Seeking Alpha

Tesla Motors updates Supercharger network progress

  • Tesla Motors (TSLA -1.6%) has updated its global Supercharger coverage map.
  • The automaker says it has 54 stations operating in Europe, 105 in North America, and 9 in Asia.
  • Coast to coast travel via Tesla's charging network will be available to 98% of the U.S. population by 2015.
From other sites
Comments (104)
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (2693) | Send Message
     
    Pump Pump Pump
    12 Aug 2014, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    I see gloomy days ahead for pumpers, frackers, pipers and refiners.

     

    I see gas back at $1.50 a gallon just to compete with rechargers.

     

    I see gas stations making way for solar energy.

     

    I see former shorts living in Walmart boxes on alley ways.
    12 Aug 2014, 12:00 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    I see yet another Tesladite, with a most casual relationship with reality.
    12 Aug 2014, 12:11 PM Reply Like
  • Overanalytical
    , contributor
    Comments (812) | Send Message
     
    "I see gas back at $1.50 a gallon..."

     

    That would instantly double my net worth
    12 Aug 2014, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • chipdoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (1800) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Teslians!

     

    I am so happy that you are purchasing overpriced vehicles to keep the gas prices in check (I would love to see $1.50) so I can fed my gas sucking SUV.
    12 Aug 2014, 12:17 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (2642) | Send Message
     
    Tesla purchases have no effect on gas prices. Good waiting for $1.50 gas. You are more likely to see $5.00
    12 Aug 2014, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    Cheap gas => less motivation to buy electric. It is a negative feedback loop for Tesla's growth.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    @doubleE,
    "Tesla purchases have no effect on gas prices"

     

    Very true. We have to burn more gas to produce the electricity to charge up Teslas.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:23 PM Reply Like
  • doubleE
    , contributor
    Comments (2642) | Send Message
     
    That would be gas as in gasoline. Less than 1% of US electricity comes from crude oil. Electricity production has no effect on gasoline prices.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • Dennis Baker
    , contributor
    Comments (1827) | Send Message
     
    I'd much rather see gasoline at $5-6/ gallon than $1.50. Much better for Tesla, better for the environment.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    Seeking Alpha probably is on an RSS feed that gets an item sent every time the page gets updated. The article doesn't say what the update was. There was no associated announcement from Tesla, so it wasn't much in the way of a pump.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    It's obviously a joke. You shorts are so serious!
    12 Aug 2014, 04:04 PM Reply Like
  • Sellinpanic
    , contributor
    Comments (698) | Send Message
     
    @Frank,

     

    I'm sorry that you missed the 16 month ride on Tesla and I'm even more sorry that you paid for my long position by shorting TSLA. Though I feel sorry, I will survive with my sporty & comfortable P85+ ride which I was able to buy with the money provided by the short sellers. Once again, I'm sorry sucking your money, but try not taking it personally, I'm not. :-)
    12 Aug 2014, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (2693) | Send Message
     
    Sellinpanic
    I'm too old to have gotten involved in Tesla. I had a similar ride in 1997 when I bought Apple at $16. I have been retired for 14 years and still have a lot left. I sold some last year for a Cadillac ATS for my wife and a BMW 3 series convertible for me. About the same total $ as your P85 but I like sporty convertibles.
    I have never shorted any stock in my life. I'm an investor not a gambler.
    12 Aug 2014, 06:01 PM Reply Like
  • dvclifford
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    Sagamore Bridge Cape Cod, MA, under construction
    12 Aug 2014, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Deletion123456789100
    , contributor
    Comments (55) | Send Message
     
    Frank, as usual you have nothing of value to add. Good job.
    12 Aug 2014, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • Frank Greenhalgh
    , contributor
    Comments (2693) | Send Message
     
    As usual neither did the Tesla Update.
    12 Aug 2014, 06:59 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    I can hear the calliope music now, as ol' P T Musk, 'er, uh, Barnum barks for the next sucker to " step right up" !
    12 Aug 2014, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Seekinggreatwealth
    , contributor
    Comments (73) | Send Message
     
    ???????????
    12 Aug 2014, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • seeker34567
    , contributor
    Comments (205) | Send Message
     
    When I see the Texas flag, I see expensive gas.
    12 Aug 2014, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    Seekinggreatwealth

     

    ???????????********* just like you…..
    12 Aug 2014, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    When I see the Texas flag, I see expensive gas.****** Why? gas in Texas is some of the cheapest in the country..
    12 Aug 2014, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (3114) | Send Message
     
    Gas may be cheap in Texas where I live too, but at $3.32/gallon to fill up here in Houston, it is still too expensive. Electric is cheaper no matter how you slice it, dice it or spice it.

