Tesla posted a small Q3 profit based on surging overseas sales, however U.S. sales have declines sharply since 2018:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-idUSKBN1X81NM

 

Seems like most Americans who wanted a Tesla already have one.  A worldwide recession in 2020 could accelerate the domestic trend and tip things in that direction overseas.  

17 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Tesla posted a small Q3 profit based on surging overseas sales, however U.S. sales have declines sharply since 2018:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-idUSKBN1X81NM

 

Seems like most Americans who wanted a Tesla already have one.  A worldwide recession in 2020 could accelerate the domestic trend and tip things in that direction overseas.  

 

Declining revenue was because of their product mix - they are intentionally moving away from the higher-priced Models S and X.  They leaned more into the Model 3 obviously, which comes at a lower price.

 

Also, do you care to tell us how all automakers did in the U.S. in Q3?  Hint: similar results as Tesla.

Edited October 30, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

20 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Declining revenue was because of their product mix - they are intentionally moving away from the higher-prices Model S and X.  They leaned more into the Model 3 obviously, which comes at a lower price.

 

Also, do you care to tell us how all automakers did in the U.S. in Q3?  Hint: similar results as Tesla.

 

They're not in the same league.   The Big 3 are gigantic companies, upwards of 10x bigger than Tesla. 

8 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

They're not in the same league.   The Big 3 are gigantic companies, upwards of 10x bigger than Tesla. 

 

Auto sales down everywhere = fine for the Big 3, bad for Tesla.  Weird why you're holding one company to a different standard than others.  And that you still didn't address Tesla's changing of their product mix.

 

(Not that I don't disagree with U.S. sales declining being concerning, but context matters.)

Tesla is different because Musk is Showing Detroit How To Build Cars because he said so.  

 

15 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Tesla posted a small Q3 profit based on surging overseas sales, however U.S. sales have declines sharply since 2018:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-results-idUSKBN1X81NM

 

Seems like most Americans who wanted a Tesla already have one.  A worldwide recession in 2020 could accelerate the domestic trend and tip things in that direction overseas.  

 

Can't wait to see your level of triggeredness once the Y is America's best selling SUV. 

So that is inevitable?

Speaking of triggered, I visited my Musk-obsessed brother last month in LA.  When we walked past the purple line station construction site at Fairfax Ave., it was a Sunday, but I remarked that "you can hear the ventilation for the tunnel and maybe tunnel boring machine".  His brain matter boiled and dripped out of his ears.  He literally had no idea that not one but dozens of companies have been building tunnel boring machines for the past 50 years and Musk's Boring Company has yet to build a single one.  Such is the stranglehold that Musk has over so many of America's minds.  

^You appear to be the Musk-obsessed one.

43 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Speaking of triggered, I visited my Musk-obsessed brother last month in LA.  When we walked past the purple line station construction site at Fairfax Ave., it was a Sunday, but I remarked that "you can hear the ventilation for the tunnel and maybe tunnel boring machine".  His brain matter boiled and dripped out of his ears.  He literally had no idea that not one but dozens of companies have been building tunnel boring machines for the past 50 years and Musk's Boring Company has yet to build a single one.  Such is the stranglehold that Musk has over so many of America's minds.  

 

This anecdote tells us nothing about Tesla's revenue or about their prospects to become profitable.  It also has nothing to do with Electric Cars, this topic (Musk has his own topic, somewhere, I believe).

The more cars they sell the less money they make. The fewer cars they make the less they lose. That's the difference between them and other automakers in Q3.

5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Speaking of triggered, I visited my Musk-obsessed brother last month in LA.  When we walked past the purple line station construction site at Fairfax Ave., it was a Sunday, but I remarked that "you can hear the ventilation for the tunnel and maybe tunnel boring machine".  His brain matter boiled and dripped out of his ears.  He literally had no idea that not one but dozens of companies have been building tunnel boring machines for the past 50 years and Musk's Boring Company has yet to build a single one.  Such is the stranglehold that Musk has over so many of America's minds.  

6 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

So that is inevitable?

 

I sure hope not. No one wants to see you or @jmecklenborg end up in a psych ward.

On 10/15/2019 at 5:25 PM, taestell said:

 

The fact that higher end Teslas are a status symbol right now isn't really a bad thing. If people are buying fancy electric cars instead of fancy ICE cars, that's still a win.

