Slashdot Mirror

Nonsense, the Model S is leading the luxury segment by a long way. https://cleantechnica.com/2018...

They make a profit on every car, it just takes a while for production to increase for those profits to accumulate to cover the costs of development, i know that hard to understand that but keep at it and you'll understand eventually

The Model S leads the luxury segment in sales https://cleantechnica.com/2018...

The ford Model A was a bargain basement model. Tesla are hardly aiming at that market segment.

Go here : here and click on August and see how they are doing relative to similarly priced models today.

Here's a good example of a real-life measurement you can use to determine how much fabrication goes into the average AC statement, because Tesla has around a 20% profit margin per car - 5x higher than Ford.

Can you explain why you think they are actually making 20% profit per can though they often cite 'deliveries' as a financial metric when the more deliveries that occur the more money they lose?

So when you look at what happens here you're comparing Apples and Oranges, in Tesla's case they take some of the COGS expenses and count them as an SG&A expense instead which excludes them where Ford's number do not, so naturally comparing a gross margin in that case makes no sense because you're comparing 2 different things.

Moreover Tesla does not include R&D costs in its gross margin calculations where other automakers do, so again the comparison is way off. They also have a higher gross margin on lease cars, now why would that be? Is it cheaper to build lease cars? No, of course not. They do some tricky accounting here as a way to again, inflate the gross margin and have people like you claiming they make 20% profit on their cars ... which should immediately be questionable to even the least active mind given their astronomical quarterly losses.

Tesla has around a 20% profit margin per car - 5x higher than Ford. Kind of a lot different than "losing money on every car".

So presumably you read the article you linked? Did you really not find the use of 'gross margin' for Tesla's calculations to be a little strange? If not then it's time for you to be educated, here's a handy explainer for you.

Hey, when you sell cars below cost

Well we all know AC's lie, but by how much?

Here's a good example of a real-life measurement you can use to determine how much fabrication goes into the average AC statement, because Tesla has around a 20% profit margin per car - 5x higher than Ford. Kind of a lot different than "losing money on every car".

Hey, who you gonna believe, a smooth-talking AC where *certainly* has nothing against Tesla, or your lying Ars?

Only Accord, Civic, Corolla and Camry outsold Model 3 in August. It is not a 1% 's car. More like 2%'s car. Very few outside the 5% buy brand new cars. 95% of Americans buy used vehicles. 90% of the Americans are driving used vehicles they bought below 20K.

Model S and X can be legitimately called 1%'s car. But Model 3 is affordable for about 30% of the people who buy new cars. https://cleantechnica.com/2018...

Elon isn't changing jack shit. And you people do realize that there are several new auto and truck makers, don't you?

Here are some shipping now. Not vaporware or pie-in-the-sky promises.

I know, I know - If Musk isn't doing it, it doesn't exist.

I'm not sure what the margin is, but I found a recent article on how much it costs Tesla: about $100 per kWh for cells, and "within two years" they hope to be under $100 per kWh for finished battery packs.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/06/09/100-kwh-tesla-battery-cells-this-year-100-kwh-tesla-battery-packs-in-2020/

I also found a 2017 article where Audi claims to be paying around 100 Euros (about $114) for one kWh of battery cells. This is a much lower price than I expected. And, a year ago? How is Audi doing that?

https://electrek.co/2017/06/28/audi-electric-car-battery-cost/

The majors have a lot of revenue to throw at it

Yeah, but the majors may find that there isn't enough capacity on the market to make mass quantities of battery cells. Tesla's GigaFactory now makes over half of all EV battery cells, and only Tesla gets those.

I think Audi is planning to sell in Model S quantities, not Model 3 quantities.

Long term, Tesla will face a serious issue with their build costs. That's where the majors will clean their clocks. They know how to run the supply chain, drive costs down on volume and build cars accurately and quickly. Tesla will struggle there too. Their margin for error is very small.

On the other hand, Tesla built their own battery factory, and they get all the batteries they need at the lowest possible cost. Battery cost is a huge chunk of the cost of an EV.

The Chevy Bolt is believed to sell at a $9000 loss per car; EV credits make up the difference. Chevy doesn't have a battery factory.

