Seeking Alpha

Gigafactory talk gets dreamy

  • Tesla Motors (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk sees exploding demand for low-cost lithium-ion batteries.
  • The exec forecasts the automobile industry alone will need 200 gigafactories to supply it. Ground breaks on Tesla' first gigafactory in June.
  • The Musk thesis is based on cars powered by electric batteries winning out over hydrogen cars, hybrids, and gas-powered vehicles. Toyota (TM) is expected to have a lot to say on that issue.
  • Lithium plays: PCRFY, ARTX, SQM, ENS, WLCDF, FMC, LIT
Comments (125)
  • Grant Dossetto
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Is anyone else tired of Musk's government funded pipe dreams?
    15 May, 08:13 AM Reply Like
  • FATUGLY
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    No,not at all. I'm glad we have people on this earth with a brain. Forward thinking people give this guy a chance. Why don't you?
    15 May, 08:19 AM Reply Like
  • Gene Shpikaloff
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    ^ This
    15 May, 08:44 AM Reply Like
  • romeo11
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Government funded??
    15 May, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Kalud
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    We actually need more people like him.
    15 May, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • Grant Dossetto
    , contributor
    Comments (139) | Send Message
     
    Yes, SpaceX and Tesla both require significant government support to work.
    15 May, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (3187) | Send Message
     
    I'm getting tired of the spurious accusation that Musk's companies exist only to suck up government largess. Government funding is not expected to be involved in the gigafactory. Tesla has paid back their government loan, with interest. SpaceX saves the US government huge sums of money. If you are complaining about a few EV subsidies here and there, then why aren't you even more loudly complaining about the massive income tax breaks given to all levels of the oil and gas industry?
    15 May, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    David at Imperial Beach******* Could it be that on an energy equivalency basis, green energy is much more heavily subsidized, or could it be that over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes.
    15 May, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • MKBaxley
    , contributor
    Comments (58) | Send Message
     
    Site your sources, because I don't think you are right.
    15 May, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    MKBaxley****

     

    http://bit.ly/1nSjdiz

     

    http://bit.ly/yiuOEe
    15 May, 10:42 AM Reply Like
  • Vico Confino
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    Reply: FATGULY
    From: Vico Confino Clairvoyant

     

    I am with you 110% Fatugly
    When are the naysayers going to learn that the future is here and it works.
    Elon Musk is only the messenger of a more powerful crew of extra terrestial prophets who control the universe.
    As one who was selected to be an earthly messenger I can vouch for the future success of Tesla.
    Please call me if you see two guys with a giant butterfly net headed my way.
    Stay well,
    Vico
    Noble Prize Winner
    15 May, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    The gigafactory is not a government funded pipe dream. This is an opportunity for an individual investor to provide products that the public will need in the future.

     

    Lets go back 20 years.

     

    1994.

     

    Imagine if someone said in those days, "We are going to need internet connections that will allow 10mbs data and we will be watching video over those connections." The person who said that was....Bill Gates.

     

    Elon Musk = Bill Gates.

     

    nuff said.
    15 May, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    Space X is a government contract that saves NASA billions of dollars.

     

    Tesla is a car company that make electric cars. The tax credit that people get is for all electric cars. So if you buy a Nissan Leaf, Ford Focus, Toyota RavE, Smart E, then you get that tax credit. Also some golf carts also are eligible.

     

    Those tax credits stop when 200k/year sales is reached.

     

    And if you were to take away those tax credits, Telsa would still sell the 35K cars they are aiming for this year.
    15 May, 11:42 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    Veni, Vidi, Vico.

     

    I salute you Caesar.
    15 May, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    The entire government of Alaska is funded by oil through the ACES program? The big three oil companies Exxon, Chevron & Conoco were the top tax payers in America. Texas has a budget surplus due to oil & gas revenues. Well over a million people are employed in the oil & gas industry and it is the fastest growing employment sector.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1g8Psd4
    15 May, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (172) | Send Message
     
    Grant,

     

    What is wrong with government funds when we all see the potential freedom from the American Communist Oil businesses who take oil and natural gas from American soil without give a dime back to America except for a bone for taxes. The highly maligned late Chavez of Venezuela and late Khadaffi of Libya sold gas at greatly reduced price in their countries. What good are these so-called American companies who uses American human resources of this country and the protection of its great military bases and fleets overseas but does nothing for this country?

     

    We might as well use our government funds to free us from your Communist business.
    15 May, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • Franco51
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Agreed our world needs to embrace a long term goal of extending our fossil fuels well into the future, and reducing our green house gases. Not only is it great for the planet it is great for investors overall. We must realize that even if Elon could build a thousand cars a day it will be 20 years or more before we really see any benefits of electric cars on our green house gases. That would only come once we took a significant number of combustion cars off the road. not likely to happen over night.
    Oh did I mention you never have to fill the car up with gas...... hmmm sounds like a great idea.........oh and wait theres more never pay dime to drive across country. hmmmm sounds like a great idea.
    15 May, 01:47 PM Reply Like
  • User 7369811
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    Well, yeah, the federal government offers a 7500$ subsidy per car to wealthy buyers. What do YOU call that? Some states throw another 2500$ on top of that. What sort of buyer is looking for 10,000$ in tax rebates? The working poor don't owe that much. Much of the "middle class" with kids doesn't either.
    15 May, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    It doesn't matter who ends up using the $7500 credit. What matters is that for every person who buys EV, there is that much less pollution that the rest of us breath in. So that $7500 is not just helping the car buyer, but it's helping everyone around him. EVs are more expensive even after that rebate so the EV owners are making a financial sacrifice to make the air cleaner for the rest of us including the poor.
    15 May, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • JosePelon
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    Are you sure? I thought that was paid back and there was a lot of rumble about lost interest! Unlike the settlement by GM with uncle sam.
    15 May, 09:40 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    Same can be said of the unemployed. They save the planet by not driving to work, and not doing wasteful activities at work, and by consuming less from the planet.
    Same can be said of the millions taking the buses or trains. It seems more sensible to reward those people, than reward resource hogs like Tesla.
    And you are also forgetting the pollution caused elsewhere, like the graphite pollution in China and coal smoke somewhere else. But keep fooling yourself.
    16 May, 12:37 AM Reply Like
  • mbender
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Plus, the EV purchase subsidies, aka *tax rebates*, go to the customers, NOT TESLA. Smart customers, btw, who really do want to pay less in taxes, and are tired of sending money out of the country to fuel their vehicle for its entire lifetime. Or spending WAY more than they need to in fuel at all, but especially on long distance trips.
    17 May, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • mbender
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    They can still benefit by leasing the cars. I know someone who leases a LEAF for $160/month and saves over $100/month + time and nuisance by not having to buy gas. Sounds pretty affordable to me.
    17 May, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "American Communist Oil businesses who take oil and natural gas from American soil without give a dime back to America except for a bone for taxes."

