That's the wall street angle for the subsystems. But did you know to charge 50kWh from a battery pack takes over 60 kWh of energy to charge the battery standby block of cells that then would be used to then charge a car. Not only do you waste energy storing it twice, you are cycling two sets of batteries rather than one. The only market that benefits from this is California. The problem lies in the PUC and the electricity suppliers. Laws and legislation is the issue in CA and not a need for batteries. To save money in the long run, get a smaller EV and a hybrid or high mpg car for long distance travel.
Pricing is roughly $15K for a 10kWh battery standby block from SCTY. 50 kWh is $75K plus electrician and wiring skills. You going to buy as much battery standby as the price of an MS 85? Yeah, they want to 'lease' the packs. But seriously - the demand is currently not apparent in the marketplace.
There is a lot of assumptions being made of the overall demand. It is like saying "all Tesla owners have 20 KW of solar on their roofs." Far from the truth. Some have solar, some don't but your really stretching into an imaginary demand curve which is well above the known "wants and needs" of the consumer base.
I know engineers at Deka battery (East Penn Manufacturing) - the current largest-site battery plant in America and perhaps on the planet. They do battery standby systems for people, for businesses and more. Decades of experience. New chemistries coming soon for even more cycles per battery set. They kind of chuckle when looking at the SCTY plan for battery systems. Time will tell.
It is not a binary solution. People charging at home and commuting in non-Tesla vehicles are outright Very Happy with their solution and it works great for them. What do you tell a guy with 40,000 miles on Chevy Volt with 4,000 miles driven with Gas? A failure? How about someone with a 10-mile commute using a Ford Focus EV and every three weeks, drives their 30-mpg Ford Fusion Energi 330 miles to their beach house.
Not a binary solution.
It really doesn't matter. wall street props up a stock until they get their bonds sold-off to the market.
Simple math problem:
Let Y = 35K
Let X = N.A. sales
Advise that sales will be almost 2X outside of N.A. in 2014 (the latest distraction).
X + 2X = 35K
3X = 35K
N.A. sales guidance now is roughly "about 12,000" inferred from recent "discussions".
Also - reservations historically came in at a rate of 6:1 for N.A. versus Europe. This doesn't make sense.
Wu, the 43-year-old executive who jumped ship to Tesla from Apple's China unit at the end of last year, said Tesla China had a "very aggressive growth objective".
She said the unit was aiming to contribute "30 to 35 percent" of Tesla's overall global sales growth targeted for 2014.
Tsla sold 22450 in 2013. Growth estimate by Baird so far is 30,000 to 33,000.
Let's digest that and say global growth is 10,000 over 2013.
This means: China is aiming to contribute 3,000 to 3,500 sales in 2014.
The problem "really" with GM and Ford is their dealers really don't comprehend why someone would pay 5-10K more for an EREV over an ICE. Higher payments, you know. They live and breath "how much do you want to pay per month" as their sales line.
GM and Ford could do better in EVs if they can somehow work better with their dealers to get their attitudes out of the way. The out of pocket TCO, over 5 years, for a Volt is well under a optioned-out Chevy Cruze. But they sell 12/1 the number of Cruzes/Volts.
I'm sure the hedge funds are also alerting SEC about what their research teams are finding. They're slippery, though, giving "boats and fishes" guidance and no real numbers.
Friday April 4th: Car delivered to the home by tow-truck driver; no Tesla delivery associate present. Driver: "Wow I've never done this before without a delivery person." All final paperwork is dated 3/31/14 so it counts for the prior quarter.
IRA loan to buy the stock was danger with a lucky payoff - there will be far more stories of people losing money doing that than winning. Highlighting the "winners" does not take into account people buying shares at 240-250 recently and holding through a downturn. Sure, some buyers were shorts covering but many others bought thinking "going to $320!!!!".
Reversion to the mean means the only way you get to buy the car on stock gains is to sell. But at what level will people give-in and do so? The eventual reversion to the mean means the number of "free cars" will eventually track downward to a very low quantity. But some got very lucky to be part of the wall street freight train of a momentum stock. They shouldn't thank Elon. They should thank Wall Street, CNBC and others involved. A future of sustainable transportation is not built on the back of sales to stock "winners".