 

The bigger issue is America's love affair with huge vehicles. The gains that we are making in the efficiency of ICE vehicles are being cancelled out by the fact that more people are choosing SUVs and big trucks instead of cars. Until we can do something to lure people out of big ICE vehicles, electric cars aren't going to have any meaningful impact on amount of oil that is burned or the amount of pollution belched out into America's cities.

 

Well, the most plausible replacement for large ICE vehicles is large electric vehicles.  Tesla is working on a compact SUV and a pickup is strongly rumored to be the next frontier.  And of course Tesla already has at least some pre-orders for its semi truck, and Chinese manufacturers have been going full throttle (no pun intended) developing electric buses.

 

But, for example, my wife and I are probably about to purchase an ICE minivan simply because no one yet makes an electric minivan.  Chrysler makes a hybrid Pacifica, but I don't want a hybrid and I don't want a Chrysler.

 

7 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

Can't wait to see your level of triggeredness once the Y is America's best selling SUV. 

7 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

So that is inevitable?

 

No, but it's definitely doable.  The SUV segment is heavily fragmented, so getting to the top spot isn't as much of a lift as you might think if you have in mind the total size of the SUV segment.  The best-selling SUV in 2018 was the Toyota RAV4 at about 408k:

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/best-selling-suvs-in-america-2018-3#5-chevrolet-equinox-290458-199-8

 

Tesla won't do that next year or the year after when the Model Y is just coming into production, but I don't see any reason why that's not an achievable target in 3-5 years.

3 hours ago, Clefan98 said:

 

I sure hope not. No one wants to see you or @jmecklenborg end up in a psych ward.

 

Do you follow automobiles? Have you been into cars for a long time? The reason I ask is that everyone who does those things has seen an enormous amount of automotive news over the years including futurism articles. The ones who have this background don't make outlandish predictions about what ANY car is going to do in the future, especially in a certain time frame. This is because historically automotive news (made by professional automotive journalists no less) that tries to predict the future has been very, very wrong. Like 90% wrong. If THE FUTURE was true, Mustangs would be front-wheel-drive and the Corvette would have gone mid-engine in 1983 rather than for 2020. That perspective also comes from being around racing where the people involved seldom, if ever, make any sort of bold prediction other than "I think this car will be strong today".

 

 

12 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Do you follow automobiles? Have you been into cars for a long time? The reason I ask is that everyone who does those things has seen an enormous amount of automotive news over the years including futurism articles. The ones who have this background don't make outlandish predictions about what ANY car is going to do in the future, especially in a certain time frame. This is because historically automotive news (made by professional automotive journalists no less) that tries to predict the future has been very, very wrong. Like 90% wrong. If THE FUTURE was true, Mustangs would be front-wheel-drive and the Corvette would have gone mid-engine in 1983 rather than for 2020. That perspective also comes from being around racing where the people involved seldom, if ever, make any sort of bold prediction other than "I think this car will be strong today".

 

All currently known oil reserves will be completely depleted within 50 years (or slightly less) at current projected usage rates.  This isn't a "EVs are vastly superior" type of argument.  It's a "EVs will be the only viable option for our kids to drive when they're parents because oil is literally running out" argument.

Edited October 31, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

Lithium isn't exactly bubbling up out of the ground either. That's why we're still in Afghanistan -- for the lithium reserves.

28 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

Lithium isn't exactly bubbling up out of the ground either. That's why we're still in Afghanistan -- for the lithium reserves.

 

This is conspiracy-theory nonsense.  Afghanistan is landlocked and across the world.  We have much more accessible reserves much closer to home.  Honestly, if massive reserves were discovered in Afghanistan, most would probably ultimately end up getting used by China.

 

Yes, we're looking to help develop mineral resources in Afghanistan, as are Russia, China, and European countries: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/18/trumps-afghanistan-strategy-may-unlock-3-trillion-in-natural-resources.html.  That doesn't mean it's "why we're still in Afghanistan."

 

We have a decent amount of lithium in the western U.S., and South America also has significant deposits that are (a) closer, (b) easier to get on ships, and (c) less geopolitically unstable.  We are a long, long way from "Peak Lithium."

Even Forbes has been saying there's not really a profitable path for the U.S. in Afghanistan re: mineral resources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/07/27/dear-president-trump-afghanistans-minerals-arent-very-valuable-theyre-really-not/

 

For more coverage about both lithium sourcing and sourcing of other metals in EV batteries, Bloomberg seems to have done a pretty thorough article a couple of years ago: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-lithium-battery-future/

All sources of energy are subject to geopolitical issues. None of them will "save" us.

Good thing Musk is sending a manned mission to Mars next year to mine their lithium.  