     

    Look at what Norway does with mineral wealth. Put it in a fund owned by all citizens, invest it, and prepare for the day that the wells run dry. Why can't we do that?
    18 May, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "Well, yeah, the federal government offers a 7500$ subsidy per car to wealthy buyers."

     

    Selective populism: oil money to elites, bleeding all low income people with never ending & increasing fuel bills is a-OK! Giving a tax break to a handful of wealthy people with the aim of popularizing new high-efficient transportation technologies is not.
    18 May, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    That 7.5 K tax break does do quite a number of things.
    First, it decreases the 'consumption" of oil and oil related products.
    That is for Leaf all the way up to the upcoming Rolls Royce EV. That includes the Tesla Model S and other EVs.

     

    This is basic supply and demand economics. Remove a consumer the price should drop, or if there is an increased demand elsewhere; the price will not go up as drastically.

     

    I'm going to set up a good analogy. Let us say there was a huge cultural shift that allowed the 500 M vegetarians to eat beef. Well what would happen to the price of beef and the price of other food stuffs? They would shoot up drastically.

     

    Now, how do you stave off the increase in beef eaters? Well, you try to convince your neighbors to become vegetarians; you or your government may even give them an incentive, they may get better health insurance rates, etc, etc. This is to prevent a run up on food prices and riots.

     

    Same principle, but instead of beef we are talking about oil and gasoline. It's economics 101.

     

    Now if you take it one step further, the beef industry will charge what the market will bear, same with gasoline. If there is a larger demand, prices will go up, but if more people are switching to not eat beef, they have to keep the prices lower so as to not encourage more people to become vegetarians.
    18 May, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    arondaniel**********. Over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes, after adjusting for inflation, to federal and state governments—including excise taxes, royalty payments and state and federal corporate income taxes, not to mention the 10’s of thousands of jobs. …..From 2007 through the end of 2012, total U.S. private sector employment increased by more than one million jobs, about 1%. Over the same period, the oil and natural gas industry increased by more than 162,000 jobs, a 40% increase.
    It's also too bad you weren't around for the gas rationing in the 70's. The fist fights at the pump were fun.
    18 May, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1843) | Send Message
     
    "Well, yeah, the federal government offers a 7500$ subsidy per car to wealthy buyers."

     

    I somewhat agree with that statement. The subsidy is far too low, and needs to be reworked a little to make it more useful to middle or lower class families. EVs are still too expensive when you can pick up a cheapie car for under $15k new, or buy used for even less than that.

     

    I suggest $12,000 off, up to $2,000 off taxes, and then the buyer must pay a travel tax of $50 for every 1000 miles driven, capped at $4000. (80,000 miles) It could be collected when the vehicle is serviced, or failing that when it transfers ownership.

     

    This would drop the cost of the car much further, putting vehicles like the Leaf in another buyer's price bracket, who could definitely use the savings at the pump. But they still have to return some of that money to the government as they use their vehicle and save money.

     

    It would get more EVs out there into the hands of people that could really use them...

     

    Dollar amounts could be adjusted as necessary. I've always felt $7500 was a tad low, considering the price of these cars. But then again, I'm in a 'Green' province that offers a big fat $0. (Funding ran out - was only enough funding initially for a bit over 200 EVs...)

     

    -Mike
    18 May, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "Over the past 25 years, oil companies directly paid or remitted more than $2.2 trillion in taxes"

     

    Ok, great. In that same time how many tens of trillions were shipped overseas to dictators & oppressive regimes? And how much of that money was subsequently funneled to "schools" that foster radicalism?

     

    Looking forward, given that the oceans can't absorb any more carbon and climate change is here, how many hundreds of trillions will it cost to mitigate the most dire consequences of sea level rise, crop failure and extreme weather?
    18 May, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    If you believe that producing a 100 million batteries isn't going to require almost as much fossil fuel, you have a most casual relationship with reality.
    19 May, 08:33 AM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    To say that batteries pollute is like saying that water filters add to plastic waste. The net effect of water filter is hundreds less water bottles wasted per filter. The net effect of batteries are 1000 times more beneficial to environment than the pollution they generate when manufactured. You can't pick and choose, you have to look at the big picture. All studies show the net effect of batteries is that they cut the pollution.
    20 May, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    runiter******batteries are not an energy source. All they do is store it. The mining of aluminum, copper, rare earth metals, transportation, manufacturing is all " fossil fuel" intensive, and then they need to be recharged and that power is generated in large part by fossil fuels. At the end of their life they will be recycled requiring even more energy derived from fossil fuels. Don't get to thinking that electric cars are some panacea to the " green" environment, because it just ain't true.
    20 May, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki2, all that true, but the fossil fuel used to make and recycle batteries aren't nearly as much as the alternative. Consider a conservative 10 years life of battery (most likely it's 20 years) and 20,000 miles per year, that's 200,000 miles not driven on fossil fuel. Avg car is 30 mpg, that's 7000 gallons of gas. Tesla mpg equivalent is 90 mpg, that's equivalent to 2000 gallons of gas, half of which comes from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear. So it's really only 1000 gallons of fossil fuel. That's 6000 gallons less than average car. I can assure you that it takes far less than 6000 gallons of fossil fuel to make and recycle each car battery.
    20 May, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki
    please name the rare earth metal in the Tesla model S