So will the new Mercedes EV be a low-volume car like the Bolt, profitable mainly due to EV credits? For it to really hurt Tesla, Mercedes would have to be able to undercut Tesla on cost while still being profitable. This seems unlikely to me.

Also, it appears that Tesla has smoothed out the problems with the Model 3 factory. I expect them now to build one, or even two, additional factories (first one in China, second one in Europe) to make batteries and cars. If Tesla gets three factories going, building 5000 cars per week at each factory, and making USD$10000 per car... that would be quite a revenue stream. And Tesla can get there faster than Mercedes or any other legacy car maker can.

Tesla could have been strangled in its crib when it was a baby. I think it's too late now and Tesla is going to be huge.

America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner

How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.

Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.: 1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.

You idiot. you can't just say it's likely with no evidence whatsoever.

After declining by 0.9% in 2017, EIA forecasts that energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will rise by 2.0% in 2018. The increase largely reflects higher natural gas consumption because of a colder winter and warmer summer than in 2017.

2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.

You liar, I've already showed you before that transport is increasing. Not just as a percentage, but the level of CO2 is increasing as can be easily seen on the graph. Last time I showed you the t of CO2. Why still lie about it now?

3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these. We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch. Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year. BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with. THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones. In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards. What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.

tiny and not growing

Electrified vehicles continue to see slow growth and less use than conventional vehicles

America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner

How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.

Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.: 1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.

You idiot. you can't just say it's likely with no evidence whatsoever.

After declining by 0.9% in 2017, EIA forecasts that energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will rise by 2.0% in 2018. The increase largely reflects higher natural gas consumption because of a colder winter and warmer summer than in 2017.

2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.

You liar, I've already showed you before that transport is increasing. Not just as a percentage, but the level of CO2 is increasing as can be easily seen on the graph. Last time I showed you the t of CO2. Why still lie about it now?

3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these. We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch. Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year. BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with. THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones. In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards. What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.

tiny and not growing

Electrified vehicles continue to see slow growth and less use than conventional vehicles

America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner

How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.

Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.:
1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these.
We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch.
Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year.
BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with.
THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones.
In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards.
What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.

America will very likely be below 10 before 2025, if not sooner

How? Following this data, even a continued linear trend extrapolated from the most favourable scenario of -0.35 per year would put the US at around 12 in 2025, with only falling under 10 in the 2030s.

Disregard the linear trend. That assumes that everything remains the same, which will NOT be the case.:
1) Nearly all of America's CO2 cuts has been caused by the killing of the coal plants and replacing with Nat Gas and Wind. That will likely continue in spite of Trump's push.
2) Because of the massive focus that America has had on cutting CO2 from electricity, that has dropped as %, while Transportation % has risen. That does not mean that emissions from transportation has risen, just the % of our output has.
3) Over the next 3-6 years, the west and china will be moving heavily to EVs. In America, Commercial and passenger vehicles are all moving to these.
We have lots of new buses that are moving to EV with both BYD and Proterra. This is forcing other bus companies, even school buses to switch.
Tesla producing a Semi truck that does 600 MPC is going to put a LOT of pressure on ICE version of semis. Delivery starts in less than a year.
BYD is producing a Semi that gets less than 200 MPC, though lots of quality issues with.
THis is leading to multiple other companies producing EV semis, as well as new ones.
In addition, we have Rivian about to introduce both a pick-up truck and a 3 row SUV in 2020(to be shown in Nov at LA show) with more to follow afterwards.
What does that mean? It means that by 2024, EVs will almost certainly occupy at least 1/2 of ALL road-based vehicle sales, if not more. The average passenger vehicle in America is around 11.5 years. Basically, ppl have been holding off on buying cars, which is why Ford decided to kill sedans here. Point is, come around 2020/1, lots of vehicles are going to be bought and I would guess that few will want an ICE. Ideally Rivian and Tesla will be able to convince most F1, F2, F3 buyers to switch.

I leased the electric Fit. Would still have it if my daughter didn't crash it (into my car thus totaling both!).

