Articles re Tesla—Fact or Fiction?

[AZC]

I wonder if this is fact or fiction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umUjmg4oaMc



http://dailykanban.com/2015/05/analysis-understanding-teslas-potemkin-swap-station/

 

[SteveG3]

unsurprisingly, on a day when a couple of significant utility deals with Tesla hit the news, this afternoon the Wall Street Journal puts out a piece trying to paint Tesla's stationary storage business as hinging on residential purchases of the power wall. Why mention that Musk said this would be about 15% of the business, and Tesla is looking for sales from places like Germany and Australia where it makes sense economically for the consumer today, not the U.S.

Will Homeowners Shell Out Thousands for Super Batteries? - WSJ

 

[JRP3]

I just can't stand CJ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ell-cars-directly-to-texans-runs-out-of-juice

 

[jhm]

In the US, there are about 800 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants. The average vehicle goes about 12,500 miles per year. This represents about 10M vehicle miles demanded per 1000 inhabitants. A typical vehicle will need to be replace after 200,000. Thus, to supply 10M vehicle miles about 50 new vehicles must be produced. That is derived demand of 50 new vehicles per 1000 inhabitants per year.

Now let's suppose that autonomous vehicles leads to a situation were each vehicle gets used twice as much per year. So that there are now 400 vehicles per 1000 inhabitants. 10M vehicle miles are still demanded. Hower, for ever 10 miles with a passenger, an autonomous vehicles must travel an additional mile without passenger. Thus, 11M vehicle miles must supplied to satisfy demand for 10M miles. Vehicles must still be replaced after 200,000 miles. So now 55 new vehicles must be produced per 1000 inhabitants. Additionally, with the cost and inconvenience of driving reduced, perhaps another 1M vehicle miles may be demanded. If so 60 new vehicles per 1000 inhabitants may be required per year.

The implication I draw from this is that autonomous vehicles have the potential to increase demand for new vehicles 10 to 20 per cent. I do not see any credible rationale for a decline in vehicle miles per capita or derived demand for new vehicles per capita. One would need to invent reasons why people would live closer to work and services or would prefer to share trips with multiply people, trip sharing, not vehicle sharing. For reduced derived demand for new vehicles, one would need to suppose that vehicles become 20 more durable, lasting 240,000 miles instead of just 200,000. The problem with any of these potential rationales is that they have little to do with the advent of autonomous vehicles. Autonomous vecles and vehicle sharing do not encourage more passengers to share a trip. They do not make vehicles last 20% longer. If you had a way to make cars more durable, for example, EVs perhaps, that development would occur with or without autonomous driving technology. So the causality breaks down with all this special pleading. Vehicle autonomy cannot cause fewer new cars to be demanded.

 

[Auzie]

I just can't stand CJ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ell-cars-directly-to-texans-runs-out-of-juice

CJ would not miss an opportunity to talk Tesla down. His Tesla rhetoric is pure sour grapes, his arguments about Tesla are infused with distortions and twisting the truth to support his biased position. Example - he overemphasises the importance of blocking the bill in Texas to allow direct Tesla sales. The way he presents the facts is not the way I see the same facts.

An example of distortion: Tesla direct sales are banned in 6 states out of 50.

Is it doom and gloom as CJ presents? It does not look that way to me.


The hit piece on Elon in WSJ, The Savior Elon Musk, outgunned CJ in its sickness and oozing hateful and hurtful distortions.

Examples - the article blatantly states that Tesla car buyers are subsidised directly with taxpayers. That is not true, $7500 subsidy is not coming from taxpayers and it is a deliberate distortion to make such a claim.

The article presents Tesla business as relying on subsidies,

Mr. Musk has yet to show that Tesla’s stock market value (currently $32 billion) is anything but a modest fraction of the discounted value of its expected future subsidies.

whilst in reality Tesla business is based on an exceptional product, a unique business model, many exceptional hard working teams of dedicated people led by even more hard working and dedicated CEO.

The comforting thought is that WSJ and similar entities are long past its use by date. There may be few people left that take WSJ, CJ and similar entities seriously, and their numbers are going down by the day.

I think the way the world is changing is greatly upsetting some people, the ones that are losing out due to changes. Tesla and Elon are very visible markers of the changes hence they are like the lightning rod, attracting the wrath of people who feel like the rug has been pulled under their feet.