     

    And don't cite the computer chip since every single modern car has a computer chip inside
    20 May, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • User 23837183
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    I'm sorry Grant, how do you mean Government support? Tesla is trying to cut back on emissions while still making a bad ass cool car at a profit. The 10% per car subsidy that is on the S (Varies by state) is to help wean the planet from fossil fuels. Subsidies will end yes but the car will still be bad ass and desirable. That being said when it comes to SpaceX how do you figure government help? Because they got a contract from NASA that they do it better and cheaper than Boeing or McDonnell Douglas? Then that means every DOD manufacturer has gotten MAJOR government support for 70 years! Give Tesla 10. Jeez.
    21 May, 12:44 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    hat's equivalent to 2000 gallons of gas, half of which comes from solar, wind, hydro and nuclear.******* No, it doesn't ……….Renewable energy in the United States accounted for 13.2 percent of the domestically produced electricity in 2012, Nuclear accounts for less than 20% and are going the way of the dinosaur, and I would hardly define them as GREEN anyway !
    21 May, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    rare earth elements in transportation - Arnold Magnetic ...
    http://bit.ly/RVCQuP...
    21 May, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    It depends on which state you live in and where you buy your electricity. For my home I buy 40% of my electricity from wind and 60% from hydro. So 100% renewable in my case. I pay about 15% more but it's well worth it. But That's besides the point. Even if you get 0% from renewable, that's 2000 gallons which still makes Tesla consumption 4000 gallons less than average car. It does not take 4000 gallons of oil to build a Tesla battery. And this is at a time when car battery technology is at its infancy. Once electrical cars becomes mainstream battery technology will improve exponentially the same way computer CPUs did in the 90s.
    21 May, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki
    dead link.

     

    But I'll help you anyway. There are no rare earths in the Tesla Model S motor, or batteries to any large degree.

     

    The Tesla Model S motor is copper; that makes them different than let's say a Prius that uses rare earths in the motor

     

    The batteries are lithium nickel cobalt aluminum oxide. lithium, nickel, cobalt and aluminum are NOT rare earths. Notice on page 8, the chart, the 2 on the chart with lithium batteries contain NO rare earths in the batteries.

     

    If you want to say the auto glass, headlights, LCD screen and sensors- well, every modern car has many of those features, if not more sensors, so that is kind of a moot point. Not to mention regular cars have catalytic convertors too.
    22 May, 04:49 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @runiter,

     

    Please do not invest based on this -- "Once electrical cars becomes mainstream battery technology will improve exponentially the same way computer CPUs did in the 90s".

     

    This is the biggest misunderstanding that has jacked up Tesla stock. Digital semiconductors (not analog) typically followed Moore's Law which doubles the performance/size every 18-24 months roughly 50% annually).

     

    Lithium cell technology, on the other hand, has improved at a 8% annual rate, 1/6th that of digital semiconductors.
    22 May, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1843) | Send Message
     
    "Lithium cell technology, on the other hand, has improved at a 8% annual rate, 1/6th that of digital semiconductors."

     

    And yet still ahead of the ICE! Good enough!

     

    -Mike
    23 May, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    The truth is, there is nothing green when transporting one 180 lb human in a 2 ton machine ( or even 4). I don't care what fuels it.
    23 May, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    @chipdoctor I never meant that it will grow the same rate of semiconductors. I meant that it will grow exponentially compared with the past rate of growth of battery capacity. But event a linear 8% growth per year is amazing. That's 100% growth in roughly a decade. Also considering that 8% improvement in battery capacity means 8% reduction in car weight, that 8% really translates to 16% reduction in energy consumption of the car. 16% improvement in mpg of a car per year is damn good if you ask me. Current mpg improvement rate with fossil fuel cars (ie. Toyoto Camry) is about 2% per year at best.

     

    @fiwiki2 there is no such thing as absolute green. green is relative. some options are greener than others. Just like anything else in life our aim should be to do a little better everyday instead of being stuck in the past.
    24 May, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • mhays8
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Edeison, Tesla, Westinghouse were all dreamer also who helped propel us into the future. I'm tired of the doomsayers & doubters
    17 Jun, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • drax7
    , contributor
    Comments (160) | Send Message
     
    An engineer dreaming the impossible and making it happen.

     

    Unlike a society of politicians and lawyers that corrupt everything they touch.
    15 May, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • Bonaire
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    Making it happen? Tesla sells fewer plug-in vehicles than Nissan or GM or Ford annually right now. I think you have to consider a veil of "mystique", as one EV column writer eluded to, exists which makes people believe much of what is said.
    15 May, 08:36 AM Reply Like
  • Julian Acosta
    , contributor
    Comments (123) | Send Message
     
    I don't think that's a fair to compare Model S sales to Nissan/Ford/GM. You're also looking at too narrow of a time frame. It will be more fair to make this critique in 5-10 years if it still applies (I am not saying it will or will not).
    15 May, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, bringing back to life a more than one hundred year old technology, addressing the same questions that plagued it over 100 years ago, leading to marginal success at best……. History repeats……… wash rinse repeat.
    15 May, 09:01 AM Reply Like
  • Kalud
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Long range, good looking EV. That is making it happen.
    15 May, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Marginal success? The Model S is wiping the floor with similarly priced gas guzzlers...the ICE party is over at the high end...the Tesla Gen III will bring the party to the middle class.
    15 May, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    The Model S is wiping the floor with similarly priced gas guzzlers.****** EV's are a niche market. The model S is an even smaller niche. If pricing isn't competitive enough, the Gen III could bring down the house of cards.
    15 May, 09:20 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Locked Down Investments
    Does this sound vaguely familiar ?
    Accep... of electric cars was initially hampered by a lack of power infrastructure, but by 1912, many homes were wired for electricity, enabling a surge in the popularity of the cars. At the turn of the century, 40 percent of American automobiles were powered by steam, 38 percent by electricity, and 22 percent by gasoline. 33,842 electric cars were registered in the United States, and America became the country where electric cars had gained the most acceptance.[24] Most early electric vehicles were massive, ornate carriages designed for the upper-class customers that made them popular. They featured luxurious interiors and were replete with expensive materials. Sales of electric cars peaked in the early 1910s.