I think using the word "abandoned" gives the wrong message. The cars were universally loved by everyone I knew who had one. Honda did a limited build of only a couple thousand cars... They were all hand built compliance cars. But they were very very popular with the lessors (it was lease only, you couldn't buy them).

I'm sure Honda lost a lot of money on each one, because hey, it was a compliance car. But now they may be bringing it back: https://cleantechnica.com/2018...

If they can really build one for sale with 180 miles of range (the one we had was EPA 85 or so - not really enough for Boston in the winter) for $18,000 I would definitely buy one (or two ). They were a very good car.

Bull Shit.
Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis?
Solar per capita in 2012; Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person.
Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia. Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.

Lets do wind now. Here is wind in 2012 We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person.
Here is wind in 2014 America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.

All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.

Bull Shit.
Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis?
Solar per capita in 2012; Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person.
Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia. Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.

Lets do wind now. Here is wind in 2012 We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person.
Here is wind in 2014 America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.

All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.

Bull Shit.
Look, My objection is to building new fossil plants esp. new coal plants which are by far the worst.
But, you want to look at numbers? Fine.
One that you far lefties throw around is per capita. So, how do nations compare in per capita basis?
Solar per capita in 2012; Germany obviously #1 with 473 watts/person, while America is #20 with 58 watts. China is #28 with 21 watts / person.
Here is installed Solar capacity per person in 2017
Several things here. The first is that per capita, Germany is #1 with 500 watts, America has moved up to 12 place with 124 watts / capitia. while, CHina barely moved up to #24, with 56 watts / capitia. Oddly, America is the #1 for adding solar per capita in 2016 with 46 watts / person. Austrlia was #2 with 31 watts / person. China did not even add 20 watts / person.

Lets do wind now. Here is wind in 2012 We see that Denmark is at the top with some 760 W / person. Spain is #2 with ~500 w/person. USA is #9 with ~190 W / person. China is #19 with ~ 60 watts / person.
You see that per person, America was #3 at adding wind at ~40 watts / person. China was #17 with adding about 10 watts / person.
Here is wind in 2014 America has dropped to #10, with 207 watts / person. China did move up #14, with 71 watts / person.

All in all, America is up amongst the top WRT AE, and nuke power.
And If AMerica was more like CHina and India, the world would be further fucked than where we are.

Tesla has been hit with a torrent of fake news recently, trying to drive the stock down.

Most obviously and recently was the following:

1) Someone (not Tesla) posted that 23% of Tesla reservations have been cancelled.
2) Based on #1, an analyst downgraded the stock from "hold" to "underperform".
3) Tesla stock plummeted
4) Tesla notices #1 above and responded:

Dunno where this bs is coming from. Who knows about the future, but last week we had over 2000 S/X and 5000 Model 3 *new* net orders. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 20, 2018

(Note: Tesla makes about 6,000 cars/month, so an increase of 7000 cars puts them even further behind on reservations. And as noted in the link below, they have not started showing them in stores yet, so Tesla has yet to tap the "drive before they buy" potential pool of customers.)

Word on the street is that shorts are running scared, doing everything they can to drive down the stock price. Including insider sabotage, misleading financial spin, and online harassment such as the OP.

This is basically the last-ditch effort of Tesla bears to drive the stock down. Once the next two quarters financials are in, there will be no case for shorting Tesla stock whatsoever.

Has this crap surfaced _again_? It's been debunked about a half dozen times that I'm aware of.

It used to be known as windstalks.

Lots of promises, lots of graphics, lots of seed funding, lots of models, NO at-scale working prototypes.

https://cleantechnica.com/2015...

1) The normal lifespan of the batteries is 15 years, not 3-5.

2) Consumer lithium ion batteries usually aren't recycled because they're tiny things that are more trouble than they're worth. EV and grid storage battery packs most definitely are recycled. For obvious reasons, because people want the large amounts of nickel, cobalt and lithium therein back. Right now Tesla's batteries are recycled by third party contractors, although eventually they want to incorporate the recycling process directly into their Gigafactories as a feedstock.