     

    Pump,dump,chump.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    Electric is cheaper no matter how you slice it, dice it or spice it.***** Not without government subsidies and 7-10 years to amortize the additional cost of the vehicle. Hybrids actually provide the biggest bank for your buck. Btw, historical inflation adjusted prices of gasoline were higher in 1919 and 1981, as well as the mid '30's and early '40's than you're paying now.
    12 Aug 2014, 04:40 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    A report from the Congressional Budget Office published last fall estimated that when comparing a pure battery-powered vehicles like the Leaf to a similar gas-powered car, “tax credits would still need to be about 50 percent higher than they are now to fully offset the higher lifetime costs of an all-electric vehicle.” In other words, instead of a $7,500 tax credit, something like $11,250 would cut it.

     

    The math changes, however, now that the cheapest Leaf is $6,000 less. State rebates help put the math in the Leaf’s favor too, of course. Based on the new math, it would seem that it’s less expensive to own a Leaf rather than a similar traditional car like the Nissan Versa, all things being equal.

     

    The problem, of course, is that all things aren’t equal. After adding up initial price, insurance, “fuel” and other expenses, a Leaf owner may pay less out of pocket than a Versa owner over the course of five to seven years,

     

    http://ti.me/147r969

     

    ……….and I wonder if the CBO included that at home wall charger for an additional $1800+ ?
    12 Aug 2014, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Breathing in all the garbage that spews out of the back of your car is a huge lifetime cost when it literally kills me.
    12 Aug 2014, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker………Breathing in all the garbage that spews out of the back of your car is a huge lifetime cost when it literally kills me.*****Given the options of starving to death or engaging in environmentally destructive practices, most people throughout history have put their immediate survival over long-term environmental consequences. In other words, to put it in simple terms, putting the environment ahead of survival is a "luxury". That is why Kyoto was an abject failure. That is why every other so-called "climate conference" has failed. Namely, that its impossible to get China and India and Brazil to agree to restrictions on their ability to modernize their society and improve the standard of living of their own people. Its accepted fact that our air here in the US is far cleaner today than it was in 1900, but since the planet only has one atmosphere, the idea that moving emissions from Point A to Point B is somehow "virtuous and green" has all the intellectual integrity of a no peeing zone in a swimming pool.
    13 Aug 2014, 06:18 AM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Exactly, that's the problem. People refuse to change and that's exactly the mentality that is causing the health problems and economic problems this country has.

     

    China is doing a lot to switch to alternative energy. They are doing more than YOU so point your finger elsewhere, starting with the mirror.

     

    The world changes one person at a time and the only person you can change is YOU.
    13 Aug 2014, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker People refuse to change *****Most of our environmental improvements occurred before the EPA was even created. They occurred because, as our nation got richer, it was better able to pay the costs associated with such positive externalities as "clean air". For a banker you're extremely clueless of economics and in general how the world works.
    13 Aug 2014, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    fiwiki,
    Improving the efficiency of coal and oil is not an environmental improvement. You're still burning more coal and oil today than 20 years ago.

     

    A real change would be to convert the oil into plastics and make renewable products such as solar panels and wind turbines. That's real change.

     

    Your change is an efficiency improvement via technology improvements. That's a joke. That's not real change. Improving old technologies is not the best way to clean up the earth over the long term. A great example is LED lights. Switching from incandescent bulbs to LEDs is an improvement. Figuring out how to drill sideways for NatGas still results in us burning more and more natgas. You're just extracting it more cheaply.

     

    The oil your car burns is still be breathed in by others. The MS can be recycled and the batteries can use electricity from solar panels. That's the point you refuse to acknowledge and accept. It's going to happen and luckily you're still young enough at 67 that we're going to force you to watch whether you like it or not.

     

    I know how the economy works, and malfunctions, much better than you think. I'm smart enough to realize you are part of the problem and not the solution.
    13 Aug 2014, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker***** Only someone as ignorant as you, can propose that no problem can be too small as to not be worth solving, no matter how large the cost.
    13 Aug 2014, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    I've read your posts 3 times and still can't interpret your sentence you tried to scramble together.

     

    All problems, big and small, deserve to be tackled and solved when the problem is costing Americans their health and well-being. I consider the problem of oil fumes to be a big one. You obviously consider it to be small. A greater portion of America is landing in my camp. We do want a cleaner planet and we want to start in our own back yards, especially the air we breath.

     

    You may never buy an electric car but you're sure as hell going to be forced to park and drive with them. Are you going to damage the BEV that beats you off the line and steals your parking spot? Can you handle the change that's going to happen whether you like it or not? The good news is all those BEVs that will be driving next to you won't be doing any harm to your health. You gotta remember, at 67 you don't have that much time left on earth. Any BEV that helps improve your health should be welcomed to your community.
    13 Aug 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker………All problems, big and small, deserve to be tackled and solved when the problem is costing Americans their health and well-being.****** The air is cleaner today than they over 100 years ago, and in 2012, the energy boom supported 2.1 million jobs, added nearly $75 billion to federal and state revenues, contributed $283 billion to the GDP, and raised household income by more than $1,200, according to a report from CERA (Cambridge Energy Research Associates), a subsidiary of IHS (Information Handling Services).The competitive advantage for American manufacturers due to lower fuel prices will boost industrial production by 3.5 percent by the end of the decade, disclosed the report cited by Bloomberg Businessweek… Liberals like you piss and moan and point fingers at Republicans for not creating jobs, while like a bunch of cockroaches you do everything possible to make it impossible for business to thrive in this country.
    If the government wants to mandate cleaner air, why isn't the EPA mandating that every power plant be replaced by nuclear power?
    13 Aug 2014, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker********The U.S. Department of Energy projects that U.S. electricity demand will rise 28 percent by 2040. That means our nation will need hundreds of new power plants to provide electricity for our homes and continued economic growth. Maintaining nuclear energy's current 20 percent share of generation would require building one reactor every year starting in 2016, or 20 to 25 new units by 2040, based on DOE forecasts.

