Foren

ZUR TESLA-COMMUNITY
REGISTRIERENEinloggen

Tesla as an opportunity of investment

I belive that all people that are reading this post think that Tesla is a great Car Company, the most advanced, the most innoative and the most oriented at the future.
This is the reason for which I'm evaluating tesla as an opportunity of investment and i would like to discuss with you about this.

Not sure CO2 would help warm Mars significantly, considering it is already 95% of the atmosphere, so pretty saturated, and there are much more powerful greenhouse gases. Also, I strongly doubt that greenhouse effect will be enough to warm up Mars, as part of the problem is a rather thin atmosphere and relatively low levels of sunlight (lower solar constant) due to distance (because proportional to 1/r^2). People don't realize how impossibly cold Mars currently is (the south pole of Earth in the death of winter is almost warm in comparison), and I don't know what technology will achieve that beyond borrows to begin. (See my other post about why a Mars colony should be deep underground http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/falcon-heavy-loop-mars-empty-nes... )

But other than this nuance I agree that Elon's recent career, even his life purpose, rests on the premise that CO2 and climate change are serious stuff. Extreme climate change might even be one possible threat he implies when he says he wants to make life multi-planetary as an insurance policy against disasters. I like how he is active on both fronts, sort of saying we should start colonies as insurance but we should also address climate change because our planet is incredibly precious to us (as colonizing Mars will help us realize, if it wasn't already clear).

Regarding cutting consumption of fossil fuels, I agree it is challenging because we are so used to the convenience of just burning something when we need heat or power. Renewables require far better planning than do fossil fuels. I think that wind power will account for maybe 25 to 50% of the electricity supply in the medium-far future when a new steady state will be reached, solar will be maybe 40 to 60% (including PV and solar-thermal-OTEC hybrid), and I suspect fusion power with helium-3 from the lunar surface will account for most of the rest, the reliable back-up. Energy storage in batteries and/or flywheels will be somewhat more common, but mostly in places where it will primarily be a back-up to the grid at critical locations like hospitals and office buildings where power interruptions are costly or dangerous. Regulating intermittent energy sources (wind and solar) with peak and off-peak demand will be done by these storage devices as it will be a source of income that will help them pay for themselves, but these devices will only be viable where also on standby to serve as back-up instead of diesel generators. Wind power will also become significantly more consistent than it is now, which will also be key to making it cheaper (I'm working on that). Transportation will mostly be electric and ocean liners will also use large kites to save fuel, as is currently beginning.

Honesty about what the predictions were, and what would constitute a falsification is the first requirement. Obviously lacking. Second requirement is a strenuous effort to falsify one's own hypothesis. Not even a wisp.

It's a pure promo and "defend at all costs" approach, nothing (except effort to exploit the label) to do with science.

What about the predictions is wrong? Average global temperature is up between 0.6 and 0.8 C, depending on the calculation, over the twentieth century average. This is perfectly in line with prediction.

Also in line with prediction is that the upper stratosphere is cooling, exactly as expected, since less IR radiation is able to leave the lower atmospheric levels. This is a bit like the fact that the outside surface of a house will be cooler, but the interior warmer, if you add insulation.

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/xx-fotostrecke-93971.html

Take a look at the fossil fuel pollution in China or India. They have just began industrializing. 10x US population in that part of Asia.

True. But the solution is not to avoid industrializing. Wealth permits cleanup, and efficiency permits and demands it.

The commonly implied idea that there MUST be this equation:
wealth = industrialization = pollution
is rubbish. It is often correlated but really doesn't have to be, all depends on choices that are made and policies that are put in place... or not. A carbon tax is a good example of something that is lacking.

Another bunch of nonsense is the notion of overpopulation. People are or at least can be the solution because they can care and innovate, solve problems and clean up after themselves.

If you want to see a ravaged environment, make the populace poor and desperate.

tesla rally continue, +8 % from monday

Funny Thread "heading" to find an indepth "at least on one side" discussion on "Climate Change"!

No moderators here so sometimes we can get distracted by shiny objects or fuzzy creatures...

Squirrel!!

Oh yeah, wish I could have bought more on Monday! Oh well, in for the long haul.

Some financier whose name I keep forgetting once said, "I have become wealthy buying too late and selling too soon." Don't sweat it and try to time the market very closely.

I enjoyed the back and forth on climate change since it involved smart people having a discussion that mostly avoids the typical deterioration on some other forums, not to mention the Yahoo message boards.

Another perspective regarding c02 emissions: it doesn't matter, at least in the U.S. The plunge in nat gas prices due to fracking is causing it to displace coal in electricity generation (50% less co2), diesel in trucks (see WPRT and CLNE) and a little further out trains and ships, all of which will dramatically reduce c02 emissions. More pertinent to those of us who are fans of Tesla, the beginning of the growth of the electric car market, led by Tesla, has started and this will also lower co2 emissions. I believe Tesla's success and the inherent cost advantages of a pure electric over an ice will force other car makers into the game, further accelerating this adoption not just in the U.S. but worldwide too.