3) They do not have any unusual level of toxicity. The cathodes are in the form of inert metal oxides. The anodes are graphite. I cannot comment on the electrolyte as I don't know which one they're using - probably boron trifluoride or lithium hexafluoride. They decompose in nature to simple fluorine compounds. High levels of exposure to these can cause fluorosis, but there's no way you're going to consume more fluoride from "leaked batteries" (as if people were just stockpiling them, see #2) vs. from water fluoridation. As for lithium itself, we should probably be consuming more, not less (and again, see #2).

I have had PR firms offer me the service, while I've been a corporate officer.

Read the story here. The people who have bought shorts have billions at stake. They are very motivated to pay for this.

Tesla consistently shows increase in unit costs with increased production volume

Flatly contradicted by the quarterly reports, but hey, this is Slashdot, make up whatever you want. :)

And there is no "momentum" either

Yeah, about that...
About that...

Tesla has repeatedly failed their promises, for example that of 6000 model 3 cars/weekly by end of June,

Do you not even read what you link? Literally, the very first sentence:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) is aiming to ramp up production to 6,000 Model 3 cars per week by the end of June to reach its weekly goal of 5,000 and allow for a margin of error

What bullshit is this?

Your inability to use google is bullshit.

links?

Here you go. Not only are chinese panels dirtier if landfilled, but there's twice as much CO2 in their production.

Lynnwood is correct. Facts over feelings, please...

It was stagnating years before. Then California passed some rules to fast track solar installs which basically bailed out some big companies, bypassing inspections and allowing non-electricians to install solar installations.

And even with that residential is still expected to stay pretty much flat.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017...

Lets see. Global Leaf sales are headed right now for 100K/year
Though in April, global sales plummeted, while in may they came back a bit
OTOH, Model 3 is working towards 250K / year. And unlike the leaf, they have pre-sold enough that if they delivered .5M / year, they would still be busy.

What profits??? Tesla has NO PROFITS.

Wow, this isn't the first time you have said this right here on Slashdot. I remember you saying it, and I remember the flurry of posts trying to educate you as to why you were mistaken on this point. I guess you just didn't learn anything. Or maybe you prefer alternate facts?

Tesla is believed to make over $20K per Model S and Model X. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/27/how-tesla-motors-could-be-profitable-if-it-wanted.aspx

Tesla is expected to make about a 25% profit margin on each Model 3 once they hit the production rate of 5000 cars per month. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/14/tesla-model-3-gross-margins/

It's dishonest to take all the money they make on car sales, then divide it by all the expenses they have (R&D, building out the Supercharger network, etc.) and claim that they are losing money on each car sold. No, they are making money on each car sold, and then spending it all, plus more money they borrowed, on all their growth plans. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/13/why-tesla-is-a-very-profitable-company-tesla-bankwuptcy-explained-part-2/

Note that GM is believed to lose about $9K per Chevy Bolt sold; the car only pencils out because of EV credits. Tesla is on track to make more money per Model 3 than GM loses. If GM wants to get serious about EVs, then GM needs to invest heavily in battery technology the way Tesla did. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

Not only is Tesla now very cost-efficient on battery cells due to having their own factory, they have developed their own next-generation battery pack technology. According to this teardown the Tesla Model 3 battery pack contains advanced technology unlike anything that came before. If you like geeky discussions of technology, you will enjoy reading this link: http://evtv.me/2018/05/tesla-model-3-gone-battshit/

Elon Musk has said that 2018 is going to be the year where Tesla starts making money. He has a simple plan: cut any excessive expenses (such as contractors that hire subcontractors that hire subcontractors; Musk compared this to a "Russian Doll") and get Model 3 production above 5000 per month. You will only have to wait a few months to see if he was correct in this prediction. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-be-profitable-in-q3-and-q4/

What profits??? Tesla has NO PROFITS.

Wow, this isn't the first time you have said this right here on Slashdot. I remember you saying it, and I remember the flurry of posts trying to educate you as to why you were mistaken on this point. I guess you just didn't learn anything. Or maybe you prefer alternate facts?