     

    Building New Nuclear Facilities

     

    Companies building the next nuclear plants will proceed in a phased process, increasing their investment in the project as they become more certain it is the right course of action.

     

    Economic Benefits of New Nuclear Facilities

     

    Communities and states enjoy considerable economic benefits when they host new nuclear plants, including hundreds of jobs and an expanded tax base.

     

    Need for New Nuclear Facilities

     

    Concerns about rising electricity demand and clean air are among the factors driving interest in new nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the only electricity source that can generate electricity 24/7 reliably, efficiently and with no greenhouse-gas emissions.

     

    New Plant Licensing

     

    The NRC has established an efficient new process for licensing nuclear power plants, giving the public opportunities for early participation and ensuring that safety is foremost throughout the process.

     

    New Reactor Designs

     

    The NRC has certified several reactor designs as meeting all safety requirements, and the agency expects to certify two more designs in the near term.

     

    Small Reactor Designs

     

    Small nuclear reactors are attracting the attention of government officials, regulators and energy leaders as a potential addition to the nation’s energy mix.

     

    http://bit.ly/1vIQLqk

     

    People like you are the ones that live in a vacuum !
    13 Aug 2014, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    If someone farts in your face today and it smells better than yesterday, is it still ok to fart in their face cause today's fart is an improvement over yesterday's fart?

     

    Not at all. I don't care how clean or dirty the air was 100 years ago. It's filthy today, we have the ability to solve the problem today and making lame excuses why we are not cleaning our air and water is bs.

     

    I'm not a Liberal at all. I'm Independent. I think rationally and do not subscribe to red and blue like most people do. I know the difference between right and wrong and your excuses for not having a cleaner USA is nonsense. We don't need a GDP of 2% while the health of others is falling. We could have a GDP of 4% if we stopped buying crap from China and made our own products. How about making US solar panels out of US oil? Did that every occur to you? Why are we so focused on drilling oil as fast as possible and now considering shipping crude oil to other nations to get the entire world's air dirty that much faster.

     

    Turn the oil into plastic and turn that plastic into power. Burning oil once is foolish. Building a solar panel for 35 years then recycling the panel for another 35 years is a solution your type just can't seem to comprehend.
    13 Aug 2014, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    You are just way to dense to get it. We don't need power plants. We need distributed power via solar panels linked together through our grid system already in place. Panels are cheap enough you're breaking even in 7 years in 90% of the country. You're so brainwashed that oil is the solution you don't even make sense. Living in TX has really tarnished you forever in that respect. You're not willing to change as well. It's oil or nothing in your eyes.

     

    I don't have a problem with nuclear or NatGas or burning wood for that matter if new trees are immediately allowed to grow in place of old trees. Solar and wind should be our focus for the foreseeable future.
    13 Aug 2014, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    Living in TX has really tarnished you forever***** I'm born and raised in Texas. I've lived in NY FL, CO, CA, OR. I have very little extended family, but chose to come home to retire. Why ? certainly there was better weather, some great food, beautiful scenery…….too many moron liberals clueless as they destroy their own economies.
    13 Aug 2014, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    I'm definitely not pro-Obama but it is clear that he has been cleaning up the USA and promoting alternative energy and GDP is growing. Bush supported wars and oil and look where that got us. So far the oil economy hasn't done everything to help bail us out of this mess.
    13 Aug 2014, 09:47 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……So far the oil economy hasn't done everything to help bail us out of this mess.***** WHAT?!……. you make the most retarded comments that I have read, outside of that Macro Investor loon.
    13 Aug 2014, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Yes, oil at $100 a barrel is not doing the country any good. The price is low enough people are still relying on it and ignoring solar panels. Remember $150? That's what broke the camel's back. We're at $100 because we cannot handle oil prices any higher. It's like wearing a straight jacket to work. Oil prices at $100 slows down our growth. We need to be focusing on American made products and alternative energy manufactured here. We even import solar panels while people are sitting at home collecting welfare and fake disability payments. Let's put these people to work in a solar panel factory and make some batteries too. We don't need Chinese solar panels or Iraqi oil.
    13 Aug 2014, 11:16 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker****** Oil was $11 in 1999. Oil and gold price behavior is a direct result of changes in dollar value. Oh the demand for oil has increased, but there is no shortage. In fact the world is awash in oil with many economist predicting that there will be an oil glut by 2015-16.
    14 Aug 2014, 07:19 AM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    There is no oil glut or the price would be $50 a barrel. The USD has been stables for a few years now. It didn't collapse since 1999 by 10 fold.