     

    In order to overcome the limited operating range of electric vehicles, and the lack of recharging infrastructure, an exchangeable battery service was first proposed as early as 1896.[25] The concept was first put into practice by Hartford Electric Light Company through the GeVeCo battery service and initially available for electric trucks. The vehicle owner purchased the vehicle from General Vehicle Company (GVC, a subsidiary of the General Electric Company) without a battery and the electricity was purchased from Hartford Electric through an exchangeable battery. The owner paid a variable per-mile charge and a monthly service fee to cover maintenance and storage of the truck. Both vehicles and batteries were modified to facilitate a fast battery exchange. The service was provided between 1910 to 1924 and during that periord covered more than 6 million miles. Beginning in 1917 a similar successful service was operated in Chicago for owners of Milburn Light Electric cars who also could buy the vehicle without the batteries.[25] …… From Wikipedia
    15 May, 09:24 AM Reply Like
  • slevental
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki2,
    History repeats itself but there is one important difference. Now the government is extremely supportive of EV while 100 years ago the market decided. Obviously if the market will decide then EV won't have a chance because like 100 years ago the battery isn't ready for prime time and EV is mainly a battery. But government intervention changes everything. So now I am not so sure.
    15 May, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    So, what constitutional amendment allows the government to decide what private sector industry lives or dies, viable or not ?
    15 May, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Electrical cars didn't pick up because oil companies lobbied against it. Watch the documentary "Who killed the electrical car?". This time around people are fed with oil companies and for the first time in history the government is fed up with them too. Game over for oil industry, EVs are here to stay this time.
    15 May, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    first time in history the government is fed****** Yeah, those bad ol' oil companies that remit billions in, taxes and royalties, create thousands of " good paying " jobs. The government is just fed up with that sht !
    15 May, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • slevental
    , contributor
    Comments (119) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki2
    the current US government doesn't pay that much attention to "constitutional amendments". And it has support from most of the media in doing just that. So we have to be practical and see the reality to what it is: the government likes EV. A lot.
    15 May, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • David RG
    , contributor
    Comments (1012) | Send Message
     
    "The Model S is wiping the floor with similarly priced gas guzzlers"

     

    Truly hilarious. Model S volumes are insignificant. That statement is like comparing my nephew's lemonade stand to Coca-Cola.
    15 May, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    Lets see, whale oil for lighting. Kerosene replaces whale oil. Then electricity replaces Kerosene.

     

    Petroleum to electricity in transportation.

     

    Yes fiwiki2, History repeats and not what you are thinking.
    15 May, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    The government during the Lincoln administration gave land to the railroads to build a railroad from coast to coast.

     

    Uh, wasn't Lincoln a Republican?
    15 May, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • dratheal
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    I'm not sure if that's the best question. What about, "why are a few select industries allowed to decide what technology lives or dies based on the threat to their bottom line?"
    15 May, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • runiter
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    The tax and royalties from the oil industry will simply be replaced by the tax and royalties from other energy sources once the oil goes down. No revenue loss there. Job wise, the green energy industry actually creates 3 times as many jobs with higher average salary. And you will get all that with the added bonus of less pollution, less water contamination, less cancer rate, less healthcare cost.
    15 May, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    So we have to be practical and see the reality to what it is: the government likes EV. A lot.****** yeah, they like taxpayer money to give to other people, that lobby and vote for what they PERCEIVE as practical….. the majority of which has only a casual relationship with reality.
    15 May, 05:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    Bonaire
    Actually, Tesla is outselling Ford plug in vehicles right now;
    It's out selling the Cmax Energi, Fusion Energi and Focus EV combined.

     

    Of course the Leaf and the Volt sell more, they are half the price. but if you adjust for price, Tesla is actually doing very, very well.
    15 May, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • myopetz
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    You don't need constitutional amendments to do that. Just the preamble:

     

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    15 May, 10:35 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "EV's are a niche market. The model S is an even smaller niche. If pricing isn't competitive enough, the Gen III could bring down the house of cards."

     

    Niche market? How is a fast, good looking car with the best tech, a long range, that holds all your stuff, needs little to no maintenance and refuels for pennies at home or for free on the road a "niche" product?

     

    I think that is going to be a pretty big niche.

     

    I literally can't see why a anyone in the market for a 50k+ vehicle would buy anything other than Model S/X. Gen III lowers that to 30K.

     

    Not a niche. Just going to take some time to diffuse out.
    15 May, 11:47 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    My theory is, Mr. Musk is schizophrenic. He saw rocket launches and Electric cars in the 1960s and 1970s. With his billions, he thought of re-doing what was done long time ago. Nothing wrong, every billionaire should have some whims. Better than many others. But no need to glorify these whims as some kind of new inventions.
    16 May, 12:43 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    surferbroadband

     

    Petroleum to electricity in transportation.******It very well may happen, but just not carting around a 1000+ lbs of batteries.
    16 May, 08:07 AM Reply Like
  • krojo
    , contributor
    Comments (29) | Send Message
     
    Funny they have not even said were the factory will be but saying it will start in June ?
    15 May, 08:23 AM Reply Like
  • Gene Shpikaloff
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    "Ground breaks on Tesla' first gigafactory in June."
    15 May, 08:42 AM Reply Like
  • Stock Market Mike
    , contributor
    Comments (1843) | Send Message
     
    If they announce Nevada, expect WLCDF to pop.
    15 May, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • ahsan haque
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    so stock will up or down today
    15 May, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Bonaire
    , contributor
    Comments (366) | Send Message
     
    He's right. For 100 years from now. In the mean time - EV growth will be slow, steady and progressive. Technologies may come about where physical batteries will not be necessary in the volume and weight we have today. Li-Aluminum, Li-Air, and other forms of Li-S and so on will start to roll in. Disposable 200-charge "cheap" high capacity batteries may occur where you recycle modules. Who knows. Why does Elon know and nobody else? Because it is *his* view and not a consortium of scientists and people experienced in the field. Invest at your own risk.