6 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

All sources of energy are subject to geopolitical issues. None of them will "save" us.

 

That's a cop-out.  Utah is not subject to the same geopolitical issues as Chile or Bolivia, which are not subject to the same geopolitical issues as Afghanistan.

 

And I don't even know what you're talking about with respecting "saving" us.  Saving us from what?

Going back to the sorts of things we used to talk about on UO in 2008-2012 that we kind of absorbed and added to our brain files but haven't talked about directly much lately, the demand for energy used for transportation is going to have to go down in the as time goes on anyway as the population increases at least on a per-capita basis. Renewables can certainly help, but look at how much resistance there still is to their implementation. On this site, we are aware of what needs to be done to reduce that demand and for the most part UO users are interested in those things (good urbanism, transit). Changing propulsion methods can help some, but a car is still just a car no matter what it runs on... even hamsters. As electric cars move away from being a niche product, don't be surprised to continue to see enormous resistance from governments, certain big-business sectors, dictators, OPEC, the need for profitibility and even some things we haven't even thought of yet.

13 hours ago, GCrites80s said:

Going back to the sorts of things we used to talk about on UO in 2008-2012 that we kind of absorbed and added to our brain files but haven't talked about directly much lately, the demand for energy used for transportation is going to have to go down in the as time goes on anyway as the population increases at least on a per-capita basis. Renewables can certainly help, but look at how much resistance there still is to their implementation. On this site, we are aware of what needs to be done to reduce that demand and for the most part UO users are interested in those things (good urbanism, transit). Changing propulsion methods can help some, but a car is still just a car no matter what it runs on... even hamsters. As electric cars move away from being a niche product, don't be surprised to continue to see enormous resistance from governments, certain big-business sectors, dictators, OPEC, the need for profitibility and even some things we haven't even thought of yet.

 

Quote

Thinking about the future of transportation from the United States can sometimes feel like thinking about swimwear in Svalbard: There is little to see here (and hasn’t been in some time). China has laid down the world’s largest high-speed rail network in just two decades, quashing its high-polluting domestic air business. Congestion pricing has been rolled out in London and Singapore, making the downtowns more pleasant and walkable. Cycling has become a crucial transportation mode in places as varied as Shenzhen and Strasbourg. In the U.S., by contrast, travel by plane, train, bus, and foot is undoubtedly less pleasant than it was 50 years ago.

https://slate.com/technology/2019/10/future-of-transportation-bus-bike-elevator.html

On 10/30/2019 at 9:30 PM, GCrites80s said:

including futurism articles. The ones who have this background don't make outlandish predictions

 

Nobody predicted the electric blade scooter, but here it is. 

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-cybertruck-unveiled-elon-musk-electric-pickup-truck/

 

Tesla unveiled their latest automobile last night - the "Cybertruck."  The presentation didn't go too well, though, as Elon had Frans throw some metal balls at the windows to show how strong they are.  He broke both the front and back window.

 

As an observer, I'm not really sure who this is supposed to appeal to.  Tesla fans, who likely already have a Tesla car?  The space is going to be crowded in the next few years, with many manufacturers offering more traditional-looking trucks as BEVs.  Wall Street hates it, as the TSLA stock is down 5+% today.

Edited November 22, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

Pickup trucks are 100% about Buzz the Overpaid Boomer. While I think the truck is kind of neat, my taste runs almost completely counter to Buzz's. Buzz likes trucks that look like the scary boiler in the basement of an old elementary school.

I don't get it. I can't see this "truck" appealing to truck people in any way.

1 minute ago, taestell said:

I don't get it. I can't see this "truck" appealing to truck people in any way.

 

I'm being told by Tesla/Musk fanboys that it's not supposed to appeal to truck people?

 

Also, when the lack of crumple zones is brought up, I'm told Musk is just very advanced and preparing for a "post crash society" due to autonomous vehicles.  I'm not sure if they're serious.

I just heard that the workers at the Ford transmission plant in Sharonville are getting a total of $9,000 between two bonuses this month.  

Bringing this conversation to where it belongs....

TL,DR: EV are WAY better for greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in total, even when the electricity is produced by fossil fuel and factoring in manufacturing and battery production.  And this improvement will continue to grow as coal power plants are replaced by natural gas plants, and even more as renewables displace all fossil fuels. Linked articles below quotes. 

 

On 12/11/2019 at 3:50 PM, trej34 said:

. I made the switch to Tesla Model 3 in June and will never go back to fossil fuel transportation. ...