     

    Whether you like it or not the US will be trying to slowly get away from using oil and switching to natgas/uranium/solar/w... At the present rate of consumption we must back away from oil and it will run out. When oil is gone we'll have no way to make plastics and that's going to be an even bigger problem. Burning oil in your car is a huge mistake that TSLA is going to fix and you cannot stop it.
    14 Aug 2014, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……..There is no oil glut or the price would be $50 a barrel. ****** The price would be 50$ per barrel if the dollar wasn't worth less than a nickel. For a banker you're really ignorant.
    Oil Continues to Rise Because the Dollar Continues to Fall
    http://onforb.es/1oxqRSD

     

    U.S. oil glut seen in 2015 as export ban tested
    http://bit.ly/1oxr7B4
    14 Aug 2014, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    The USD index was at 100 in 1999. It's at 81 now. So you're going to try to make us all believe that the only reason oil prices are up nearly 1000% is because the USD dropped 19% in 15 years?

     

    For an oil man living in TX awash with oil, you're really are ignorant.

     

    Oil prices are rising cause demand has risen worldwide. It's been stable for 5 years because the economy is under pressure thanks to $150 oil in 2008. Oil prices keep a lid on the economy and a strong economy pushes oil prices up. They are both connected because unfortunately we are addicted to oil and need to change.
    14 Aug 2014, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……… The USD index was at 100 in 1999.
    http://1.usa.gov/1oxuUhL

     

    So you're going to try to make us all believe that the only reason oil prices are up nearly 1000% is because the USD dropped 19% in 15 years? ****** I'm not trying to make you believe anything. You're staggering stupidity eliminates that possibility from the table.
    14 Aug 2014, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker…….http://bit.ly/1pPDrL8
    14 Aug 2014, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker

     

    http://onforb.es/zyyVvT
    14 Aug 2014, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    So you're still going to cling to the argument that a 19% swing in the USD spread over 15 years is the reason oil prices are up 1000%?

     

    I didn't ask you to teach me anything. I've been trading commodities a long time. The USD is only a partial influence on a given commodity price. OPEC has a lot to do with it and your buddy George Bush started some very expensive wars. He didn't make any friends in the process except the OPEC guys that love to kiss him on the cheek.

     

    http://bit.ly/yCVUlU
    14 Aug 2014, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    There are zero quotes in this article to show the Fed is deliberately going to lower the USD 33% over 20 years. This is the first time I've heard this. However, I've heard Ben Bernanke state several times they wanted a stable USD, not lower.

     

    I call BS:
    "The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level."
    14 Aug 2014, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……..This is the first time I've heard this. However, I've heard Ben Bernanke state several times they wanted a stable USD, not lower.**** The charter of the U.S. Fed was to maintain a stable currency. They have done so. as of now, it's stable at a value of about 4 cents.
    14 Aug 2014, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker…….http://onforb.es/1oxHvBj
    14 Aug 2014, 02:05 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……. http://bit.ly/1pPIZ8b
    14 Aug 2014, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    "Fed Chairman Janet Yellen argued that it would be a “grave mistake” for Congress to adopt legislation constraining the Fed’s management of monetary policy, because this would impair the Fed’s ability to manage the economy, and its ability to respond to financial crises. She said that such a law “…would essentially undermine central bank independence.” "

     

    She is correct. The politicians should do their pissing and moaning after the Fed does their job. Congress cannot run the country effectively at all. There is zero chance they are smart enough to help the Fed do their job. We're $17T in debt and no end in sight. If the Fed stopped printing money then the Congress would print it themselves. The end result will be worse if Congress handles the money. Social Security is a great example of what happens when Congress if left to handle our money.

     

    Do you think 580+ people are going to get together and vote on higher rates? Chances are we would have had zero interest rates 10 years ago and it would have stayed that way until now. Congress already gives themselves a pay raise every year regardless of economic conditions. They aren't smart enough to know when rates need to be raised or lowered.
    14 Aug 2014, 02:21 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker…….Fed Chairman Janet Yellen argued that it would be a “grave mistake” for Congress to adopt legislation constraining the Fed’s management of monetary policy, because this would impair the Fed’s ability to manage the economy, *******The Fed’s role is to maintain the stability of the dollar....period. It’s organized as a private bank for a very good reason. Its creators had very little faith that politicians would put long-term price stability ahead of the short-term benefits of using monetary policy to achieve their goals. I question whether monetary policy controlled by the banking class is distinguishable from monetary policy controlled by the political class. The Fed Chairman can drastically affect the economy simply by making decisions about the money supply and interest rates. But why do we and members of Congress assume this is good? Given that the Federal Reserve was created by and for the benefit of the banking class, it is unlikely to pursue a policy that would be detrimental to that class, consequently a ludicrous thought that an institution granted a monopoly to create money from thin air could ever act totally in the public interest.
    14 Aug 2014, 02:35 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Try getting a mortgage from a little old lady for 4%. It's not going to happen. Those Fed bankers you're moaning about are helping people with lower rates. They are trying to stabilize the economy and now the job market. They are doing a better job than Obama or Congress would.
    14 Aug 2014, 02:49 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……They are trying to stabilize the economy and now the job market.***** They should be, as the FED and the Democrats wrecked it !
    14 Aug 2014, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, it's not like George Bush dropping bombs and parking half the military in the middle east had anything to do with our high oil prices and runaway debt. He's the mastermind behind the folder holding all the IOU's for the social security money that was used to drop bombs.