     

    By 2050, 20% of new cars sold will be EVs worldwide. That is millions per year. It takes time. Oil will continue to be found in areas not yet discovered and countries that rely on cheap oil for economic growth will keep using it.
    15 May, 08:34 AM Reply Like
  • Locked Down Investments
    , contributor
    Comments (1322) | Send Message
     
    Actually I believe Elon Musk's prediction that "50% of all new cars produced in 2030 will be fully electric".
    By 2050 most vehicles that burn fossil fuels will be banned from use altogether except for very specialized use (in the developed world anyway). Driving an ICE down the road will be looked at with the same distain as lighting up a cigarette in a crowded subway car today.
    Update your thinking Bonaire.
    15 May, 09:14 AM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "Driving an ICE down the road will be looked at with the same distain as lighting up a cigarette in a crowded subway car today."

     

    The comparison fits. The externalities of CO2 pollution and various other ills like smog will eventually get priced in. No more free rides at the cost of our oceans and the planet where we all live.

     

    Personally, I think it will happen within the next 5 years. A shift in public perception, brought about by some very awful weather patterns. Transportation and grid energy will be reinvented for the better. At that point, you'll need to be with solar power and electric cars or you will get left by the wayside.
    16 May, 12:07 AM Reply Like
  • 123man
    , contributor
    Comments (1029) | Send Message
     
    Anyone who compares the technology of today with technology of the early 1900's truly is living in the dark ages - why are cleaner burning diesels that get 50 mpg available today but not 100 years ago - the electric grid and what is could deliver was in its infancy 100 years ago, solar panel were non-existent 100years ago, 3D printers that can produce a viable kidney, were not viable just 10 years ago - some folks continue to ride horses while the world speed by - I put 235 miles on my Model S yesterday for free (solar) - how far did detractors drive yesterday for free? - free of cost and free of pollutants -
    15 May, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • Mister Keune
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    "I put 235 miles on my Model S yesterday for free (solar)"

     

    And your solar panel came also for free? You can drive some ten-thousand miles on gas for the price that costs a solar system able to recharge your Model S in one day.
    15 May, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    actually, 123man's solar system will recharge his model S for the next 20 years, permitting him to go much further than your 10,000 miles.

     

    Think about that.
    15 May, 08:25 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @fan,

     

    "actually, 123man's solar system will recharge his model S for the next 20 years, permitting him to go much further than your 10,000 miles."

     

    At least until the government finds a way to tax sunlight....
    22 May, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1230) | Send Message
     
    The real wonderment to me is how Musk can talk in January about a Gigafactory that will cost $5 billion, and will include Panasonic and other partners who will contribute the additional $3 billon. After five months there are no partners, no one knows what the letter of intent says, now Musk is actually buying time with his "two sites" theory. Keep drinking the cool aid.
    15 May, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • Christopher Wallace
    , contributor
    Comments (1023) | Send Message
     
    Including ARTX as a lithium play is quite a stretch. There battery division did $5 mil of revenue last year. They don't put enough into R&D to be considered a force in the battery development market. They primarily provide simulation software for training in the military and police. Highly promoted stock that uses the current enthusiasm investors have for all things battery/fuel cell/ EV/alternative energy to advance the stock while the insiders have been sellers. Wrong name if you think lithium batteries are the future.
    15 May, 10:47 AM Reply Like
  • Renewable Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Guys the bigger story is Toyota just dumped the Tesla contract to buy batteries and drive train for the RAV4. You have to ask yourself what Toyota knows that that Tesla is not telling us.
    The RAV4 was a under $50,000 SUV that with Toyota's mass marketing could not sell. Could it be there is no market for a plugin SUV, could it be that the under $50,000 customer when comparing Prius hybrid and RAV4 plugin the customer choose the hybrid.
    Or could it be that Toyota has a pure plugin coming to market that will compete with Tesla product at a cheaper price.
    No matter how you look at Toyota dropping Tesla it cannot be good news for Tesla.
    15 May, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @renewableinvestor

     

    Maybe Toyota has a 5 tillion Yen sales plan for something completely different for the next 100 years?

     

    http://toyota.us/1iFnfaf
    15 May, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    Emits water vapor because it is vaporware.

     

    http://toyota.us/1iFnfaf

     

    I do "not" need a bailout.
    15 May, 01:33 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    Toyota is pushing hydrogen. They think they can make a play there. Unfortunately the infrastructure is lacking drastically and to make a go at it Toyota would need tens of thousands of fueling stations.

     

    It is unreasonable to assume that people will have a hydrogen station in their vicinity or expect them to purchase an at home station.

     

    It is not unreasonable to assume someone buying a new car has access to an electric plug since they are everywhere.
    15 May, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    Solar panels turn water into hydrogen

     

    http://bit.ly/1nRRiPv

     

    Water (H2O) covers 71% of the earth's surface and can be found everywhere pretty much.

     

    So water into hydrogen into water. Very neat. Green too!

     

    Just check on all the world's submarines that run on fuel cells.

     

    http://bit.ly/1iO0fIC
    15 May, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    I need a bailout,
    you really need to dig deeper into that.
    1. What is the efficiency of turning water into hydrogen via electrolysis. The best I've seen is in the 80% range.
    Charging batteries via the same solar is in he 90% range.

     

    Then you have to compress that hydrogen. Not very energy efficient.
    15 May, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    @Dan Fichana,
    H2 Refueling stations can refuel in 5 mins, not 30 or 60 mins like BEVs. So, you don't need too many H2 refueling stations. By next year, CA will have 100. Also, the range is 300 miles. To cover a 4000 by 4000 mile country like US, you only need ~200 H2 fueling stations. And some more in dense cities.
    However, fuel cell cars are still expensive. Toyota fuel cars now cost $50K and need some precious metals in the ICE. These challenges are yet to be overcome.
    http://bit.ly/1msznOS
    16 May, 12:59 AM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    Plug-in Hybrid EV ( PHEV) make more sense for SUVs. Check the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV sales in Europe - over 10K in tiny countries like Holland. Next year it comes to US to crush everyone else.
    16 May, 01:01 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    yogi,

     

    You're going to need far more than 200 H2 fueling stations nationally. Heck, you'll need that many for Los Angeles County alone! Why? because you don't start each morning with a full fuel tank. Topping off the tank requires going to one of those fuel stations. And if it's more than 5 mins away from where you live or work, that's going to be a HUGE hassle driving out (wasting fuel in the process) each week just to get H2.