Final point: for some of us, enthusiasm about ev's to enable our country to get off oil because it's good for the U.S. and bad for Iran, Russia et al was reason enough. The fact that the MS is truly a great car along with the many other benefits of ev's show that they are the proverbial win-win for all sides of the political aisle.

Don't get me wrong I have enjoyed the discussion too. Still need to do some of the reading and research though. It's been a great reminder to maintain skepticism, read and come to my own conclusions.

Don't worry, no market timing going on here. Couldn't if I wanted to.

Well said, oildeathspiral.

What is the availability of Lithium metal? I understand that SQM (Sociedad Quimica de Chile) is one of the largest producer of Li in the world. Probably there are others. What will be the increase of price of Li if demand takes off? Other alternatives? Zinc Air batteries?

Lithium is quite abundant metal. Here in Finland we have quite large deposit found just (relatively) recently and you can even extract it from seawater if you want. It just is one resource not yet fully exploited yet, so I would believe price is not going anywhere soon. Also it is not gone when used in batteries like gas, you can recycle all of it to new batteries when it is time to let go of the old one. Once everybody have their BEV:s demand for new lithium sources pretty much stops.

Interesting to see if Tesla will institute a recyclying program for depleted battery packs. Maybe do a refurbishment program, sell refurbished kWh battery in new MS at a discount. Also, refurbish current owner battery at a discount compared with a new replacement battery pack. This could affect resale values in a positive way. Another advantage over ICE.

Lithium is not the problem. Cobalt is. There are lithium chemistries that do not use cobalt, but with lower capacity. Lithium Iron Phosphate, for example. If one of those could be improved, no cobalt would be required.

Battery packs will get repurposed before they get recycled. Even when an 85kWh pack loses 20% - 30% of it's capacity it could be used as a back up for a home or Super Charger PV setup. I bet this is where those packs go first...

http://www.solarcity.com/residential/energy-storage.aspx

OK, that would be second. First would be onto the SC network.

Looks like they are going to hit the 4500 MSs sold in Q1. ASP around 82k, revenues around 369m, more car sales in a quarter than all Fy2012... take this as the average revenue per quarter, Tesla's looking at 1.47b in revenues for fy2013. Eps of 13.2. P/E at current price, would be 2.9. Could see the stock double. ($77) by Q2 and easily triple ($115) by end of Q4. Gonna be an exciting Q1 conference call...

gone skiing;
As I've noted elsewhere, a 70% 85kWh battery is the equal of a new 60kWh battery, but degrading more slowly. And a 70% 60kWh battery is like a new 40kWh one. ;)

jk2014,

I hate to be the one to pour water on your bonfire but I think you're mistaking revenue for earnings, which needless to say are quite different.

So before you go out and fill your boots, if revenues are 1.47Bn and their margin is about say 15% (on average) their earning might be around 220M which with a Market Cap of about 4.4Bn gives them a guestimated p/e for this year (2013) of 20, which values the company more than fairly in my opinion.

Also the 82K average price is likely to come down when they start to fulfill orders for Model S cars with less high end specs and smaller batteries.

Hope this helps.

Who looks like an idiot now? Thanks for the correction, Simon. Absolutely fair price with goods numbers you've stated...

I'm now guessing that if they achieve 25% gross by year end, the stock might double based on projected earnings achieved in 2014...

jk;
keep in mind the difference between gross and net. Gross is indeed what you get to work with, but net is what you have left after doing so.

I hear you Brian... Guess I'm trying to find a hair brained way to imagine the stock going up by year end so Tesla can raise big money with a follow on offering so investors won't be too pissed by dilution in order to achieve the neccessary growth to mass production and thus greater shareholder value in the end... I hope showing profit this year will do that.

With the highly automated manufacturing plant, Tesla has a lot of room to increase GM, especially of the rate goes to 20,000 cars. Even better would be producing 25,000 cars without incurring overtime and optimizing the supply chain.

Demand will be a challenge at some point. They will have to pour money into Super Chargers in the highways and 240V/100 Amp chargers in the cities. Range anxiety got to go. Just like gasoline anxiety disappeared a long time ago. SCs cost $250,000 for a 4-6 bay unit, versus may be $30,000 to install a 6 bay 240V/100A unit in a city parking lot, hotel garage, etc depending on power supply access. Way cheaper to cover the country with 240V/100 Amp. Same in EU. In pinch I can loiter for 4 hours, especially when it is near malls, restaurants, etc.

At most, the superchargers will cost $30-40 million, which is about 7% of GM, or less, treated as marketing cost. It is not a threat to profitability.

I hear you Brian. I'm assuming that those who purchased 85kWh packs will replace them if they get that low though. Presuming, of course, they've actually kept the car that long. I know I probably would as I would want to maintain that range (and performance?).

Side question, would the performance decrease?

I was trying to make the point that recycling isn't going to happen for these battery packs for a VERY long time, if ever in some cases. You're only helping me make that point. Thanks!

I also saw your post in another thread about how well Tesla manages the packs lifespan. Very encouraging indeed!


X Deutschland Site Besuchen