     

    As much as I dislike Obama, the sad fact is he was handed the worst economy in decades to fix. He is doing a fine job ruining things but he's definitely not the cause of most of our problems.

     

    I wouldn't suggest you beat on your buddy George though. You oilmen do stick together, literally, since you're probably covered in oil.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:21 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……..Yeah, it's not like George Bush dropping bombs and parking half the military in the middle east had anything to do with our high oil prices and runaway debt.***** You're right. it's not likely. I have a close friend in California ( Orange County, away from most of the liberal loons). He owns a plating plant, mostly for aviation, aerospace and weaponry. His business has skyrocket over the past year. One because Boeing and the crush of new aircraft being ordered and secondly because of the hundreds of Tomahawk or Sidewinder ( forget which) missiles. The war machine never stops. Not to mention that it's profitable, at least to those selling to the government and to the government, as our government sells more of those missiles than they fire.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    So basically you're bragging that dropping bombs on foreign nations and building more bombs here is a smart way to run our economy, using all the oil we can while ignoring BEVs and solar panels.

     

    Now you wonder why I made the comment that you're old enough that you won't be able to do much more damage to our country? I meant it then and it's an even more valid statement now. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

     

    No part of dropping bombs is profitable. Stealing taxpayer money to build bombs to drop on others isn't profiting, it should be criminal. That's probably why George Bush committed so many war crimes too.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:39 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    So basically you're bragging that dropping bombs on foreign nations and building more bombs here is a smart way to run our economy, using all the oil we can while ignoring BEVs and solar panels.****** For the most part we're not dropping them. Number next, it will be interesting to see how negotiating with terrorist works out for the " wonk" generation….. Maybe you can Tweet a peace treaty or something.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:43 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    The chance of having a terrorist kill you in America is about at likely as getting hit by lightening. The whole terrorist scare was the policy used to get us into these wars. Now the fighting overseas is intentional to keep us addicted to oil and the war machine. Like Ron Paul has said many times, the terrorists don't like us cause we are constantly meddling with their lifes. Leave them alone and they won't cause us any problems. George Bush made sure they'd hate us for 20 years. Backing off is the best policy, not controlling their country at our expense.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker…….The chance of having a terrorist kill you in America is about at likely as getting hit by lightening.****** Why don't you tell Secretary Napolitano. The government's spent a Trillion $$ on DHS since 9/11, or maybe you're into TSA pat-downs.
    14 Aug 2014, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    I won't fly specifically because of TSA. TSA is the governments way of taking over control of your travel. They have roadside checks to see if you're legal and those are not at the border.

     

    Terrorism = boogyman for those who like to be scared and controlled by the government. We're over in Iraq and Afghanistan babysitting our interests of oil and opium. You don't actually believe the government wants the drug trade to stop do you? That's the other reason they don't stop Mexicans from crossing over. They vote blue and they bring the drugs and crime with them.

     

    Our next leader needs to be an Independent who doesn't believe in dropping so many bombs and occupying nations, believes in alternative energy and freedom inside your own country. Red and Blue are both useless right now. I won't vote for either side.
    14 Aug 2014, 09:12 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……Our next leader needs to be an Independent who doesn't believe in dropping so many bombs and occupying nations, believes in alternative energy and freedom inside your own country. Red and Blue are both useless right now. I won't vote for either side.***** You don't believe that " we the people" actually call the shots?……. You can vote the welfare state or the warfare state…. that's your choice…..grow up
    14 Aug 2014, 10:04 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    Why would I vote for the welfare state or the warfare state. Both are garbage. I don't have to choose between the two. My choice is neither. I wouldn't vote for the war monger in 2008 and I definitely didn't support Obama in 2012.

     

    It's pathetic that you're convinced your only two choices are welfare and warfare. That's actually pretty sad.
    14 Aug 2014, 10:07 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker………It's pathetic that you're convinced your only two choices are welfare and warfare. That's actually pretty sad.****** not nearly so sad as you not understanding those are the two forces driving the economics and the politics of the country.
    14 Aug 2014, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    TheBanker……..This is our national identity crisis in a nutshell: Do we want government spending half its money on redistribution and military, or re-dedicating itself to science, infrastructure, and health research?
    http://bit.ly/1oyWoDH
    14 Aug 2014, 10:23 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    I'm not going to vote for violence and more war and I'm not going to vote for free healthcare and more welfare. I'll vote Independent in the next election like more people should. You don't have to follow the pack.
    14 Aug 2014, 10:34 PM Reply Like
  • fiwiki2
    , contributor
    Comments (2901) | Send Message
     