 

On 12/11/2019 at 4:06 PM, StapHanger said:

 

Assuming you live in Ohio, I have bad news about the energy source for your Tesla.

 

On 12/11/2019 at 5:50 PM, PoshSteve said:

A large percentage (majority?) of electricity in Ohio comes from coal still. Although you can certainly have your own solar at home, or sign up for one of the renewable only electric programs through Nopec to make your electric car more green. Though that would still require you to charge at home only. 

 

9 hours ago, Cleburger said:

 

Not very much though.   

 

https://www.puco.ohio.gov/be-informed/consumer-topics/how-does-ohio-generate-electricity/

 

1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

Right. Over 80% from fossil fuels.  And because of all the coal, unless you have home solar, I doubt there’s any real environmental benefit to driving an electric car in Ohio. Ohio’s environmental and energy policies are jokes. 

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2018/03/14/charging-an-electric-vehicle-is-far-cleaner-than-driving-on-gasoline-everywhere-in-america/#6f784f9c71f8

 

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/state-charge

 

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/04/23/will-electric-vehicles-take-world-just-green-really/

^Definitely better than I thought, and certainly way better than large cars/light trucks with conventional engines. But in Cleveland, plug ins are only incrementally better than hybrids, according to the UCS calculator you linked to. And still far, far worse than taking transit or walking/biking. That's where the big gains come from. 

1 hour ago, StapHanger said:

^Definitely better than I thought, and certainly way better than large cars/light trucks with conventional engines. But in Cleveland, plug ins are only incrementally better than hybrids, according to the UCS calculator you linked to. And still far, far worse than taking transit or walking/biking. That's where the big gains come from. 

 

I fully agree with those points. I think it’s important to keep in mind that some people are willing to make the drastic changes (from an American’s perspective) you are rightfully advocating for. Others are not. So we will also need solutions that are not “as good” from an environmental perspective, but still are huge improvements, and will be much easier for many Americans to adopt. For example, EV instead of internal combustion vehicles.  And power from natural gas instead of coal. 

7 hours ago, Terdolph said:

That is for Ohio as a whole.  With two nuke plants here in northern Ohio, probably 50% of NE Ohio's electricity is from nukes, the rest from coal.  Now, your E85 internal combustion engine currently is fueled with 10% alcohol (ethanol), and has the ability to run on 85% ethanol, of which the only exhaust product is water.  So you could say that driving a Tesla here in NE ohio is probably the most environmentally irresponsible thing you could do.

 

And if you said that, you would be wrong. See articles linked above. 

E85's exhaust is not mostly water -- you're confusing that with hydrogen fuel. E85 may output slightly less carbon monoxide and cuts down on benzene emissions there is little difference in the exhaust output overall since cars use 30% more E85 than E0-E10. E85 must also be shipped only by semi trucks (or ideally train) since it cannot be moved through current pipelines due to water absorption. E85 does help with evaporative emissions since it is less toxic to breathe in a steady state.

A lot of things need to change at the Statehouse for the environmental benefits of EVs to be maximized here in Ohio.

It is not just water. Again, some types of emissions are reduced. There is no elimination:

 

Tailpipe emissions result from fuel combustion in a vehicle's engine. Emissions of primary concern include hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), air toxics, and CO2. Numerous studies have compared the emissions of E85 and gasoline. E85 decreases the emissions of CO2, as well as the emissions of many harmful toxics, such as benzene—a known carcinogen. However, it increases acetaldehyde emissions, which the National Institute of Health describes as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" and is moderately reactive for ground level ozone formation.

 

https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/flexible_fuel_emissions.html

4 hours ago, Terdolph said:

 Almost all the electricity in Cleveland comes from coal, nukes or natural gas.  A little bit of hydro is bought by Muny Light from Ontario.  Other than that, you are better off buying a car that gets an E85 car that gets 40 mpg.  Also, no lithium issues there either.

 

Yes, and I assume it would be easier to control emissions from a fixed power plant rather than hundreds of thousands of vehicles.

Edited December 16, 20195 yr by Foraker

There are rumblings that there is bipartisan support for extending the EV tax credit.

 

Of course, I doubt they change it to make it a refundable credit, meaning only those folks with at least $7k in federal tax liability will benefit.

This would be especially good news for GM & Tesla.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/tesla-gm-electric-car-tax-credit-extension/

 

Quote

Specifically, the bill amends the current federal program for electric car buyers and would give buyers a $7,000 tax credit when they file their taxes after purchasing a qualifying vehicle. That's $500 less than the current program, but the bill lifts the tax credit cap from 200,000 vehicles to 600,000. That would give GM and Tesla (which both reached the 200,000-vehicle limit) a lot more wiggle room.

