Seeking Alpha

froggey77

froggey77
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View froggey77's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    Jrp3
    "Luckily water is never "consumed", it's just redistributed around the planet. "

    Interesting The people working at Nuclear plants seem to think that the water is getting split into Hydrogen and Oxygen. Which The people at fukushima thought was the reason for hydrogen explosions. Amazing that they could be so wrong. Why don't you go straighten them out.
    BTW by that logic, oil is not consumed either. It's just broken apart and redistributed around the planet.

    BTW Jrp3 According to
    Jfsacal
    "The highest industrial user of electricity in my state is moving water from areas with a lot of it, to the arid population centers. Oil companies use billions of gallons of water to create gasoline."

    Perhaps you should tell him:
    "Luckily water is never "consumed", it's just redistributed around the planet.

    So Jfsacal do you feel better now?.

    How about this:
    Luckily water used in fracking isn't consumed, it's just "Redistributed". Possibly a mile or two underground.

    Equally foolish, is the idea that people, who have no water to drink, can celebrate; as their water was not consumed by a powerplant. Rather "Redistributed" through evaporation to somewhere else on the planet.

    Such as the mid Atlantic?

    I'm sure California farmers are happy to know their local water is only going to be "Redistributed" somewhere else, as it's used to power water thirsty EVs while their crops, wither and die.

    You're as concerned about the environment as ever. I'm glad to see you got a like for that foolishness.
    Jul 6, 2015. 12:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    Wow I shouldn't have hurried so much last night.
    Two problems
    1. Steam and electricity are not necessarily in equivalent amounts. I can't say which is bigger.

    2.
    While 17 times the water is withdrawn it is returned for later use The "Consumed" water is more important; unless it is not available for a drought. (I know Texas was having this problem.) Power plants may have to be shut down. Maybe I will expand on this when I have more time.

    "3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile)"
    so

    Which would mean 66.6% of all electricity would have to be renewable powered to break even with ICE. 40% (your number ) would mean Tesla's on average are presently consuming 1.8 times the water of equivalant miles driven by.

    Happy 4th of July
    Jul 4, 2015. 12:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    Jfsacal

    "No. That is incomplete. Oil refineries also use grid electricity. In fact in my state oil refineries are the second highest users of grid electricity."

    Oil companies to save money combine their by products so that two refineries (Often of different companies combine their resources to make a separate company which creates electricity. The two (or more companies) then purchase the electricity from the third company. Hence buying from "the Grid"

    Note the purchased steam?
    http://1.usa.gov/zR96n5
    On average here is shy of 3 times the electricity. Steam can only be produced very close to the refinery. This would be from a pair of refineries which were physically very close to one another and formed a third entity to share resources including the produced steam and electricity.
    I'm not going to claim no refinery anywhere is purchasing electricity but the amount is very small.

    "The highest industrial user of electricity in my state is moving water from areas with a lot of it, to the arid population centers. Oil companies use billions of gallons of water to create gasoline. "

    While true; this is not even close to what the power companies use.

    The Water Intensity of the Plugged-In Automotive Economy
    http://bit.ly/1LNqNci
    "Converting light-duty vehicles from full gasoline power to electric power, by using either hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric power vehicles, is likely to increase demand for water resources. In the United States in 2005, drivers of 234 million cars, light trucks, and SUVs drove approximately 2.7 trillion miles and consumed over 380 million gallons of gasoline per day. We compare figures from literature and government surveys to calculate the water usage, consumption, and withdrawal, in the United States during petroleum refining and electricity generation. In displacing gasoline miles with electric miles, approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation. Overall, we conclude that the impact on water resources from a widespread shift to grid-based transportation would be substantial enough to warrant consideration for relevant public policy decision-making. That is not to say that the negative impacts on water resources make such a shift undesirable, but rather this increase in water usage presents a significant potential impact on regional water resources and should be considered when planning for a plugged-in automotive economy."

    17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) (For an EV)

    As 40% of Tesla drivers have PV to power their cars (Your number) 60% use the grid.
    So all Tesla users combined use 17 X .6 = 10.2 times the water used buy an equivalent number miles by ICE.
    Jul 3, 2015. 08:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Has A Graphite Problem [View article]
    oildeathspiral
    Zelaza is correct. Some do sell electricity to the grid in their own name.
    Here is a list of companies that sell electricity to the grid in Texas.
    http://bit.ly/1KtoTvD

    If you add up just the Exxon refineries. You'll see it approaches a gigawatt.
    Jul 1, 2015. 09:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In Summary, The Tesla Model S Is A Dirty Car [View article]
    He was probably drawn here by the guy below, who wanted to advertise his own site, left a comment the day before.
    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Jun 28, 2015. 04:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In Summary, The Tesla Model S Is A Dirty Car [View article]
    Maury

    "I noticed that the one number not linked to a source was this one. Looking it up, this number is simply wrong. The US carbon intensity in electrical generation has been falling rapidly and currently sits at around 500 g/kWh.