Tesla is believed to make over $20K per Model S and Model X. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/27/how-tesla-motors-could-be-profitable-if-it-wanted.aspx

Tesla is expected to make about a 25% profit margin on each Model 3 once they hit the production rate of 5000 cars per month. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/14/tesla-model-3-gross-margins/

It's dishonest to take all the money they make on car sales, then divide it by all the expenses they have (R&D, building out the Supercharger network, etc.) and claim that they are losing money on each car sold. No, they are making money on each car sold, and then spending it all, plus more money they borrowed, on all their growth plans. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/13/why-tesla-is-a-very-profitable-company-tesla-bankwuptcy-explained-part-2/

Note that GM is believed to lose about $9K per Chevy Bolt sold; the car only pencils out because of EV credits. Tesla is on track to make more money per Model 3 than GM loses. If GM wants to get serious about EVs, then GM needs to invest heavily in battery technology the way Tesla did. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

Not only is Tesla now very cost-efficient on battery cells due to having their own factory, they have developed their own next-generation battery pack technology. According to this teardown the Tesla Model 3 battery pack contains advanced technology unlike anything that came before. If you like geeky discussions of technology, you will enjoy reading this link: http://evtv.me/2018/05/tesla-model-3-gone-battshit/

Elon Musk has said that 2018 is going to be the year where Tesla starts making money. He has a simple plan: cut any excessive expenses (such as contractors that hire subcontractors that hire subcontractors; Musk compared this to a "Russian Doll") and get Model 3 production above 5000 per month. You will only have to wait a few months to see if he was correct in this prediction. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-be-profitable-in-q3-and-q4/

What profits??? Tesla has NO PROFITS.

Wow, this isn't the first time you have said this right here on Slashdot. I remember you saying it, and I remember the flurry of posts trying to educate you as to why you were mistaken on this point. I guess you just didn't learn anything. Or maybe you prefer alternate facts?

Tesla is believed to make over $20K per Model S and Model X. https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/03/27/how-tesla-motors-could-be-profitable-if-it-wanted.aspx

Tesla is expected to make about a 25% profit margin on each Model 3 once they hit the production rate of 5000 cars per month. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/14/tesla-model-3-gross-margins/

It's dishonest to take all the money they make on car sales, then divide it by all the expenses they have (R&D, building out the Supercharger network, etc.) and claim that they are losing money on each car sold. No, they are making money on each car sold, and then spending it all, plus more money they borrowed, on all their growth plans. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/05/13/why-tesla-is-a-very-profitable-company-tesla-bankwuptcy-explained-part-2/

Note that GM is believed to lose about $9K per Chevy Bolt sold; the car only pencils out because of EV credits. Tesla is on track to make more money per Model 3 than GM loses. If GM wants to get serious about EVs, then GM needs to invest heavily in battery technology the way Tesla did. https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

Not only is Tesla now very cost-efficient on battery cells due to having their own factory, they have developed their own next-generation battery pack technology. According to this teardown the Tesla Model 3 battery pack contains advanced technology unlike anything that came before. If you like geeky discussions of technology, you will enjoy reading this link: http://evtv.me/2018/05/tesla-model-3-gone-battshit/

Elon Musk has said that 2018 is going to be the year where Tesla starts making money. He has a simple plan: cut any excessive expenses (such as contractors that hire subcontractors that hire subcontractors; Musk compared this to a "Russian Doll") and get Model 3 production above 5000 per month. You will only have to wait a few months to see if he was correct in this prediction. https://techcrunch.com/2018/04/13/elon-musk-says-tesla-will-be-profitable-in-q3-and-q4/

Solar is cheaper than NG, coal, nuclear. Solar with battery can easily compete with any fossil fuel.
Here is a good comparison that shows its cheaper. This is from two years ago. Solar is much cheaper now.
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...

The goal in 2014 was 500k per year by 2020. They should hit that in early 2019. That was still the goal in August 2015, although they were talking that they might be able to exceed it. First deliveries - not 5k per week, but first-off-the-line - were to be "late 2017". So rather than "by the end of July" for the first delivery, it was to be "by the end of December", six months later.

The goal in 2014 was 500k per year by 2020. They should hit that in early 2019. That was still the goal in August 2015, although they were talking that they might be able to exceed it. First deliveries - not 5k per week, but first-off-the-line - were to be "late 2017". So rather than "by the end of July" for the first delivery, it was to be "by the end of December", six months later.