Posts like Dr. Bob appear to be people who spend all they make. had to borrow IRA money and eventually spend their winnings to clear the IRA loan, buy the car and spend the remainder on wheels and tires. What's left is a balanced IRA account, a car and some cool wheels. I guess for some, "that's living!" What about giving some of that winning to a charity? What about rolling the winnings into further investments for a sounder future? Like the bumper sticker on RVs says "spending our childrens' inheritance". People should continue to re-invest their gains because the costs of living 10-20 years from now is going to be much higher.
Multiple Wall Street Investment banks back him. He also owes two of them substantial sums of money. They own his stock. Why is he popular on Wall Street? He has a hot table that they can gamble at. They know car sales will not ramp to a respectable number for years to come. They know that stories are harder to pin valuation on so they become momentum plays where they have heat between longs and shorts. This is much like the 1990s. Hundreds of VC-backed IPOs came and went due to their story.
Musk has one major problem. Lack of transparency during interviews and financial reporting. Lack of actual numbers makes him suspect. They use words like "huge demand" to whip up unverifiable interest. yet they have an order book with some ten thousand plus Model X orders. Why not state that? Why? Because it becomes reality and not a stretch of the imagination. The value of a service drops immediately after the service is performed. By releasing actual sales numbers and reservations by region, then the value of the lack of transparency is lost.
I would be far more impressed with the company if they shared their numbers. With everyone. Until then, it is translucent to appease wall street and protect their interests. EVs are a future product and all automakers will be involved. The problem is this is a Kodak moment - a point where Tesla and shareholders want people to think "they" are the solution. It is intrinsically "Everyone's solution to share".
This number was never given as guidance, however. It is a number that at one time, the NUMMI plant actually buily for ICE cars. Keep in mind too that ICE car engines and other components are built at other regional plants.
Doing 500K EVs from scratch, including winding motors, building battery systems, keeping up with incoming parts trains and so on - has never been done for EVs. It is just a wall street pump number. There is no true compelling reason to think 500K per year there while the lower-priced Nissan Leaf plant does well under 50,000 per year in Tennessee now. Consumers will demand lower prices - not $40K or higher priced EVs.
I think Panasonic knows that 500K per year is not going to happen this decade. Maybe 2030 if gas prices double - all the while electric prices may double as well, in tandem. The eventuality of EVs is still out there when oil starts to run down an oil becomes a $200-300+ barrel commodity. That also foretells the doom of the modern economy. This country cannot exist in its current form with $8-10 gasoline.
No chance. This is a well known project and is not going to be anything ahead of schedule. Late 2014 for Beta units, early delivery of signatures around this time of 2015 and volume delivery 3-4 months later. Elon Musk said this to the press. What does it matter - sales are sales and you will have an increase in MS sales into 2014 over 2013. Why would you worry much about Model X? To do MX, you need an assembly line, more manpower (hired and trained), actual pricing given to those with reservations.
The MX was originally to be deployed late 2013. It is not early.
You must like loaning out your money with zero interest. Consumers won't do this.
Like I tell people. ... Don't take financial advice from a poor person.
Do you realize a gallon equivalent to gasoline costs about $6-7 right now for an H2 vehicle? Moving to a higher priced fuel in order to expend less pollution has no mass appeal to it. Many of us have bought EVs at higher costs to do so but this is not scalable to all consumers.
The best way to level the playing field with these subsidies:
- cut the home mortgage interest deductions
- lower the child tax deduction
If people want big mortgages and to have lots of kids - how about we don't use tax funds to help pay for it. Canada gets by without a mortgage interest deduction. Raise tax on LTCG by 3% and carry interest by 5%. Cut corporate tax schedules by 5% and allow money held outside the country to be re-patriated with 1/2 of the charge that is in place now. Corporations bury their profits in SG&A and pay off executives handsomely while trying their best not to pay any taxes due to the high rate.
The Solar and EV rollouts have begun and have been benefitted. With programs like ZEV, there is no real need for the DoE to be writing checks. Cut the tax credit for EVs to $5K and make it at point of purchase rather than a tax credit that only the wealthy can take. More will be sold if more people would be able to use that rebate.