    From the EIA I find the total CO2 release in 2014 for the electrical sector:"

    You came to an article that came out May 13, 2013 and complained the author didn't use 2014 data?

    UM ... OK.....

    Another EV fan I take it
    "This article seeks to conclude that the Tesla is bad.
    In fact, the only real conclusion here is what we knew all along, the US power supply is bad."

    Oh yea a real genius

    You seek to conclude ICE are bad.
    In fact, the only real conclusion here is what we knew all along, the gas supply is bad.

    Yup clean gas and the pollution goes away. After all its not the vehicle that pollutes its the oil.
    Unfortunately a vehicle is powered by what it is powered by and the pollution from the energy it needs is part and parcel of driving it.

    http://tinyurl.com/oz4...

    "Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?
    Stephen P. Holland, Erin T. Mansur, Nicholas Z. Muller, Andrew J. Yates

    NBER Working Paper No. 21291
    Issued in June 2015
    NBER Program(s): EEE

    Electric vehicles offer the promise of reduced environmental externalities relative to their gasoline counterparts. We combine a theoretical discrete-choice model of new vehicle purchases, an econometric analysis of the marginal emissions from electricity, and the AP2 air pollution model to estimate the environmental benefit of electric vehicles. First, we find considerable variation in the environmental benefit, implying a range of second-best electric vehicle purchase subsidies from $3025 in California to -$4773 in North Dakota, with a mean of -$742. Second, over ninety percent of local environmental externalities from driving an electric vehicle in one state are exported to others, implying that electric vehicles may be subsidized locally, even though they may lead to negative environmental benefits overall. Third, geographically differentiated subsidies can reduce deadweight loss, but only modestly. Fourth, the current federal purchase subsidy of $7500 has greater deadweight loss than a no-subsidy policy. "

    .
    Here's another from the National Academies of Sciences.

    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    "EVs powered by grid-average electricity also have greater negative impacts than do vehicles powered by gasoline."

    "Scenarios with substantially decreased air quality-related health impacts compared with gasoline include gasoline hybrid vehicles (30% decrease) and EVs powered by natural gas or by WWS (50% and 70% decrease, respectively); scenarios with substantially higher damages than gasoline include corn ethanol (80% increase) and EVs powered by grid average or coal electricity (200% and 350% increase, respectively). "

    The average grid powered EV causes twice the damages of an ICE.
    Yes powered by solar wind etc an EV can be cleaner but for most people they won't be.
    Try looking at more than CO2.
    Jun 27, 2015. 11:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uber Highlights Just How Aggressive Tesla's Revolver Is [View article]
    Surfer
    One thing
    the above linked studies looked at the Air impacts of the vehicles the water impacts are worse for EVs also.

    "Converting light-duty vehicles from full gasoline power to electric power, by using either hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric power vehicles, is likely to increase demand for water resources. In the United States in 2005, drivers of 234 million cars, light trucks, and SUVs drove approximately 2.7 trillion miles and consumed over 380 million gallons of gasoline per day. We compare figures from literature and government surveys to calculate the water usage, consumption, and withdrawal, in the United States during petroleum refining and electricity generation. In displacing gasoline miles with electric miles, approximately 3 times more water is consumed (0.32 versus 0.07–0.14 gallons/mile) and over 17 times more water is withdrawn (10.6 versus 0.6 gallons/mile) primarily due to increased water cooling of thermoelectric power plants to accommodate increased electricity generation. Overall, we conclude that the impact on water resources from a widespread shift to grid-based transportation would be substantial enough to warrant consideration for relevant public policy decision-making. That is not to say that the negative impacts on water resources make such a shift undesirable, but rather this increase in water usage presents a significant potential impact on regional water resources and should be considered when planning for a plugged-in automotive economy."
    Add water costs to your EV and look at the drought prone areas when you look at EV sales maps when you consider costs as well.

    BTW if you can find a study to refute any of the above studies; that is anything other than a study of CO2 I'd be happy to see it.
    I will concede CO2 to the EV.
    Jun 24, 2015. 08:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Uber Highlights Just How Aggressive Tesla's Revolver Is [View article]
    New study out this month by the National Bureau of Economic Research specific to the economics of Cheaper:

    http://washex.am/1NiCt4H

    Electric cars are worse for the environment per mile than comparable gasoline-powered cars, according to a new study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. This contradicts the common assumption that electric cars are cleaner. In spite of this, the federal government still pays $7,500 for every electric car purchased — a subsidy the nation would be better off without, say the authors.


    This is to the study but beyond the abstract is a pay for it.

    Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles?
    Stephen P. Holland, Erin T. Mansur, Nicholas Z. Muller, Andrew J. Yates

    NBER Working Paper No. 21291
    Issued in June 2015
    NBER Program(s): EEE

    "Electric vehicles offer the promise of reduced environmental externalities relative to their gasoline counterparts. We combine a theoretical discrete-choice model of new vehicle purchases, an econometric analysis of the marginal emissions from electricity, and the AP2 air pollution model to estimate the environmental benefit of electric vehicles. First, we find considerable variation in the environmental benefit, implying a range of second-best electric vehicle purchase subsidies from $3025 in California to -$4773 in North Dakota, with a mean of -$742. Second, over ninety percent of local environmental externalities from driving an electric vehicle in one state are exported to others, implying that electric vehicles may be subsidized locally, even though they may lead to negative environmental benefits overall. Third, geographically differentiated subsidies can reduce deadweight loss, but only modestly. Fourth, the current federal purchase subsidy of $7500 has greater deadweight loss than a no-subsidy policy. "

    On average EVs across the country cost more than they save in the cleanest areas.

    Yes by having home PV panels if your car is at home during charging times or if you have batteries to store it you can have a cleaner car than an ICE. But across the country EVs are a mistake on the US grid.
    Jun 24, 2015. 07:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uber Highlights Just How Aggressive Tesla's Revolver Is [View article]
    Surfer
    "3) Electricity is cheaper and more efficient than ICE ( no argument against this one )"

    Cheaper? Assuming you ignore the health costs of a grid that is about 39% coal. If you consider that it is more expensive.

    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    "EVs powered by grid-average electricity also have greater negative impacts than do vehicles powered by gasoline."

    "Scenarios with substantially decreased air quality-related health impacts compared with gasoline include gasoline hybrid vehicles (30% decrease) and EVs powered by natural gas or by WWS (50% and 70% decrease, respectively); scenarios with substantially higher damages than gasoline include corn ethanol (80% increase) and EVs powered by grid average or coal electricity (200% and 350% increase, respectively). "

    The average grid powered EV causes twice the damages of an ICE.

    And yes the study considered geographic location of where the pollution occurred.

    "2) Large % ( +70%) of consumers are concerned about the "Environment""

    Too bad they don't know that in most of the country EVs cause twice the damages of an ICE.
    Some day the drumbeat of articles will get the truth out.

    Electric car benefits? Just myths
    It is time to stop our green worship of the electric car. It costs us a fortune, cuts little CO2 and surprisingly kills almost twice the number of people compared with regular gasoline cars.
    http://usat.ly/1DAag7U

    "Electricity is" ..... "more efficient than ICE"

    Only if you ignore the production and distribution of Electricity.
    The average powerplant is 35% efficient a 65% loss.
    Add a 7% loss from the transmission grid
    Depending on the power source Coal, Nuke, NG, you have a couple of % loss there.
    Also according to the folks on the Tesla forum the MS (After the 5% or so vampire loads were gotten rid of) has a 15-20% loss in charging. (The Leaf is about 84% efficient.)
    http://bit.ly/1LoSUNV

    Oil to gas in your car has a total energy loss of 18%
    And please none of the nonsense about it taking massive amounts of electricity to make a gallon of gas from oil.
    Here is a link to companies that sell electricity to the grid in Texas. Note the refiners they need heat more than electricity and co-generate. The refineries of Exxon alone sell nearly a gigawatt of electricity to the grid.
    http://bit.ly/Pr6fuz

    The greater efficiency of an electric motor brings the lower efficiency of electrical generation up to about par with an ICE.

    You should stick to "EVs are more efficient than ICE." This statement is at least true. While it's intellectually dishonest, perhaps people won't know you don't know what you are talking about.
    Jun 24, 2015. 06:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Hedge Funds Turning Bearish On Tesla Motors? [View article]
    767

    "And, yes EVs pollute even more than conventional cars if manufacturing, disposal, and electricity generation are taken into account."

    please educate yourself :

    http://bit.ly/1n8AKmE
    Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Carbon Emissions Around the Globe

    This study only considers CO2
    If you add in all of the health damages caused by coal you end up with a different story.
    http://bit.ly/1I3d4wG
    Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States
    "scenarios with substantially higher damages than gasoline include corn ethanol (80% increase) and EVs powered by grid average or coal electricity (200% and 350% increase, respectively). "

    http://bit.ly/1C28VkO
    "Coal Makes Electric Cars Bad? No, Plug-Ins Show Coal As Bad"
    This one is just laughable.
    Try this
    Oil Makes ICE Cars Bad? No ICE Show Gas As Bad
    (After all it's not the car that makes pollution it's the gas.)
    An incredibly stupid premise. None of the commenters seemed to notice tho.
    The defense in the article also is CO2 and seem to use the same links you did.

    http://bit.ly/H6FYii
    Union of concerned Scientists who are only talking about CO2.
    Here try their page on The pollution from coal plants
    Mercury, lead, uranium, arsenic .... but they don't cause climate change so they are OK? Health damages are worse. See my first link.

    http://bit.ly/1BjHCYT
    This gives a "Page not found" error

    None of the next 3 links related to his comment.