 

[Grendal]

WSJ has an op-ed hit piece:

The Savior Elon Musk - WSJ

It has the usual talking points on taxes. Anyone with a WSJ subscription want to correct the nonsense in the comments? I couldn't read the whole article since I don't have a subscription but I did get to the point where the author says the government pays buyers $7500 to buy a Tesla and implies that the $7500 is also given to buyers in Norway.

 

[SteveG3]

WSJ has an op-ed hit piece:

The Savior Elon Musk - WSJ

It has the usual talking points on taxes. Anyone with a WSJ subscription want to correct the nonsense in the comments? I couldn't read the whole article since I don't have a subscription but I did get to the point where the author says the government pays buyers $7500 to buy a Tesla and implies that the $7500 is also given to buyers in Norway.

Just saw this too.

This bit here just wont happen. Eligibility for the $7500 federal tax credit for the purchase of a Tesla starts phasing out over a year beginning at the point Tesla has sold ~200K-250K vehicles in the U.S. This phase out will begin within the first year Tesla is selling the Model 3 in any kind of volume, as Model S/X U.S. sales through 2017 will likely be over 150K. Thus, there won't be anything even remotely close to "billions" in tax benefits for Model 3 buyers. I will say this particular WSJ mistake may be ignorance mixed in with their typical FUD more so than a conscious attempt to distort.

"In 2017, he plans to introduce his Model 3, a $35,000 car for the middle class. He expects to sell hundreds of thousands a year. Somehow we doubt he intends to make it easy for politicians to whip away the $7,500 tax credit just when somebody besides the rich can benefit from it—in which case the annual gift from taxpayers will quickly mount to several billion dollars each year."

 

[The Blue Owl]

I couldn't read the whole article since I don't have a subscription [...]

You can read the article in full if you arrive at it from Google.

 

[Johan]

And how Tesla came by its ex-Toyota factory in California “for free,” via a “string of fortunate turns” that allowed Tesla to float its IPO a few weeks later, is just a thing that happens in Mr. Vance’s book, not the full-bore political intrigue it actually was.

This is a core FUD tactic - insinuating foul play or similar without stating what that actually is (Your logical fallacy is ambiguity). GM goes bancrupt and there is a fire sale on the largest automobile factory in the US just as Tesla is looking to expand. Hmm... fit's well with my definition of "string of fortunate turns".

The fact is, Mr. Musk has yet to show that Tesla’s stock market value (currently $32 billion) is anything but a modest fraction of the discounted value of its expected future subsidies.

Once again insinuations and shrouded accusations. The market value and stock price is what it is - a representation of all expected future profits for the company. Of course those include future subsidies. I guess the author never heard Elon or Deepak mention again, again and again (in conference calls and shareholder letters) that Tesla has never counted on neither subsidies nor ZEV credits to run or grow their business.

In 2017, he plans to introduce his Model 3, a $35,000 car for the middle class. He expects to sell hundreds of thousands a year. Somehow we doubt he intends to make it easy for politicians to whip away the $7,500 tax credit just when somebody besides the rich can benefit from it—in which case the annual gift from taxpayers will quickly mount to several billion dollars each year.

Wow. The author doesn't believe it will happen. Great argument.

Your logical fallacy is personal incredulity

Mother Jones, in a long piece about what Mr. Musk owes the taxpayer, suggested the wunderkind could be a “bit more grateful, a bit more humble.” Unmentioned was the shaky underpinning of this largess. Even today’s politicized climate modeling allows the possibility that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide is far less than would justify incurring major expense to change the energy infrastructure of the world (and you certainly wouldn’t begin with luxury cars). Were this understanding to become widespread, the subliminal hum of government favoritism could overnight become Tesla’s biggest liability.

OK, no we're getting to the core of this authors motivation. Global warming is likely exaggerated and when this understanding becomes wide spread solar and EVs will fail. Sure, great argument. Let's ignore science and global concensus.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

 

[AudubonB]

I have tried until I'm blue in the face to bypass subscription firewalls by approaching articles through Google, and never yet have succeeded. Can someone provide me the step-by-step....or perhaps have I got some settings at a 'wrong' level?

 

[Johan]

I have tried until I'm blue in the face to bypass subscription firewalls by approaching articles through Google, and never yet have succeeded. Can someone provide me the step-by-step....or perhaps have I got some settings at a 'wrong' level?