     

    You have to have lived with an EV to understand this singular difference in convenience to understand why ~200 superchargers nationally works for Tesla, but does NOT work for H2.
    16 May, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    Dan Fichana…….Charging batteries via the same solar is in he 90% range.******* Manufacturing batteries NOT green. Battery disposal NOT green. Recycling batteries ( if possible ) NOT green. ……..
    16 May, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Dan

     

    I hope you don't need to spend any money on a new drive train for your Model S.

     

    http://bit.ly/1gboW2O
    16 May, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • arondaniel
    , contributor
    Comments (629) | Send Message
     
    "H2 Refueling stations can refuel in 5 mins, not 30 or 60 mins like BEVs. So, you don't need too many H2 refueling stations."

     

    No, not unless hydrogen is delivered to peoples houses.

     

    Here's my stats, yogi: 8,000 miles driven with ___6___ supercharger stops. Do you get it? Refuel at home unless taking a road trip.

     

    By the way, most routes already have enough superchargers that your 30 minute estimate is already too high.
    16 May, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki
    The battery manufacture will take roughly 700 gallons worth of energy to make.

     

    Yogi
    You'll need as many gas stations as hydrogen stations. Even 10% of the stations is >10,000 stations. How far are you willing to drive to "fuel up" your hydrogen car. You NEED to go to a H2 station, you DON'T NEED to ever use a SC.

     

    bailout,
    nope, no problem have 14,000 miles on it now. you do know you can have problems with any type of car, they Model S owners are very vocal with their complaints. Heck, I had a Ford made car, had a component that failed on the engine at extremely low mileage. If you troll the internet long enough you'll find issues with any car.
    17 May, 06:17 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (1129) | Send Message
     
    The National Academies’ assessment didn’t ignore those difficult-to-measure realities. It drew together the effects of vehicle construction, fuel extraction, refining, emissions, and other factors. In a gut punch to electric-car advocates, it concluded that the vehicles’ lifetime health and environmental damages (excluding long-term climatic effects) are actually greater than those of gasoline-powered cars. Indeed, the study found that an electric car is likely worse than a car fueled exclusively by gasoline derived from Canadian tar sands!

     

    http://bit.ly/1654sNG
    17 May, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki
    Ozzie Zehner is an extreme and also is lumped in with Lomberg and Hawkins

     

    Funny that the co-author had to step in and refute Zehner's assertions

     

    That would be Don Anair- a highly respected engineer involved in the transportation sector.
    http://bit.ly/1gdawPN

     

    "D Anair • 11 months ago

     

    As co-author of the cited report State of Charge ( http://bit.ly/1gdayXG ), I'd like to point out that the Union of Concerned Scientists does not receive corporate funding, including funding from automakers. Mr Zehner seems to dismiss our analysis because we used automaker photos of electric vehicles. With or without the photos, the results would be the same. Powered by today's electricity grid, operating an electric vehicle produces less global warming emissions than the average new compact gasoline vehicle (averaging 27 mpg) everywhere in the country. In regions with the cleanest electricity grids, electric vehicles out perform even the best hybrids. And factoring in estimates of global warming emissions from manufacturing reduces, but doesn't negate the benefits of EVs, as I illustrate in the following blog post. http://bit.ly/1gdayXJ...

     

    Mr Zehner dismisses other research and research institutions for bias, but then chooses to cite a study of EVs in Chinese cities, where coal fired power without modern emission controls dominates the grid, to support his claim that EVs are bad. Then makes erroneous claims about emissions associated with solar electricity production, clearly refuted by this life cycle analysis performed by NREL. http://1.usa.gov/1gdayXP...

     

    If we are serious about avoiding the worst impacts of climate change and cutting our oil use, individuals need more, and better, transportation options. That includes biking, walking, and transit. But we also need to be able to choose cleaner vehicles that don't rely on burning oil. There are challenges to overcome with electric vehicles, including minimizing the impacts of production and disposal, but the status quo will lead to certain failure to address one of the greatest challenges facing our planet."

     

    Also Tesla does not use rare earths in the magnets
    17 May, 03:24 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @Dan

     

    You seem to be 10 years behind in your thinking.

     

    Fuel cells will power everything?

     

    http://bit.ly/1gfRE2u
    19 May, 05:16 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    bailout,
    I am fully aware of the hydrogen power house.

     

    Notice how he does not say how much energy it takes to compress the hydrogen OR how he gets the pure water or the borohydride car where he gets that material.

     

    All questions that if you did an energy analysis would show it to be very, very inefficient use of energy. As a storage medium, if you have no other storage and don't care about efficiency, it is fine, but we care about efficiency.

     

    Easy calculations
    Energy output- losses = Energy input

     

    Energy output/Energy input = efficiency

     

    Find the losses and efficiency for those and get back to me. My back of envelope calc says efficiency is around 30%
    19 May, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • newmone
    , contributor
    Comments (15) | Send Message
     
    This is hardly a discussion about the prospective merits of competing drive technologies. Skeptics are crushed and rabidity holds sway.

     

    So, turning to stocks: TSLA is very unusual in one way - about 1 in 4 stocks are held short! And stubbornly so... the shorters seem to have the wherewithal and stamina to avoid being squeezed.

     

    Even the flakier sustainable energy stocks don't get this shorted.

     

    How does it end? the short sellers represent guaranteed future demand for 25M TSLA shares. We are in uncharted territory.
    15 May, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    As one who thinks Tesla is typically overzealous, I do agree with the lead statement --Tesla Motors (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk sees exploding demand for low-cost lithium-ion batteries.

     

    Independent of the debates on which vehicle type is better for long range, there is little question that "green" renewable power is best for the typical 90% vehicle daily usage. Lithium cells are a excellent way of providing this power.