 

Also, re: Cybertruck - after reading various blog and news pieces about it, my "hot take" is that it won't get built like the one Tesla brought out on stage last month.  Obviously, it's not going to get regulatory approval without side mirrors and probably actual headlights.  I also think the "crumple zones" come into play and if it doesn't have any give in crash tests, why would the government allow basically a freaking tank on the streets?

 

The Cybertruck is likely headed for middle duty classification, meaning it is comparable with the F-250 and not the F-150 Tesla/Musk keep comparing.

I missed the crumple zones part. Was Tesla actively proclaiming that the truck had no crumple zones?

23 minutes ago, GCrites80s said:

I missed the crumple zones part. Was Tesla actively proclaiming that the truck had no crumple zones?

 

Not explicitly.  But part of the demo was that it is semi-indestructible.  They swung a sledge hammer at it a couple times and showed that it didn't take any damage.  They also talked about the "cold rolled steel."  Without some test crashes first, it's hard to know for sure.  But a lot of safety experts and advocates have expressed a lot of skepticism about that, to say nothing of the likely-terrible sight lines inside the vehicle.

Edited December 17, 20195 yr by DarkandStormy

Tesla short-sellers licking their wounds

 

Elon Musk may finally be getting some revenge against his Tesla naysayers.

 

Short-sellers, longtime haters of the billionaire's electric-auto company, were left licking their wounds after some positive commentary from one of Wall Street’s biggest skeptics, saddling them with $575 million in mark-to-market losses on Monday.

 

Those betting against Tesla have now lost about $1.85 billion this year, according to the financial-analytics firm S3 Partners. Much of those losses have come in the final weeks of the year.

 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/tesla-stock-short-sellers-licking-wounds

Don't short anything, people --unless you like gambling. Losses are magnified enormously and can be infinite.

Heh.  Never mistake the stock with the company.  The two are related but not syonymous.  Tesla, in particular, is a much steadier company than you'd think from the stock (TSLA).

 

Tesla has been producing and selling batteries and producing and selling cars all year.  The Cybertruck was a big announcement but still a future reveal, and Tesla has done these before; these are normal marketing events by now.

 

TSLA, the stock, has a 52-week low of about $177 and now a high of $385.  I sold last year in the $345ish range, then sold more down below $300, so at this moment in time, I'd be tempted to be a little glum at not having more confidence.  At the same time, there's no telling whether the stock will crash back down to $300 within the next 3 months, even without any particularly ominous news (and no, news that the Cybertruck might need to be re-engineered, even substantially re-engineered, wouldn't count for that, because it's still preproduction).  A wide recall of the Model 3 for things that can't be handled via a normal service appointment (i.e., a factory recall, not a service-center recall) would be about the only thing that would really be enterprise-threatening at this point.

 

That said, of course, the news that the tax credit might be restored for 600,000 vehicles is obviously a boon for Tesla and TSLA.  But even that is only a "might."  And Tesla will blow through even that tally fairly soon.

1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

Tesla has been producing and selling batteries and producing and selling cars all year.  The Cybertruck was a big announcement but still a future reveal, and Tesla has done these before; these are normal marketing events by now.

 

They have unveiled four new vehicles in the last 2+ years.  None are in production.  The "Roadster 2020" is going to need a new name at this point.

27 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

They have unveiled four new vehicles in the last 2+ years.  None are in production.  The "Roadster 2020" is going to need a new name at this point.

 

The Boring Company still hasn't built a tunnel boring machine.  

On 12/13/2019 at 8:00 AM, Boomerang_Brian said:

TL,DR: EV are WAY better for greenhouse gas emissions and pollution in total, even when the electricity is produced by fossil fuel and factoring in manufacturing and battery production.  And this improvement will continue to grow as coal power plants are replaced by natural gas plants, and even more as renewables displace all fossil fuels. Linked articles below quotes. 

 

I would think the biggest immediate gains from switching to electric cars would be related to:

• having all emissions coming from a more efficient central power plant rather than millions of individual engines, which also has the side effect of reducing the amount of exhaust that gets pumped out into dense urban areas
• allowing cars to charge at off-peak times (e.g. overnight) allowing us to more efficiently use the power grid and not have to cycle plants on and off as much

Obviously the ongoing switch from fossil fuels to renewable resources will continue to make everything even more efficient.