    I'll vote Independent in the next election like more people should. ***** good for you. That'll show'em. d'ya won't a cookie?
    14 Aug 2014, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • Water Brothers Financial Co...
    , contributor
    Comments (380) | Send Message
     
    Bill Clinton=Elon Musk - what the definition of is is. What is a supercharger? Would we all count the numbers and agree?
    12 Aug 2014, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    It would be much more useful if the company disclosed the order backlog, rather than this barrage of PR on number of superchargers on a daily basis.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • Curt Renz
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    @Valueseeker

     

    A backlog of orders is bad. Long wait times discourage potential buyers. Tesla Motors wants to ramp up production and reduce the backlog.

     

    Other car manufacturers do not have backlogs, since they immediately ship everything to franchised dealerships. Tesla Motors makes cars to suit each customer's individual order and ships to the customer. That leads to a backlog. The plan is to make the wait as short as possible, but demand makes that difficult considering current production constraints.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:31 PM Reply Like
  • slevental
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    @Curt Renz: "Tesla Motors makes cars to suit each customer's individual order and ships to the customer"
    This is exactly why the SEC should force Tesla, which is a public company, to reveal each quarter the backlog. Your explanation, which is original, is that Tesla may lose customers because of the backlog. But this contradicts Musk who basically said that he can increase the demand at will: "demand isn't a problem"...If Tesla will do well then all that will be forgotten. But if there will be a Tesla collapse then the SEC will be criticized exactly for allowing this "backlog-gate".
    12 Aug 2014, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • jim15936
    , contributor
    Comments (637) | Send Message
     
    "A backlog of orders is bad." If you were in sales like me, you would know how wonderful it is to get deposits with a Tesla car backlog. Most automakers would kill to get a backlog of custom orders with large advance deposits. Which is better for an automaker: (1) large car lots full of unsold dealer vehicles that sit there depreciating, losing money; OR (2) Every car sold in advance with zero waste! Its a manufacturer's dream. If you could do it, you would be as rich as... Elon Musk.
    12 Aug 2014, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • Curt Renz
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    @Slevental

     

    It's not a contradiction, since Musk saying he could increase demand at will was to emphasize he does not do so because it would only extend the backlog while production constrained. A Chinese customer smashed his windshield upon delivery just to demonstrate his displeasure at the long wait.
    12 Aug 2014, 02:56 PM Reply Like
  • Curt Renz
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    @jim15936

     

    Yes, superficially a backlog is welcome. But perhaps hidden is the fact that long waits can be discouraging to some customers who may cancel or never place their orders. A large backlog may seem nice, but ultimately the company would like to reduce it by ramping up production to more closely match demand.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:01 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (3114) | Send Message
     
    Shorters are resorting to equating Elon with Mr. Intern. How sad.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:34 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    No contradiction at all. Demand is not a problem. There never was. Even before Tesla built its first Roadster it knew that demand would not be a problem because people had clamored for the GM EV1 and mourned its passing with a funeral.

     

    Tesla tries to keep the backlog at a reasonable level so that people don't wait too long for their car. Too long a wait time and there is customer attrition from the queue. This in no way invalidates the assertion that demand can be increased at will. There is no point to increasing demand that cannot be serviced.

     

    There is no need for the SEC to force the company to fixate on it. There is no need for you to question Elon Musk's statement that demand can be created at will. There are many things that can be done to increase demand. 1) The company can hold more test drive events. 2) The company can continue to enter new markets. 3) The company can build more showrooms. 4) The company can organize races, rallies and other events. 5) The company can offer incentives to existing customers to refer friends and neighbors. This may or may not include cash outlays. Often people prefer perks and recognition for their volunteer efforts. 6) The company can hold media events, including but not limited to interviews and photo ops with Elon Musk and the others on the management team at Tesla. J B Straubel is particularly articulate on the battery technology used in Teslas and how it may be used in stationary storage. 7) Building out the supercharging network can also be considered a demand generating ploy. 8) Of course, the company can also do conventional, boring things like advertising and sponsoring little league teams like car dealers do.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • Stephen Pace
    , contributor
    Comments (558) | Send Message
     
    @slevental: How's this for a backlog: 18k Model X.

     

    @Curt Renz: Customers are fungible as long as Tesla is selling all they can make. Sure, some people need a car TODAY because their car died. If Tesla doesn't have one for them, the customer moves on and Tesla loses a sale. But since realistically Tesla can only make 35k cars this year, if a potential customer moves on, another one takes their place until the 35k is filled.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • slevental
    , contributor
    Comments (623) | Send Message
     
    @stephenpace : "backlog: 18k Model X. "
    I have the feeling( but no proof) that backlog of X is going up nicely but that of the S is going down, so I believe in the number you have given. It is well known that Americans like SUV when it is affordable. Even GM is currently doing extremely well with SUV and they sell every SUV that they make.
    12 Aug 2014, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • chickensevil
    , contributor
    Comments (743) | Send Message
     
    Actually, I am going to agree, this was a rather pointless "breaking news" alert... I am pretty sure it has said 54 for a few days now... And that is only 4 more than the last update... we haven't crossed a significant milestone, there was no major change in the roll out cycle... this was totally pointless. Anyone who cares enough would already be keeping tabs on this.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    And now, there is news of people waiting at superchargers to charge their cars. More people charging at same time means slower charging; means even longer wait times. Some will eat 2-3 lunches in that time, and just grow obese.