The Model S and Model X are high cost to try and actually make money off of them. Pretty much the only reason Tesla has lasted this long, and gotten this far, is by aiming high and building brand reputation. There's just no margin in $35K vehicles and they'd never sell without the branding to back them up.

You aren't quite correct here.

It's true that the price of the Model S and Model X is high to make a profit. However, it's not true that there is "no margin in $35K vehicles"... Tesla has spent big on factories (including their own battery factory) so that they can make a car at that price point and make a profit.

Their plan, which was never a secret: first, make the Roadster; sell it for $120,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold. Then, use the lessons learned from the Roadster and make the Model S, sell that for $60,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold. Finally, use the lessons learned from Model S, Model X, and the Roadster, make the Model 3, sell it for $35,000 and up, and make a profit on each car sold.

One of the nice things about this plan is that at each step, the number of vehicles they make goes up. A problem on the Roadster didn't affect that many cars. A problem on the Model S would affect more cars. They had best have the problems figured out before mass-producing the Model 3. I think overall they have... the Model 3 is getting really good reviews, and the only real problem is that they can't make them fast enough yet.

Note that GM takes a loss on the Chevy Bolt, which is why they sell enough of them to collect EV credits but they aren't going for mass production. The Model 3 is a much better car, and Tesla will be able to sell it for $35,000 at a profit once Tesla has the production rate up high enough. (Right now their factory expenses are being spread across 2000 to 3000 cars per week, instead of the planned 5000 per week. Once the per-car factory expenses are low enough Tesla will be making money on the cars. Even though their expenses are high right now, they are generating cash flow, which is a good thing for them, and much better than paying for the factories while not selling any cars at all.)

Only Tesla knows for sure, but experts are guessing that Tesla will make a 25% margin on the Model 3.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

The hilarity of this statement. Tesla is pretty much nothing buy hype right now.

Hype, the two most desirable car designs on the planet, and the most capable car battery factory on the planet. But yeah, aside from that, pretty much nothing, right?

Tesla is literally people hoping that they can build a car making company based on electric engines (that aren't special),

You literally could not be more wrong, Tesla's new motor is special.

batteries (that are becoming unspecial),

You literally could not be more wrong, the battery packs are becoming more special, and if you actually take the time to learn about the internals of the Model 3, you'll learn how wrong you are.

and chargers that will end up being regulated and shared (aka not special).

They're still special, and nobody has even announced plans to make better chargers yet, so I'm going to call FUD on this one.

And how many other new car companies have succeeded in recent history?

3 or 4, all making super-high-end vehicles to be fair, but it's still true.

And what about a smart software engineer with some great/lucky timing do you think is going to make this any easier?

What? That's how the world works. Great ideas at the right time succeed. Welcome to the world!

I wouldn't be so confident that investment will become durable first mover advantage for Tesla

Well, I am confident.

Right now, almost all electric cars are great "second cars" suitable for short trips and terrible for long trips. Tesla cars, combined with the Tesla network of Supercharger stations, are okay for long trips. A car that can drive for three to four hours, then recharges in the time it takes you to eat a meal... that's not significantly worse than a gasoline car for long trips.

A Tesla really can be your only car. A Nissan Leaf can be your only car... if you don't mind renting some other car when you want to make a long trip.

So you have all the other electric cars, and Tesla. There really is no substitute, yet. If Tesla can make enough Model 3s, they could have a few million on the road before the Big 3 car makers can really come up with serious competition.

I don't know if Tesla can dominate electric cars forever. However, I am convinced that their worst-case scenario is to become the Apple of car makers, having carved out their own niche and with fanatically loyal customers. Apple can't sell more phones than the Android competitors combined sell, but they still sell plenty of phones and make a solid profit doing it. And Apple sure made a lot of money off their first-mover advantage. (Even though smartphones existed before the iPhone, Apple made the first smartphone that didn't suck, and I claim that Apple got first-mover advantage. Then they did it again with the first tablet that didn't suck, the iPad. The iOS ecosystem remains tremendously profitable even though Android devices now are able to compete.)