     

    Lower cost cells will certainly help enable this sooner than later. Also since Lithium cells offer high Coulombic efficiency (low power loss), there are a good solution for the energy grid demand leveling as well. The "demand" is certainly there, if the price is right.

     

    The challenge remains to improve the cells, both in cost and energy density. Typical lithium cell improvement averages 8% /year, which Tesla needs to step up to achieve their dreams.

     

    If Tesla can magically improve the cell by 50% or more then they will be successful. If not, they will fail, as they are not competitive in making the sled/gilder when compared to all the other manufacturers.
    15 May, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (951) | Send Message
     
    @newmone.

     

    "So, turning to stocks: TSLA is very unusual in one way - about 1 in 4 stocks are held short! And stubbornly so... the shorters seem to have the wherewithal and stamina to avoid being squeezed."

     

    I believe the Oil companies ( or Oil Industry which includes the vehicle manufacturers ) are trying their best to destroy Tesla Motors. The shorts are being funded by that industry. Also the shorts may be getting money to spend their time writing interesting article on Seeking Alpha and other websites to trash the company. I don't want to get specific because then this comment will be deleted. But if you do your research you will see it is people who are executives in companies that are competing with Tesla and Mutual Funds that they run have a large amount of stocks in Auto and Oil companies.

     

    You can also add non-US citizens who are not concerned about getting hit with slander lawsuits.

     

    Elon says 200 gigafactories, I think he is low. It will probably be around 400. There will be 200 in the US but worldwide 400 or higher. And that is in 20 years. But 20 years ago, the internet did not have video to watch and to say that would be possible or would happen, people would look at you and say you are nuts.
    15 May, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • a alto
    , contributor
    Comments (122) | Send Message
     
    S Q M is the one best positioned to benefit .
    15 May, 07:08 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1230) | Send Message
     
    How about this Gigafactory?
    http://bit.ly/1nUpNoJ
    15 May, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (517) | Send Message
     
    @fgrindle, that looks like a real operational Nissan battery factory! Very unlike the slide-ware factory of Tesla.
    16 May, 01:16 AM Reply Like
  • capitalismrocks
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    I owned a Tesla Roadster. There are things about the company that concern me. I fear the cars are synonymous with computers. When new models come out, the old models are soon forgotten by the company in favor of the latest and greatest. Apple can get away with that with computers because they are relatively inexpensive. That is not the case with Teslas. My 2008 ran out of warranty with 11k miles on it. During that time it quit on me once and became an expensive paperweight. Tesla picked it up It still had 3 months to go on the warranty but Tesla got it wrong and thought my warranty had run out. The repair was very expensive and luckily for me, the service department discovered their mistake and covered the repair. I decided that I wanted to purchase an extended warranty and was told that Tesla didn't offer one on the roadster. The service tech told me that these cars are very expensive when they are no longer under warranty. Tesla focuses on gas and maintenance savings, but they don't disclose that, due to regenerative breaking, the most wear you get out of a set of rear tires is 5k miles and 10k miles on the front. The car also requires an annual maintenance costing $600 assuming nothing is wrong with the car. If you don't want the annual maintenance done, even when the car is out of warranty, an annoying message comes on every time you start the car that you have to manually disable. The techs at Tesla said the message can't be disarmed unless the actual maintenence is done. Tesla is putting charging stations all over the country, but the roadsters can't use them. My question is, what will happen to the Model S when the Model X is released? Will the Model S then become last year's forgotten model in favor of the latest and greatest?
    16 May, 02:27 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @capitalismrocks

     

    I wonder what the electronics upgrade will cost Model S owners. It wont be as much as the battery of course or the electric motor, but electronics usually get swapped out every 5 years or so. It has something to do with new software outpacing the hardware speed.
    16 May, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (522) | Send Message
     
    @ I need,

     

    The basic "engine controls" will last longer than 5 years, and really will not need any hardware speed improvements.

     

    The only thing that uses high level of computation power is the navigation/infotainment systems, so may a new center screen may be justified 5 years from now.
    22 May, 12:04 PM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    chipdoctor,
    Actually the Nav system/infotainment system does not really use a high degree of processor power.
    If you want make it all fancy, sure you could require more, but in actuality, that would not tell you much more than you already know.

     

    The maps are done via google maps I believe.
    Infotainment system- downloading websites, etc, etc. Well technically no since the bottleneck is going to be the 3G internet (plus you can't stream video on it so.. federal law and Flash 5.0 is disabled), can't play games on the infotainment panel.

     

    Essentially here's what you currently have on the infotainment
    car controls- sunroof, lock/unlock, climate, seats, etc (not huge processing power)

     

    Nav system- not a huge amount of processing power

     

    Music- bandwidth, but not huge processing power- I had a 486 DX 33 laptop able to stream music

     

    Energy usage- little graph- excel like, again, not huge CPU power.

     

    Website- maybe, but again, not streaming video, again, old computers still perfectly capable of surfing the web, had a 2000 laptop that could still surf the web fine.

     

    What could happen in the next 5 years that would cause any of these features to cause a huge drain on the CPU or the infotainment system?
    22 May, 05:54 PM Reply Like
  • Todd Monka
    , contributor
    Comments (53) | Send Message
     
    Elon, don't know if you ever read this particular site,

     

    but we'll gladly take one of your "gigafactories" in Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

     

    We've got good people here. We will build top notch batteries for your electric

     

    cars, trucks and energy storage.

     

    There are some perfect places here to put it, too.

     

    I applied for a battery research specialist for your company several years back.

     

    Nikola Tesla is also one of my favorite heroes.
    16 May, 04:02 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (1230) | Send Message
     
    Space X gets a break from Russia.
    http://bit.ly/RIWrhI
    16 May, 05:07 PM Reply Like
  • Renewable Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Is it true that Musk will be starring in the next Bond movie as the megalomaniac villain with rockets shooting at Mars, millions computer controlled cars that he can crash at will, control of the electric grid in large American cities like LA, deep roots in Wall Street and two secret GigaFactories hidden in the desert SouthWest that makes unknown chemical compounds underground? All supported blindly by the President of the USA.
    This is to good of a story for Hollywood to pass up.
    17 May, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    The giggle factory will need to re-tool by the time it is built?