     

    Tesla will need 10 times more superchargers to be built by next year if it keeps selling at today's pace.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    What is breaking news today is the quality dings Tesla got from consumer reports. It's all over the media, though they managed to suppress the drivetrain replacement issues.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • TheBanker
    , contributor
    Comments (1342) | Send Message
     
    If $2000 per car is set aside for the charging network then TSLA can easily build 10 superchargers a day if they see the need.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:21 PM Reply Like
  • Curt Renz
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    @Valueseeker

     

    That news was out yesterday and is not "breaking" today. As i suggested to you yesterday, write a separate Seeking Alpha article about the Consumer Reports article. As was the case yesterday, you again seem desperate to toss in a red herring non sequitor to a Seeking Alpha article to justify your long espoused bearish position on the day after TSLA achieves an all-time closing high.

     

    The Consumer Reports article concedes that the problems were minor. They still glowingly praise the car. The CR car was an early version of the Model S, a first run car for a new company. Glitches will occur, but Tesla engineers aggressively ferret them out to be sure they do not occur in cars being produced now or in the future. The stock market and car buyers understand and appreciate this.

     

    Elon Musk has weekly meetings with his engineers for which the stated goal is to create a service free car. The screen freezing is corrected by a simple reboot as with any computer. CR had many of its employees driving the car. Apparently most did not read the manual, and certainly did not have the personal tutorial provided by a Tesla employee when the car is delivered.

     

    If you had listened to the July 31 conference call, you would know that the drive train noise was due to a piece of cable being struck. That has been fixed and will not happen in cars now being produced. The solution was discovered after replacing drive trains (a small electric motor and inverter) so that any with problems could be examined at the factory. Now they simply send a Tesla Ranger to the car owner and fix the cable. Applaud the company for actively addressing problems and fixing them.

     

    I suggest that you test drive and perhaps even buy a Model S before writing any more of your articles or comments suggesting that people not consider buying the car or shares in the company.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • Curt Renz
    , contributor
    Comments (232) | Send Message
     
    @Valueseeker

     

    And more Superchargers will be built as demand requires. However, I prefer to fly long distances rather than drive. In 99% of the cases, charging overnight at home is not only cheaper, but more convenient than having to find and spend time at a gas station. Meanwhile, Superchargers are free and rarely result in the lines like those seen at Costco and elsewhere.
    12 Aug 2014, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • AGT Tactical
    , contributor
    Comments (84) | Send Message
     
    @ Valueseeker: Did you actually read/watch the Consumer Reports story, including the video? The headline is clearly just meant to grab people's attention, but then goes on to list some fairly minor problems while remaining very positive about the car, In the video, CR states: "There is nothing quite like the Model S. THIS CAR PERFORMS BETTER THAN ANYTHING WE'VE EVER TESTED BEFORE. Let me repeat that. Not just the best electric car, BUT THE BEST CAR."

     

    http://bit.ly/1mDGW3o
    12 Aug 2014, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • Raster
    , contributor
    Comments (690) | Send Message
     
    Im on a supercharger right now, charging at 300 miles per hou.
    12 Aug 2014, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    cnnmoney has it right. It has put this in the 'breaking news' and put up on its front page headline news. This should get people to research the right aspects of this car.

     

    "Breaking: Tesla Model S isn't perfect "
    http://money.cnn.com

     

    Consumer reports' report is heavily biased and lenient in ignoring the zillions of drive train replacements and breakdowns reported by established sources and hundreds of owners. Then, to say that the blanking out of the only control screen is a minor issue is a pure lie.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    It doesn't say what the update was. It could well have not applied to Europe at all, or it could have been more dots being added to the map in the future. It's basically just reporting an RSS item that the map got updated.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • MoneyGrowsOnTrees
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    I accidentally stumbled upon a Tesla charging station off of the freeway in Burlington, Wa. There were 8 chargers in a small little town and not one Tesla using them there. I'm sure the 'waiting lines' won't be a problem in 99% of instances. Must you whine about everything?
    12 Aug 2014, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    @MoneyGrowsOnTrees,
    Obviously, what else do you expect at 2 a.m. in the morning?
    13 Aug 2014, 01:22 AM Reply Like
  • samdehne
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    FREE CHARGING FOR LIFE?
    I do not know how Tesla can afford to let Teslas
    charge for free forever? (I do see that there is an
    initial charge for the free service)
    BUT the energy/power created at the "other end"
    to beef up the batteries has to be very expensive.
    And Tesla is giving an open free for life contract to
    every Tesla owner????
    Why don't the other car companies give away free
    gasoline for life?
    12 Aug 2014, 02:40 PM Reply Like
  • Valueseeker
    , contributor
    Comments (1697) | Send Message
     