I did it by justing pastin the URL to the article in the Google search box and it took me to the whole thing... But when I tried to post a comment and was asked to login using either Google+ or Facebook I got thrown out. Could be you should log out from Google/Facebook and it will work?

 

[Crowded Mind]

I have tried until I'm blue in the face to bypass subscription firewalls by approaching articles through Google, and never yet have succeeded. Can someone provide me the step-by-step....or perhaps have I got some settings at a 'wrong' level?

Not trying to be a dick. Does this link give you the same result? Maybe some sort of adblock is blocking the sponsored link which I assume is what allows the subscription bypass.

Let me google that for you

 

[The Blue Owl]

I have tried until I'm blue in the face to bypass subscription firewalls by approaching articles through Google, and never yet have succeeded. Can someone provide me the step-by-step....or perhaps have I got some settings at a 'wrong' level?

I tried it just now in a browser that I never use to log in (I am a subscriber). If I try the link to the article directly, it asks me to subscribe. If I access it like this (equivalent to typing "The Saviour Elon Musk" on Google):

https://www.google.ca/search?q=The+Savior+Elon+Musk

and follow the first result on the page, it works. I don't know what it is that is preventing this from working in your browser. Maybe you have some anonymity setting that prevents the browser from sending the Referrer header?

 

[AudubonB]

Thanks for hints. I'll keep working at it.

 

[Auzie]

This thread usually contains links to articles full of fiction.

Here is an article that I like that is not fiction.

Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Elon Musk

Nicely said by a great person who is not afraid of being overshadowed by anyone.

 

[Grendal]

Here's another bad one:

Three companies, $4.9 billion in government support - LA Times

Just some numbers. No commentary at all. Nothing mentioning that Tesla paid back their loan, with interest.

Here is the rest of the article:

Elon Musks growing empire is fueled by government subsidies - LA Times

 

[Gerardf]

I have tried until I'm blue in the face to bypass subscription firewalls by approaching articles through Google, and never yet have succeeded. Can someone provide me the step-by-step....or perhaps have I got some settings at a 'wrong' level?

Tried it on my iPAD via all kind of google links, no luck.

On my Notebook using FireFox I indeed get the article. So maybe browser dependend ?

 

[chickensevil]

OK, no we're getting to the core of this authors motivation. Global warming is likely exaggerated and when this understanding becomes wide spread solar and EVs will fail. Sure, great argument. Let's ignore science and global concensus.

Your logical fallacy is anecdotal

What really irritates me about defaulting back to the "Global Warming is BS" argument is that these people are totally ignoring that the product itself is fantastic. When the PC was released (at like 25,000$ or some such) it wasn't about global warming or saving anything... unless convenience counts as saving something. When the Smartphone was released at like 1000$ unsubsidized no one complained that there was some hidden "save the world" agenda. People judged these products on their merits for being a good worthwhile product (regardless of price) and they sank or swam on their own two feet.

The Electric car, if not built terribly, makes life so much better on many fronts. They are generally better/easier to drive, remove the need to go out-of-your-way for fueling (at least again, given enough range to last your whole day of local driving), should last longer/require less maintenance, etc. Is it more expensive right now to build an EV properly? Sure. But for those who can afford to make the switch generally identify it as a better overall experience to owning an ICE.

Forget the "save the world" factor. Because you are not going to get people to inconvenience their lives to fix something that they can't really perceive to be a real issue. Even those who care very deeply about Global Warming can't really say they "see the effects" of it. Because honestly there is enough gray area surrounding a lot of this that you can't really say that you changing your life style is going to have any amount of impact on the current situation of the earth, and it would take *everyone* switching across the globe to even have a real chance of seeing a change.

Anyway, that is my stance when it comes to fighting people who are complaining about the car being for "green people"... Because that was certainly not why *I* bought the car. And it won't be why 99% of the population ends up making the switch to EV's (barring some crazy government requirement to switch, people will choose to switch because of it being a better product... or not).

 

[Papafox]

Here's a link to the video in which Elon speaks with CNBC regarding the LA Times hit piece on government subsidies to Musk companies. Elon does a great job of setting the record straight.

 

[32no]

This isn't an article, but the FUD is strong with this one. I think the Bears and so called "skeptics" (disputing every single thing and claiming things are lies doesn't really make you a contrarian or a skeptic as much as it makes you an obnoxious smart a**) are really latching on to a red herring here (ZEVs and battery swap that is), and blowing it out of proportion.