     

    New battery technology on the way.

     

    http://bit.ly/1gBLLYd
    19 May, 05:32 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    bailout,

     

    Perhaps you didn't read the article fully.

     

    "And equally important for practicality, the new dual-carbon anode and cathode can both be produced by existing cell manufacturing processes--and require essentially just a single material as input: carbon."

     

    IF, and that's a big "if", the technology pans out, there's nothing to prevent the gigafactory from using it. And keep in mind that the purpose of the gigafactory is to reduce battery cell production costs, not optimize a specific cell chemistry.
    19 May, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (801) | Send Message
     
    bailout,

     

    Two things are very suspicious about that report: look at the graphs.

     

    In one graph the cells are tested for only TEN cycles and the measured parameter is "mAh/g". Ten cycles is totally insufficient to show any meaningful trend and "mAh/g" is NOT a measure of energy density. The correct term would be mWh/g, or more correctly Wh/kg. As the Lithium cells and the new cell have different voltages the graph is meaningless.

     

    In the other graph the data are extrapolated from ten cycles to 1000 cycles. It is not possible to take such a small set of data points and infer what happens 100 times farther down the line. It's like saying that when you walk out your front door you head due east, therefore your final destination must also be due east!

     

    If I had a freshman student hand me graphs like that I would tell him please go and do the experiment again, and this time bring me real data. For this to come from an actual company is inexcusable.
    19 May, 07:54 AM Reply Like
  • Dan Fichana
    , contributor
    Comments (1789) | Send Message
     
    John
    You remember Envia? limited cycles looked great... then after that it dropped off drastically.
    20 May, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • John Bingham
    , contributor
    Comments (801) | Send Message
     
    Hi Dan,

     

    We should all take a lesson from the Envia Systems/GM farce.

     

    Anybody who does not know the story of Envia Systems' apparently world beating battery should read this:

     

    http://bit.ly/19f2EKl

     

    The lesson is neatly summed up by Jeff Dahn:

     

    >Jeff Dahn, head of battery research at Dalhousie University, said in an interview for this article that technically speaking, Envia was being truthful—the cell did produce 400 watt hours per kilogram and it did cycle the 300 times it claimed at Arpa-E. But for the many who presumed that Envia had delivered the record result for all 300 cycles, the announcement’s accuracy was only technical. “With battery people,” Dahn said, “you have to make sure that a statement applies to all parts of the sentence.”<

     

    It's a bit like claiming that a new electric supercar has a range of 300 miles and a top speed of 200 MPH.

     

    Both may be true - but just not at the same time!
    21 May, 03:55 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @John

     

    Here is a video by Jeff Dahn that explains why lithium batteries die.

     

    http://bit.ly/1aL7E9S
    21 May, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • bobinfla
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Please, when you laud the goodness of the oil companies for generously paying billions of dollars in taxes, remember two things. First, those billions of dollars started in your pocket, they didn't invent the money out of thin air. Second, if you pay billions in taxes, then you made billions and billions and billions in taxes.
    20 May, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    Selling by insiders continues, including the Musk clan.
    21 May, 10:38 PM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    Panasonic - no investment in giggle factory?

     

    OSAKA, May 23 (Reuters) - Panasonic Corp <6752.T> said it
    expected to become the sole manufacturer in Tesla Motors Inc's
    <TSLA.O> planned multibillion-dollar U.S. battery factory,
    firming up its commitment to the electric car maker's project.
    The Japanese electronics conglomerate had until this week
    made only cautious comments about Tesla's plans, for which the
    carmaker is seeking total investment of around $3 billion in
    addition to the $2 billion it has pledged to contribute
    directly.
    Panasonic does not have a timeframe for a decision on its
    investment but any expenditure this year would be small, Yoshio
    Ito, senior managing executive officer and president of the
    Japanese firm's automotive and industrial division said on
    Friday.
    "As we're not anticipating any sudden tenfold increases in
    demand or anything like that, we think it is right to break it
    up step-by-step and invest gradually," Ito told reporters at a
    briefing in Osaka.
    Demand from the U.S. premium eco-car maker for lithium-ion
    batteries has been a boon for Panasonic as the Japanese firm
    seeks to expand its sales of industrial goods to other
    businesses and reduce its reliance on volatile consumer markets.
    Ito said the two companies were discussing details of their
    investment in the new factory and would talk about construction
    plans.
    He said Panasonic, which is already Tesla's prime supplier
    for lithium-ion cells but competes with Samsung SDI Co Ltd
    <006400.KS> for auto batteries, did not expect any rival battery
    makers to put in a competing bid.
    However, he said there was a possibility Panasonic would not
    contribute the majority of the remaining investment even if it
    became the sole manufacturer at the factory.
    23 May, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    "no investment in giggle factory?"

     

    Is that how you read that report?!?! No wonder you're a bear! You don't seem to understand what you've posted there.

     

    Your article confirms that there's no doubt that Panasonic would be on board, the only question remaining is under what terms.
    23 May, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • I need a bailout
    , contributor
    Comments (1228) | Send Message
     
    @fan ..

     

    well no investment this year (or very little)

     

    "any expenditure this year would be small"

     

    The bulls were expecting Panasonic to pony up some big cash right away to get this factory into a certainty mode.
    23 May, 12:36 PM Reply Like
  • fan of the underdog
    , contributor
    Comments (662) | Send Message
     
    Keep trying to convince yourself of that.
    23 May, 04:47 PM Reply Like
  • jobehro
    , contributor
    Comments (167) | Send Message
     
    I noticed a parking sign at the Credit Union the other day - " low emission vehicles only ". A sign of the times?
    25 May, 08:32 PM Reply Like
  • jobehro
    , contributor
    Comments (167) | Send Message
     
    Add HPJ to Lithium battery makers. Going for a bargain price of 4.30/s as I print this. Sony just made a deal with them. Do your DD and act accordingly. Am thinking of selling PCRFY and going with HPJ.
    25 May, 08:41 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:

|