    So his comment
    "And, yes EVs pollute even more than conventional cars if manufacturing, disposal, and electricity generation are taken into account."

    Is true. You only considered CO2 his his more general "pollution".

    and

    "Currently, and until some major discovery in science is made, it is impossible to build EVs economically."

    As to your point batteries are going down that's true. However there is only one car maker who is willing to fess up to the cost of their EV.
    "Fiat Loses $14,000 Every Time Someone Buys Their Electric Car"
    http://bit.ly/UPIkIw
    I expect it will be some time before they can actually compete with an ICE on price.

    As long as you look at only one thing, in your case CO2, you can claim an EV is cleaner. But if you cave a coal plant in the mix EVs are dirtier.

    "Try educating yourself."
    Jun 18, 2015. 07:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Motors pops over $260 as Baron Capital sings praises again [View news story]
    Jimi
    "What sales volume does Tesla need to reach break-even? "

    The only serious attempt I can remember was by Nick Butcher in 2012
    http://seekingalpha.co...

    He failed but the article might help for someone trying to guess. Here is the conclusion.

    "Hitting breakeven as a company would require the ModelS line to generate a profit of around $110Mil/Qtr (a little less in reality - the profits from the drivetrain group help), which would occur at around 23,000 units/annum. If they hit the 30,000/annum mark, mentioned by Musk in the Q2 results call, they'd be seriously profitable (which would be nice considering the deep stockholders' equity hole they're currently in), but it is going to take that sort of number. "

    As you can see at well over even the high number it's no where even close to profitably.
    In the comment section there were multiple posts by John Petersen (CPA) who gave several comments fleshing out numbers and points in the article that Nick agreed with. (Something that may never have occurred in any of their other comments to each other.)

    Herman_Jackson also wrote a series of comments to come to an estimate on that article. He was commenting from a bottom up perspective where as the article was more of a top down view.
    Jun 18, 2015. 06:24 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's Crushing Battery Supply Constraints [View article]
    Advil
    You came to a two year old article to misstate the authors message?
    "Problem here, if you read the article is that " ALL" already know lithium mines available in the planet in a decent possibility are already here, THERE IS NO MORE."

    At no point did the author mention mines nor even lithium supply problems.
    He talked about batteries, the scarcity of manufacturing of them. That's why Tesla is working on the Gigafactory

    From the article:
    "The implications of Mr. Musk's on-air battery discussion are staggering. Even if Tesla could lock up 100% the world's lithium-ion cell manufacturing capacity, it could only build a few hundred thousand cars a year. "

    Nothing about Lithium scarcity at all.

    What a waste.
    Jun 14, 2015. 05:04 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kandi Technologies sinks to 52-week low [View news story]
    " they found nothing wrong. don't be hating"

    Not hating just not being silly either.
    My question is these are unproven allegations.
    You state they are as guilty as can be.
    You've convinced me you are a paid pumper. No stockholder in there right mind would feel it is OK for the company to rip of stockholders as long as they didn't get caught.

    Frankly I couldn't make the management look as bad as you did even if I was trying.
    Jun 10, 2015. 08:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Kandi Technologies sinks to 52-week low [View news story]

    "SEC found no wrong doing."

    "136.
    In approximately September 2009, Tazbaz and Lockhart traveled to China to meet with Kandi’s CEO. In that meeting, Kandi’s CEO reached an oral agreement with Tazbaz and Lockhart as follows:
    a.
    Kandi agreed to provide Tazbaz and Lockhart with 350,000 additional shares of Kandi;"
    ...
    "c.
    In exchange, Tazbaz and Lockhart agreed to pay U.S. stock promoters to tout Kandi; and
    d.
    Tazbaz and Lockhart further agreed to orchestrate U.S. stock promoters to manipulate the trading of Kandi stock to increase its price to at least $3 per share within three months "

    Yep. Completely cleared.
    What me worry?
    Jun 9, 2015. 08:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kandi Technologies sinks to 52-week low [View news story]

    "i have faith in kandi was not doing anything wrong. i believe the other guys were doing the wrong doing."

    So you have faith that: Kandi without a contract gave some people 350,000 shares of Kandi. Yet Kandi had no idea that something questionable was being agreed to?

    To that I can only say Wow!
    Jun 8, 2015. 05:44 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,846 Comments
1,217 Likes