    It's is free till the company is in business.
    Obviously, other companies are in there for the long haul, and they care about making some money so they can stay in business for long term, not just the time to vest the stock options.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:11 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    They are offering it for free because the sun is free. Solar energy costs essentially nothing after the capex is amortized. They can include the capex expense in the price of the vehicle, or allow the buyer to add it as a $2K option. By offering it as a free service they are also able to minimize their real estate costs. Owners of roadside service businesses with large parking lots are often willing to sacrifice a few parking spaces at the edge of the lot for free in order to get first shot at the potential customer traffic into their store.
    12 Aug 2014, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • aaronw2
    , contributor
    Comments (215) | Send Message
     
    It actually doesn't cost Tesla that much for the power since most people do most of their charging at home and/or work. Most of the time I only use the superchargers when driving on road trips. There have been times I've used the one local to me when I am low on range and need to charge quickly, but that's rare, especially when charging at home I can get over 50 miles of range per hour.
    12 Aug 2014, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • samdehne
    , contributor
    Comments (235) | Send Message
     
    Here is Tesla's explanation of their World-wide
    Supercharging operations:
    http://bit.ly/1keMNNP
    12 Aug 2014, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • David at Imperial Beach
    , contributor
    Comments (4359) | Send Message
     
    That's customer information. It's not intended to answer investor questions.
    12 Aug 2014, 04:03 PM Reply Like
  • Darren McCammon
    , contributor
    Comments (2140) | Send Message
     
    Yes, TSLA fixes problems for free and has free recharging, but that is not cost free to Tesla or TSLA shareholders. Long investors seem to forget that Tesla is not a social media, internet or software company; they have actual real cost of goods. Thus, they do not deserve the same multiple's as a company with 80%+ gross margin.

     

    Disclosure - short TSLA
    12 Aug 2014, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • surferbroadband
    , contributor
    Comments (3114) | Send Message
     
    You know, I wonder when the shorts are going to give it up? I mean, the superchargers are facts that lead people to consider buying the cars that Tesla makes.

     

    If you can travel across the country using the superchargers for free then why buy as gasoline powered vehicle?

     

    Is anyone at GM, Chrysler and Ford listening? Probably not.
    12 Aug 2014, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • capt601
    , contributor
    Comments (1118) | Send Message
     
    No they are still working like hamsters trying to increase the range of the volt hybrid to 45 miles. And probably increase the size of the gas tank as well.zero clue on designing a charging network that people could use for road trips. As that would, piss off their big oil lover.
    13 Aug 2014, 12:09 AM Reply Like
  • Aussie observer
    , contributor
    Comments (54) | Send Message
     
    I'm curious about the hype surrounding the model x. Isn't this SUV basically the same as the car Toyota tried to market resently powered by a tesla drive train and battery. This venture was a complete flop. Why will the model x be any different?
    I think teslars efforts to sell cars all over the world smacks of desperation more than aspiration . Why not restrict sales to the the US and prove that battery cars are viable alternatives to petrol cars or more importantly a viable alternative to a fuel cell electric.
    I think teslar will drown under the cost of providing free charging stations and free service.
    The infrastructure for hydrogen is very simple and straightforward. Existing service stations can reform hydrogen from natural gas feed stock on site and sell it just like petrol or gas or desiel.
    12 Aug 2014, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • capt601
    , contributor
    Comments (1118) | Send Message
     
    Have you even typed Model X in to a search engine??
    Toyota went the minimal with the Rav 4 EV because they could and couldn't do it on their own. Only 100 mile range. Model x will have same range as model s. Toyota also didn't want to piss of its dealer network with an EV. As they make 69% of their profit from the service center! and EV's don't end up in the service center as much. Which makes it harder to scam consumers for maintenance,

     

    And hydrogen. Really? Put that one in a search as well. Each station is around 1-1.5 million. For 1 pump. California is putting in 19 for the great price of 30 million. Great deal. And hydrogen production uses even more electricity than gasoline production. So hydrogen is a big step backwards. And for consumers, big oil has already gotten its hand in hydrogen production, so don't expect hydrogen to be cheap at the pump. A fill up will end up coati you the same as a gas car- $50-100. Must wait.
    And research storing hydrogen. It's a very small molecule and hard to contain. In the car as well as the tank to hold it at the gas station and truck to deliver it.
    13 Aug 2014, 12:13 AM Reply Like
  • MoneyGrowsOnTrees
    , contributor
    Comments (100) | Send Message
     
    Every time I have to dump more money into fixing my VW it only serves to reinforce that what I am doing (saving for a Model S) is the right thing to do. I just hope the car will make it just a few more months, although I'm not holding my breath with this money pit!
    The fact of the matter is that most everyone, including shorts, will own a Tesla someday. Tesla is the only choice for me at this point and I imagine I'm not alone.
    12 Aug 2014, 07:17 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs