Well, we know the theoretical maximum is 100% conversion so that puts a top end on it, which isn't a terribly large amount compared to energy required. Plus, it assumes massive amounts of time in the sun, which is not true of how many people have their car parked (e.g. parking garages). So even if there was some incredible breakthrough to create 100% efficient panels, they're not used 100% of the time or even close to it. And if you're parking in the sun in Arizona on purpose to get the charge, you're losing it to cooling the car and you might as well park in the shade in the first place. Not to mention that kind of constant sun creates it's own damage to the car.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)
- Thread starter Robert.Boston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- elon is an ass investing TSLA
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Don't know if it's off topic but since the last posts were focused on this matter I would like to report this article about a solar powered family car that can travel 420 miles on a sunny day and creates twice as much energy as it uses. 
'Stella' solar-powered family car travels 420 miles when sunny and is energy positive | Mail Online
[to Moderator: feel free to move this post if it's off topic]
'Stella' solar-powered family car travels 420 miles when sunny and is energy positive | Mail Online
[to Moderator: feel free to move this post if it's off topic]
green1
Active Member
If solar cells got light enough, and cheap enough, they could have the use of offsetting the vampire drain while a vehicle is parked, maybe keep the vehicle temperature from running away on it. But it just wouldn't do anything useful for propulsion.
The solar car races and long distance tours are always interesting, but those cars are larger than your average vehicle, just to fit all the cells, and if you look under the skin, they are much more akin to a bicycle than a car. Just not practical for real world use.
The solar car races and long distance tours are always interesting, but those cars are larger than your average vehicle, just to fit all the cells, and if you look under the skin, they are much more akin to a bicycle than a car. Just not practical for real world use.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Agree but it's always nice to see somebody making efforts to build solar powered car. Then this kind of vehicles could improve in the future and maybe that one day Tesla will find it useful to use some features borrowed from them.
NigelM
Recovering Member
Mod Note: several posts went to snippiness. As usual, apologies to the innocents who got swept along.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Don't know if it's off topic but since the last posts were focused on this matter I would like to report this article about a solar powered family car that can travel 420 miles on a sunny day and creates twice as much energy as it uses.
'Stella' solar-powered family car travels 420 miles when sunny and is energy positive | Mail Online
[to Moderator: feel free to move this post if it's off topic]
Sticking two electric bicycles under some bare bones bodywork, with no safety features, comfort, climate controls, etc, is not building a car.
What frustrates me more than anything is when somebody on the internet calls out a financial expert for not knowing what he is talking about, when ironically the person doing the calling out is actually the one who doesn't know what he or she is talking about. Examples:
1. JC calls out Aswatch Damodaran, an expert and probably (certainly as far as academia goes) the most respected name in world when it comes to financial modelling, for not knowing how to model TSLA's financials properly. When in fact it was JC who did not understand that using internally generated cash does not come without a cost to shareholders...
2. MM is calling out all Wall St. analysts who cover GTAT that they don't have a clue what is going on inside GTAT's sapphire materials business. He points to deferred revenue as proof that GTAT has $150m of stocked sapphire material. He is even featured in this forbes.com article (fortunately he did not call them out on forbes), which is completely bogus and completely wrong. The truth is that ironically, he is the one who has no clue at all how deferred revenue works.
3. Now FANGO is calling out a well respected Wall St. analyst, insulting him that he doesn't know that EV's are already at "cost parity"; he even uses Fiat 500e as an example to prove that EV's are at cost parity. Ironically once again, the person who doesn't understand the term cost parity is FANGO, because he points out that the 500e is priced between the Pop and Abarth, but fails to realize that Fiat is selling every single one of these EV's at a $14,000 loss; they are only doing it as a "compliance car". When you factor in the $7,500 tax incentive, one can argue that Fiat would be losing $20,000+ on each 500e sold if they had to adjust the price down if you took away the incentive.
So lets all please start showing some more respect for the finance professionals who have been doing these things their whole lives and are paid big money to be knowledgeable and accurate!
And the media (via an automotive journalist, who gets paid money to be knowledgeable and accurate) claimed that GM was losing over $40,000 on every Volt, based on nonsense numbers which were not correct, amortizing the total cost of R&D over the first few thousand cars sold (you can see Lutz's takedown of the article here http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/09/10/the-real-story-on-gms-volt-costs/). That was just as unbelievable as this. If Marchionne says he's losing money selling the car, then he should stop selling the car. If he can't stop selling the car because it would cause him to lose more money, then clearly the car is making him money. I don't believe Marchionne for a second on this one, he's just mad that he has to make a car he doesn't like - even though everyone else does like it. I realize fully what he said, and I realize it's nonsense. He also changes the number every time he says it, and somehow it gets bigger. It was $10,000 per car a few months prior to being $14,000 per car. So the margins on his car are getting worse over time, is it? Or is he just blowing smoke? I'm going to bet on the latter. He's just saying it because he's an old fuddy duddy.
Not to mention that you don't account for the centuries of incentives and protection that have been given to the oil industry, automakers, and dealers, but you do account for the EV tax credit. You do business in the environment which exists, and the environment which exists includes tax credits and CARB. If CARB makes them sell the car, and if they would lose money by not selling the car (by not being able to sell to CA), then the car is making them money, because the opportunity cost of not selling the car in the business environment that exists would be far greater than whatever claimed loss they take on every car sold.
Not to mention that the only cost the consumer sees, the only cost that matters to the consumer, is the end cost of the product to them. And the 500E fits between the Pop and Abarth, which is its natural position in the product line. So there's cost parity.
And what of the Leaf? Is that losing money too, the car which Nissan has sold over 100k of, and is fixing to sell as many of as they can? And the Model S, of course, which was the original example, and is far superior to anything anywhere near its price range.
So yes, EVs have reached cost parity. Several companies are making them and selling them in numbers, and they're competitive (or superior) on features with the cars they compete with on cost. That's cost parity. It's not in the future, it's now. If Marchionne can't figure out how to do it, then he's incompetent, because at least two and possibly three other companies (Tesla, Nissan, maybe BMW) certainly have.
Are you saying that you should blindly believe everything the financial analysts say because they're financial analysts? Should we all believe BofA's price target, because their professionals have been doing these things their whole lives and are being paid big money to be knowledgeable and accurate? This is called an argument from authority, and it is not a valid form of reasoning. It's why I don't talk about my background, because I don't want my information to be judged on my background, I want my information to be judged on the information. And you of all people, who have talked many times about having a lead on the analysts, and on how the financial people are manipulating the markets and whatnot, how wall street is behind the times on solar, etc., should agree that analysts and financial people aren't always right. That's how any of us here have made any amount of money in the last couple years, by beating the analysts to the punch.
Nobody claims that EV battery costs won't go down, and that costs going down won't provide a benefit to EVs. I just contend that the crossover point is happening now, rather than a few years from now. And my evidence for it is the cost of consumer goods available to the consumer, and the cars being well-received against their cost peers. That sounds like cost parity to me.
Last edited:
sleepy, fwiw, on what do you base your description that ~"Damodaran is certainly as far as academia goes the most respected name in the world when it comes to financial modeling"? is that really a widespread opinion?
it just happens, at the end of March I pointed out to him in the comments of his most recent Tesla blog that he was vastly overestimating Tesla's capex needs for the next decade if they are trying to hit a 1 to 1.5 million run rate in 10 years (as the revenue he modeled in 2024 suggested). He was estimating $50 billion would be needed in capex, and so was estimating the 2024 share count would balloon to 300 million (that outsized dilution being the reason he thought Tesla was only worth ~$120). Once he explicitly stated the $50 billion and 300 million whopping numbers, I went through a detailed list of the capex spending Tesla would need to reach 1 to 1.5 million vehicles per year to show him that Tesla is unlikely to spend more than $20 billion on capex to reach those levels (and that a large portion of it could be paid for from retained earnings). I was pleased to see at the time that he acknowledged my numbers may indeed be right, and he'd need to go over his assumptions before writing something new on Tesla, mentioning as well that I had more knowledge and insight on Tesla's circumstances than he did (understandable given the amount of time I have for Tesla, and the demands on his time as a Prof at NYU).
Just this week, I asked him if he had taken another look at Tesla. After a little back an forth, he responded a couple of hours ago with this Seeking Alpha like response,
"Steve,
Let's agree to disagree. When I say that the narrative is in flux, it is because I thought that Tesla was an electric car company at the start of the year. For much of the year, all the talk that I have heard from the company is about its electric batteries, but that story was undercut by Musk's offer to give away the battery technology. Perhaps, the company is reorienting itself and I will have to factor that into my next valuation.
For the moment, though, I would not buy Tesla at $230, $180 or even $150. You obviously believe otherwise. So, you should hold on to your stock and I won't try to talk you out of that decision. Please return the favor and leave me to my valuation."
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8152901575140311047&postID=7091334422361137680
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
As is your habit you completely ignore the real range limitations of all EV's other than the Model S. So no, in reality EV's have not reached cost parity, other than the Model S.
As is your habit, you completely ignore efficiency, performance, convenience, cost, and numerous other things. So yes, in reality EVs have reached cost parity, including the Model S...which is an EV that has reached cost parity, so it proves the point anyway. Along with the other ones which prove the point as well.
Also, what's with this grudge of yours? Why so personal?
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
No, I do take all those into account, and the majority of people will tell you that convenience is lacking in a vehicle that can't go over 150-200 miles in most conditions, let alone the less than 100 miles of range all non Tesla EV's have.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
It is just plain silly to argue electric powertrains have reached cost parity.
Even as big proponents of EVs as Elon and JB don't argue that.
Tesla has been able to put together a very compelling value proposition by eliminating the advertisers and dealers share of the Model S profits and cutting out some features in similar priced cars.
BTW Most people think it is more convenient to use gas stations. If not EVs would have more than 0.4% market share in the US.
Even as big proponents of EVs as Elon and JB don't argue that.
Tesla has been able to put together a very compelling value proposition by eliminating the advertisers and dealers share of the Model S profits and cutting out some features in similar priced cars.
BTW Most people think it is more convenient to use gas stations. If not EVs would have more than 0.4% market share in the US.
green1
Active Member
And this is just it, the model s is an amazing car, but it's missing a LOT of features compared to anything else in it's price range, and it has half the range of an ICE. That's not to diminish it in any way, but it's hard to call that "cost parity" the good news of course is that this means that EVs are just going to continue to get better and better as we do get closer to real cost parity.
This is going off-topic, but I was referring to Damodaran's technical/academic expertise/understanding of how to build financial models. I am not saying that he is the best predictor of the future. So completely different definition of "most respected name in financial modeling".
JC called him out that Damodaran did the model wrong, and came up with a flawed PT. JC tried saying that internally generated cash is free, while the whole irony was that JC was the one who did not understand how to build financial models properly, because that cash has a cost to shareholders.
In am not arguing that Damodaran knows how to model TSLA. Because he clearly does not understand the company and it was an academic exercise for him anyway.
Chickenlittle
Banned
Academic exercises always interesting. If he believed model why not short. I do respect teachers but this does mind me of those that can do, others teach
I think this actually very on topic to Tesla investors' interest in understanding the long term fundamentals of the company.
There are various people out there who by reputation and/or having a huge platform to get out their message project starkly misleading ideas about evaluating Tesla's long term fundamentals. I think part of improving as an investor is learning first hand that you have to understand the long term fundamentals of any business you invest in for yourself, and not rely on the "reputation" or "expertise" of someone else.
What were Moody's and Standard and Poor's reputation pre 2008? The "gold standard" in rating debt?
As John Wooden said "your character is what you really are, your reputation is merely what others think you are."
Here's a few quick examples of people, including Damodaran, whose reputation and/or platform have led many off the path with Tesla.
Jim Cramer may have a shaky reputation, but he's got one massive platform. He has engaged in essentially a propaganda campaign of repeating ad infinitum that Tesla is a "cult stock" and "you can't value the darn thing." Both are nonsense, but undoubtably have thrown many off from making the effort to look at the long term fundamentals... realize that Tesla is a rare company you can actually see a highly probable path to tremendous earnings growth 5 and 10 years out; earnings that say the stock was a great buy when he started claiming it can't be valued, and is at a minimum worth holding at current values. I doubt that this man who publicly said in the hedge fund business the last thing you ever want to do is tell the truth (happy to provide the link again to video of him saying this if you like) has accidentally been saying you can't buy this stock on fundamentals over and over and over, when that is simply not the case.
Aswasth Damodaran Implied credibility and objectivity of being an academic, reputation you've suggested of being the top global academic expert on valuation paired with a more modest platform (his blog) which at times becomes a large platform... for example when his Tesla valuation call of ~$65 and months later ~$120 got written up in the Wall Street Journal, led to appearances on CNBC about Tesla being overvalued, and made the rounds of repetition in the other financial media outlets.
What we can now see of Damodaran's output on Tesla tells me I'd take what he says with as much skepticism as I take what Cramer and John Lovallo (see below) say.
When he wrote his blog saying Tesla was worth ~$120 I had a pretty thorough back and forth with him where he explicitly stated his valuation was based on Tesla needing to spend $50 billion on capex in the next 10 years to get up to revenues in his model suggesting 1 to 1.5 million vehicles/year (he never explicitly shared his unit sales assumptions), and that this would mean they'd have to more than double their share count to raise that money; that is, he directly said he saw Tesla's 2024 share count reaching 300 million. I went through with him what they would need in capex through his timeframe (outlining and offering back up on projected costs for additional service centers, stores, vehicle factories and battery factories), and it wasn't even half of the $50 billion he claimed... in fact it was so much smaller, retained earnings are likely to fund the lions share of it.
He wrote back basically a ~"I see what you are saying, looks like you may be right. I'm going to have to look at this some more independently... though I have to look at the competition this opportunity would draw" at the time. When I raised the question again this week, he gave me basically, ~"now that Elon has given away the battery patents, the story of them being an EV company and battery maker has been undercut. I don't know what they are about."
Sleepy, frankly that response is even less appealing than Cramer's "I don't know how to value the darn thing"... do you really think Damodaran doesn't know whether Tesla has an opportunity in EVs and batteries in general because of the patent move? While this current "I don't know now what Tesla's worth" stance is much like what Cramer has done, unlike Cramer, he publicly said in the past that he could value the stock and that it was overvalued. He did this a couple of times, and appeared on CNBC to say it. If his goal was to convey what he thinks about the company, don't you think it would make sense to put out a blog pulling back his earlier valuations? That is saying something like "I was premature in making valuation calls on Tesla in the past... it's not a business I feel confident in determining a valuation for."
I'd say what we've seen from Damodaran is analogous to Alex Rodriguez. Lots of talent, but I wouldn't take what's been produced at face value.
John Lovallo (and the pitfall of wall street analysts in general) their position at large institutions gives both a reputation and platform advantage to all the analysts. Without going into great detail on Lovallo, he's made some statements it's hard to believe anyone having spent more than an hour learning about Tesla's and the potential for EVs as a whole could make. Some have wondered if he's lacking in brain power, some have wondered if he's got an ulterior motive. I think it's more the latter... this could of course be financial, but it can also involve ego. The point is Wall Street analysts are fully capable of writing "bizarro world" reports on the company they cover, and should not be taken at face value. Again, to me what brings it all back to the topic of this thread is you want to understand the long term fundamentals well enough for yourself not to go on someone else's say so who may be presenting a really insightful picture of a stock or a "bizarro world" fakery.
Last edited:
Great post, Steve. What's so frustrating to me is that these guys can be so blatantly wrong and when it is proven some time later, they ignore/spin/cop out their previous comments and there are no professional repercussion for them. How much money do they have to lose for people before they lose some credibility? That Damodaran cop-out was weak and here Cramer claims to have been "all in Tesla" when it took off: Jim Cramer: The Danger of Worshipping Tesla - Pg.2 - TheStreet
Cramer: "Sure, there is a YouTube clip of me at first dismissing the stock, which was right. It did next to nothing for those first three years. But when it took off I was all in Tesla. Now, 150 points later, down $50 from its high, call me worried, not from the BMW challenge, but by the worship of a stock."
Cramer: "Sure, there is a YouTube clip of me at first dismissing the stock, which was right. It did next to nothing for those first three years. But when it took off I was all in Tesla. Now, 150 points later, down $50 from its high, call me worried, not from the BMW challenge, but by the worship of a stock."
Johan - I did not mean to imply that you will not have to charge the car at home at all, that the sun will be sufficient. Just meant to say that TSLA will be incorporating solar cells into glass and maybe even body of car some time in the future; at least that is my opinion.
If you look at a typical car, I would imagine that with today's solar technology, you could easily fit over 1kW of solar cells if you plastered the whole car including glass; probably more than 1kW. So at any time you might be producing about 500W of electricity.
If you keep your car parked in the sun during your 8 hour work shift, then you might be able to create 4kWh's of electricity, which is not an insignificant amount of charge; it would allow you to go 12 miles or so. Do that 250 days a year and you get 3,000 miles from solar charging. This is just hypothetically speaking, if they decided to plaster the whole car with solar cells.
But there are other benefits of etching solar cells into glass. E.g. the cells would absorb some heat and maybe the car would not get as hot, and you could use less electricity; I am not an engineer and have no idea if the difference would even be noticeable. But also, these solar cells would allow you to go on vacation, and park your car for 2 weeks at the airport without worrying that it will run out of charge once you are back. It is an interesting topic, but still up for debate. Maybe the tech is too expensive, but we will see if they find ways to implement it in the future.
As far as phones go, I am certain that Apple will be doing a fully wrapped sapphire phone that will have solar cells etched into the sapphire. This will allow you to take your phone out of your pocket at work and lie it upside down (or upside up) on the desk and not lose one iota of charge throughout your entire shift, so that you can enjoy longer battery life. If you rarely make any calls or use your phone, then these solar cells would allow you to not have to charge your phone for weeks. If you sit on the internet all day or make plenty of calls, then these solar cells are not going to do much for you other than maybe give you a few extra minutes of talking time.
The other cars are missing a LOT of features compared to the Model S, and it has the same range as the rest of them (about 300 miles, which what ICE cars typically get on a tank, give or take, if you're not making up numbers using the most advantageous situation for the ICE and the least for the Model S - which, of course, strangely, so many people here on the Tesla boards do). And then the ICE car has to go to a gas station, instead of the convenience of being refilled at home, for cheap, overnight, while you're doing other things. The only "disadvantage" is a slightly longer (and cheaper) trip for people who don't pee or eat and are driving more than 300 miles in a day.
I mean honestly, it's as if nobody here has driven an EV. You should all know this. Also, it's funny to see so people arguing that the Model S is not the best in its class by far.
It is just plain silly to argue electric powertrains haven't reached cost parity.
Similar threads
- Locked