So I'm prepared to imagine the Big 3 actually competing with Tesla... but they haven't even started yet. For anyone to really compete with Tesla they are going to have to spend big. GM loses $9000 per Chevy Bolt... maybe if they built their own battery factory, like Tesla did, they could sell Bolts at a profit? But they don't have their own battery factory, which may explain why Elon Musk is really not worried about competition from GM or the others.

And the Tesla network has over 1200 Supercharger stations worldwide, with more being opened. The Big 3 can't just snap their fingers and have an equivalent network overnight. But in the long run, I expect they will build out something comparable to what Tesla already has, and be more able to compete with Tesla. Again, they haven't even started.

Tesla does NOT have the battery operation im-house. He simply has a 'deal' going with Panasonic.

Tell me: who owns this building, and what is manufactured inside this building?

https://www.tesla.com/blog/battery-cell-production-begins-gigafactory

Also, is this a drop in the bucket or can the factory produce a significant number of cells?

https://electrek.co/2017/08/08/tesla-gigafactory-battery-cell-production-elon-musk/

https://electrek.co/2018/01/03/tesla-gigafactory-hiring-effort-battery-production/

I believe it is fair to say that Tesla really does have battery production in-house. It's a significant reason why Tesla can make $10,000 on a Model 3 while GM loses $9,000 on a Chevy Bolt. (Note: making $10K per car will require Tesla to get production rates up, as the major expense is depreciation on the factory, and currently the depreciation expense is spread over 2000 cars per week instead of 5000 cars per week.)

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/04/02/tesla-model-3-competitive-advantage-costs-10000-less-to-make-than-chevy-bolt/

This is very different from the way Amazon ran at a loss for a long time. Amazon was building retail sales network in a totally new market. Tesla is just selling cars to the small number of millineals in the 1%.

Tesla is just selling a small number of cars!

Well, and inventing a better battery pack technology than anyone else has.

And building out the best car charging network, period.

And building their own battery factories to get their costs down.

And building out their factories. (A company like GM has spent decades building out its factories, but Tesla is a new company and is building from nothing.)

And investing in R&D to invent profitable new things like the Tesla semi-truck.

Hmm, maybe Tesla is doing more than just selling a small number of cars.

Oh really?

To this day Nissan has never sold a replacement battery pack (there is a part number and a price, about $4k).

$5,5k plus installation, according to this. For the 2011-2015 (84 mile) leafs.This more recent article suggests $6,2k for the 24kWh, $7,6k for the 30kWh pack, and $7800 kWh for the 40kWh pack. Being made available in May. So I'm not sure where you're getting this "To this day Nissan has never sold a replacement battery pack" stuff.

There were some early issues with the Leaf packs in certain climates that Nissan resolved, but beyond those they have proven to be remarkably reliable robust.

It's not just been one pack. The introduction of the 30kWh pack led to a new wave of degradation problems. Not that the improved 24kWh degradation rate was stellar, it just wasn't catastrophic for people in hot climates like it previously was.

Nissan seems to go through battery problems every time because of their cost-cutting no-active-cooling system approach. The most recent is #RapidGate; the 40kWh pack generally hits an overheat temperature around 200-250km, sometimes as much as 300km, into a trip, and from thereout charging rates are cut in half.

Nissan is finally introducing active pack cooling next year. About bloody time.

Tesla bought its factory super cheap: $42 million. That price is so cheap that essentially Toyota was investing in Tesla. That factory is in California, not Michigan.

https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Tesla-paid-only-42-million-for-Nummi-plant-3187254.php

Tesla's big cars have been extremely successful (they simply took market share away from other luxury car makers). The Model 3 is selling as many as they can make, and they are selling only the most expensive options for it right now. A year from now I expect there will be almost 200 thousand Model 3 cars out on the road. So overall I'd say that things are working out pretty well for Tesla.

Let's do the math. Let's focus on the USA, numbers are easier to get and Tesla has most of its business there:

Number of cars on the road:
https://www.statista.com/stati...

