy used in compression is recovered when you use the hydrogen in the fuel cell car!

     

    Still think hydrogen is "Super Clean and Super Green"?
    17 May, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @John

     

    You seem to be a decade behind in your thinking.

     

    http://bit.ly/1qM4vy0

     

    http://bit.ly/1faEhNb

     

    The world is moving to fuel cells in submarines, airplanes, cars, buses, forklifts

     

    Don't get left behind

     

    http://bit.ly/1qM4xG9

     

    No need for big heavy clunky expensive polluting batteries that eventually die.
    http://bit.ly/1aL7E9S
    17 May, 11:00 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @John

     

    Please stop spreading hydrogen FUD and get up to speed.

     

    http://bit.ly/RLAa2C

     

    The newest submarines are run by fuel cells. Fuel cells are widely applicable in lawn mowers, planes, trucks, buses, cars, boats, etc.

     

    http://bit.ly/RLAa2D
    17 May, 11:29 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (805) | Send Message
     
    bailout,

     

    No FUD, only facts. And, with respect, you need an education.

     

    The Toyota links you give show that the tanks in their HFC cars operate at 70 MPa. As you obviously don't know what that means I'll give you a quick translation:

     

    70 MPa = 10,153 lb/sq.in

     

    = 4.53 UK "long tons"/sq.in. = 5.08 US "short tons"/sq.in.

     

    That's roughly equivalent to the weight of a couple of SUVs pushing outwards on every square inch of the tank.

     

    The reason for such extreme pressure is that if the hydrogen in the tank was at normal atmospheric pressure it would be just about enough to drive the car half a mile. You have to squeeze 700 times as much hydrogen into the tank as it would normally hold to give you the 300 miles range. Just hope that the tank never ruptures because the pressure wave alone could kill you, even if the hydrogen didn't ignite.

     

    By comparison, the gas or diesel in the tank of an ICE car and the chemicals in the battery in an EV are at normal atmospheric pressure.

     

    I respect the work of Amory Lovins in his pursuit of sustainable solutions (we are pretty much contemporaries), but hydrogen is not sustainable in the form it is being used today or for the foreseeable future, even for Toyota's 100 year timeline.

     

    We are stuck with the Laws of Physics and Chemistry, and they are not going to change for you, me, or anybody else, no matter how much we may wish it.

     

    Hydrogen has to be manufactured from other feedstock and you can't get away from that fact. In business the bottom line rules, and by far the cheapest way of obtaining hydrogen is by steam reforming the natural gas produced by fracking. There is no way this can be seen as green. It certainly isn't sustainable either, as the gas is yet another "fossil fuel" that took millions of years to get there and will one day be gone. Even your "poop car" would use steam reforming to get at the hydrogen in bio methane and the hydrogen still needs to be ultra compressed once you've got it.

     

    The only sustainable way of making hydrogen is by electrolyzing water. Unfortunately this is not an efficient process and energy is lost in production. Similarly a fuel cell is not very efficient so you lose energy again. Even if a fuel cell could be made 100% efficient you still need a battery along with its charger, inverter and motor to make a HFC car run. So any HFC car using hydrogen made by hydrolysis is going to be less efficient than a car that uses the same electricity directly in its own battery.

     

    Maximum efficiency is one aspect of using sustainable energy, and another is to be able to use any sustainable source for your energy requirements. As most sustainable sources are used to produce electricity the EV wins hands down: it can use all of them. Essentially an EV can be solar, wind, wave, hydro or geothermally powered, whichever way we may obtain our energy in the future.

     

    Not so the HFC car. For now it's still a "frackmobile".
    18 May, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1793) | Send Message
     
    John
    Not to mention that the PEM in the fuel cell has to be coated with a catalyst to break the H2 to 2H+ and 2e-

     

    Typically these are are either platinum (precious metal)- rarer than "rare earths"
    or Cobalt Selenide- while not rare earths; selenium is extremely rare.

     

    But of course if you want to rail against using cobalt in EV batteries as environmentally damaging, you must also complain against the catalyst in the fuel cell cars.

     

    Not to mention there is no where near enough platinum refined in the world to convert every car to a platinum based hydrogen fuel cell car (and don't think you want to start confiscating wedding rings and meaningful jewelry for the purpose of the transportation industry- riots for certain).
    18 May, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • pensaman
    , contributor
    Comments (210) | Send Message
     
    Toyota said it expects the car to have a full-tank range of about 300 miles and a five-minute refueling time.
    toyota-wants-you-to-me...
    http://aol.it/1nRUH0L
    15 May, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • rdmorris.54@gmail.com
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    It seems that nobody is aware of a certain long term risk of extensive use of Hydrogen. Hydrogen is difficult to contain and can leak out of systems that will not leak natural gas. Hydrogen leaks are inevitable. Hydrogen is so light that it can float right out of the atmosphere and into space. While water seems abundant now, do we really want to accelerate the loss of water (via Hydrogen) into space? I know this is a long term concern but once it is gone, we can't get it back.
    15 May, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • melissabrittany
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    beat about the bush, Tesla got threat from BMW. See More: http://bit.ly/1iKCxIX
    16 May, 02:48 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Melissabrittany

     

    Tesla is in BMWs real view mirror, and objects are not closer than they appear.

     

    It might be BMWs rapid growth rate that exceeds Tesla's growth rate. BMW's increase in car production in one year is greater than Tesla's entire car production forecast for several years. NOTE : BMW makes 2,000,000 cars per year.

     

    It might be BMW's $8 billion dollars of profit every year. Tesla loses on every car made. BMW keeps increasing their dividend ... now at 2.62EU per share. You wont be seeing any dividends from Tesla.

     

    Tesla only has one Model of car with three flavors and is close minded about cars of the future. BMW has something for everyone and is open minded about the future.

     

    Add your own here....
    16 May, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    Here's the funny thing about you mentioning how big all these great car companies are.....that's the size of the market TSLA is going after. People who can afford BMW can afford TSLA. The problem TSLA has right now is they don't have enough cars. You make that sound like TSLA can't sell cars. It sells exactly 100% of their cars, in advance. Does BMW do that? Or any other manufacturer for that matter? No. They have more supply than demand. They have to create demand by lowering the prices of last year's model. TSLA can do the same thing once they have excess cars to worry about. So for each problem you list about TSLA I can turn it around and show you why it can be viewed as a positive.

     

    If you think TSLA is doing so badly as a small company, imagine how much better they will be doing with scale. Half of the people I talk to still haven't heard about TSLA or have not seen one of the cars. You may think that's bad news, but I think that's great news. TSLA is a long way away from saturating the market even if you do consider it a niche.
    16 May, 03:23 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @TheBanker

     

    Keep on dreaming and keep buying TSLA. I dare you.
    16 May, 04:22 PM Reply Like
  • PeterJA
    , contributor
    Comments (2084) | Send Message
     
    "Keep on dreaming and keep buying TSLA. I dare you"

     

    When Bailout is confronted with facts and logic, he simply repeats his debunked claim or a fact-free utterance like "keep on dreaming." That's instructive for readers to see, Bailout. Keep it up.
    16 May, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1343) | Send Message
     
    I already own 700 shares. I have enough for now. I'll buy more at $265 and take yours off your hands then.
    16 May, 07:17 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Banker

     

    Im short 1000 shares from $260. So far so good.
    16 May, 10:58 PM 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

Next headline on your portfolio:

|