Number of road deaths:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

2015 Numbers:
35,485 deaths from 263,610,220 cars.
1 death per 7.429 cars.

Did Tesla have more than 7429 cars on the road in 2016 in the USA?

According to this source:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016...

They sold (in the US) 26,566 cars in 2015 alone, and 18,480 the year before. So even by a conservative estimate, Tesla had at least 40,000 cars on the road in 2015.

Statistically speaking, 5 people should have died in Tesla cars in 2015 in the US alone.

If I remember correctly, either one person or no person died in 2015 (the first fatal crash was 2016, but I could be mistaken). In either case, that is far below the statistically expected value.

Q.E.D.

China has 85GW of solar power installed. That is far more than any other country.

Being the most populous nation in the world I'd expect them to have the most solar power. Perhaps given their ranking as being the third largest country by area, and second largest economy, I'd expect them to be in the top 3 or perhaps top 10. The problem though is that they suck on solar power based on population.

https://cleantechnica.com/2013...

Rankings by solar power capacity per capita doesn't even put China in the top 20. Based on current growth they might get in the top 10 soon but can they keep growing at the current rate? Will the rest of the world also not improve their solar power deployments?

1) I don't know why you linked to a blog when you can get that graph (up to date) straight from the Bloomberg site.
2) That's actually a terrible graph from Bloomberg, since those are supposed to be S curves, not straight lines (aka, starting out slower, then speeding up).
3) Go further back.

That S-curve or "stepped exponential" as Elon also referred to it, got scaled back quite dramatically.
In the dim & misty past known as August 2017, he said quite emphatically
“What people should absolutely have zero concern about, and I mean 0, is that Tesla will achieve a 10,000 unit production week by the end of next year. [] I think people should really not have any concerns that we won’t reach that outcome from a production rate.”
"https://electrek.co/2017/08/03/tesla-model-3-elon-musk-production-reservations/"

I don't hear that 10k/wk number bandied about any more by anyone at Tesla.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed. Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant. https://www.popularmechanics.c...

That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.

The Bolt comes off a line that also produces the Sonic. They produce two Sonics for every Bolt, so the production of that line is three times Bolt production. CM has a different model.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed. Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant. https://www.popularmechanics.c...

That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.

The Bolt comes off a line that also produces the Sonic. They produce two Sonics for every Bolt, so the production of that line is three times Bolt production. CM has a different model.

1) I don't know why you linked to a blog when you can get that graph (up to date) straight from the Bloomberg site.
2) That's actually a terrible graph from Bloomberg, since those are supposed to be S curves, not straight lines (aka, starting out slower, then speeding up).
3) Go further back.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

Wow. You are kidding right? GM never planned to ramp up production like Tesla, and never made claim as such. Did you know GM uses the same production line for another car as well? Let's see Tesla pull that off on a new line.

As for the cost numbers from the article you cite, they are based on Tesla's 'claims'. But Tesla has been known to leave capital cost out of their stated costs. They are just guessing at the costs overall.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

Wow. You are kidding right? GM never planned to ramp up production like Tesla, and never made claim as such. Did you know GM uses the same production line for another car as well? Let's see Tesla pull that off on a new line.

As for the cost numbers from the article you cite, they are based on Tesla's 'claims'. But Tesla has been known to leave capital cost out of their stated costs. They are just guessing at the costs overall.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed.
Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...

That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.

Meanwhile, Tesla produced its first 10k Model 3s in the time it took GM to produce its first 1000 Bolts. I guess that's that "decades to tune their processes and supply chains" they had going for them, eh? And it costs Tesla $10k less per vehicle.

I wouldn't put too much faith in that. Tesla 25% margin is not plausible even for their higher-end cars except perhaps the Performance trims. As for the Bolt, a car that I wouldn't buy unless it were 1/2 the MSRP, GM is mostly selling them for the EV credits. But they do have the facilities, manpower and skillsets to turn up the production as needed.
Ford, for example, converted their largest NorthAm truck factory to aluminum production of their flagship F-150 in only 8-10 weeks and by mid-November were producing 1400 per DAY at the new plant.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...

That's a "machine-that-builds-the-machine" that Tesla can still only dream of building.