2daMoon
Mostly Harmless
So, will Government Motors (GM) have to change the name to CCPM, or is "government" general enough to keep it the same?
I'd hate to see them have to change the bright, shiny, new Elon logo they created.
EL
ON
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
So, will Government Motors (GM) have to change the name to CCPM, or is "government" general enough to keep it the same?
I'd hate to see them have to change the bright, shiny, new Elon logo they created.
EL
ON
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
On the video, Elon said the existing plant is Phase 1, and this newly-announced 100GWh/yr plant is Phase 2. Then there would be Phases 3, 4, etc. to get to 500GWh/yr.
I do agree that there is room for interpretation about the 100GWh/yr output. If the current bty workshop at Giga Texas (which has been announced as having 50GWh/yr capacity) is the prototype for Giga Nevada Phase 2, then it may be that the 100GWh/yr target INCLUDES future improvements in chemistry.
It don't think it matters though. Tesla will just keep building battery factory modules until they have enough bty capacity. This is exactly how I envisioned Tesla's exponential growth with the "G-Cube" comment I posted way, way back in April 2020:
Mod's Choice #37 - the 'G-Cube' (2020-04-29)
Going forward, it's all about sourcing raw materials!
Cheers!
Last edited:
I love the sentiment and am bullish about the prospects but..
It is crucial to remember that nothing about Tesla is a "slam dunk".
Tesla does manufacturing so very well and new technologies (such as octovalve, Gigapress, factory OS, vehicle OS) so very well that it seems to be a 'slam dunk' but it is always a highly complex, precise and accurate amalgam of very difficult things.
The reason I make this point is that delays and errors in any of this cause cascading problems. Tesla has proven since the beginning that rapid iteration is their methodology.
As investors, not enthusiasts, we need to understand the risks. FWIW, in my opinion the best investing approach is to understand all the risks one can identify and consider the consequences and mitigants. It is that approach that allowed relative calm during the extreme disruptions of last year.
As an Elon-related investor and observer since 2010, and multiple companies, A calm and deliberate, ever-so-slightly-cynical approach has helped to survive nicely through seemingly endless 'sturm und drang'. In sum, I cannot imagine a 'slam dunk' in anything at all associated with Mr. Musk.
From Zip2 to Neuralink it has seemed to be Douglas Adams' Infinite Improbability principle in action. Reality is vastly different.
In the end I HODL, almost literally, but never cease to worry about blue birds and other black swans.
I wish he would complain about the lease loop hole and the hybrids with tiny batteries qualifying for the full EV tax credit.
Manchin writes bill to stop temporary electric vehicle tax credits
Manchin writes bill to stop temporary electric vehicle tax credits
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Gonna have to sell the house to get some more TSLA.
This is not financial advice, don’t try this at home.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
I think there’s better odds that Elon and Joey become BFF’s.
Well, Manchin is entirely correct in this case. The intent of the legislation was to onshore the battery supply chain all the way back to the mine. The Biden administration is subverting that purpose.
Tesla will mostly qualify and will make its investments regardless, so it's not something that is to Tesla's ultimate detriment, except that it could cause confusion and hesitation in the market meanwhile Tesla is the main seller of BEVs in the U.S.
And of course, this whole law is unsustainable and therefore will not be sustained for very long.
Last edited:
Gigapress
Trying to be less wrong
Even if it does it would almost certainly be symbolic because Biden could and probably would veto. This was the flagship legislative initiative of his term so far and it would be very weird if he reversed position on this.
Toyota is in Manchin's pocket. He and they are why hybrids are included.
The dems are too busy trying to keep the government from defaulting and just generally fighting the Rep House to worry about this sort of small potatoes.
Spending bills require only a majority vote because they are must-pass. Manchin's bill won't survive as a standalone, but he is probably putting it down as a marker for inclusion in the spending bill deal that Biden will eventually have to swallow.
This always seems to happen to Tesla. People will remember what Elon said two years ago and treat it as gospel for today when conditions have evolved dramatically. In this case, Econ 101 shows that shortages will resolve themselves over time if the market is left alone to do its job. We can be thankful Nevada didn’t impose rent caps or other silliness to “fix” the housing problem.
On an unrelated note, I’m surprised that 4680s will be used for stationary since they are currently built with a really strong and presumably expensive steel case suitable for structural cells. Maybe they can use a thinner case for non structural packs. Probably an easy change actually.
That JB Straubel guy. I think I heard of him before. Maybe Joe Manchin should look him up and have a chat how Straubel is wrong.
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
More appropriate would have been the energy production act if this is the final impact.
That JB Straubel guy. I think I heard of him before. Maybe Joe Manchin should look him up and have a chat how Straubel is wrong.
It’s all rain dances anyway. If it rains, it’s because you danced. If it doesn’t rain, it’s because you didn’t dance enough.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Well, the EV incentives are being paid for by a new 15% minimum corporate tax, so that part is sustainable (revenue neutral to the Federal Gov't)
US Inflation Reduction Act includes 15% corporate minimum tax on income > www.ey.com
Of course Microsoft guided cautiously, as everybody else is being caution,
as everybody awaits the recession. I would expect Tesla to be somewhat
cautious too in their guidance, even though lower prices should expand demand
and production is increasing rapidly.
Waiting for a Godot, and waiting for this recession have parallels.
What’s the old saying, the mkt has forecasted 9 of the last 5 recessions.
as everybody awaits the recession. I would expect Tesla to be somewhat
cautious too in their guidance, even though lower prices should expand demand
and production is increasing rapidly.
Waiting for a Godot, and waiting for this recession have parallels.
What’s the old saying, the mkt has forecasted 9 of the last 5 recessions.
The thought that it will be revenue neutral seems fanciful. The cost figures that they put in the budget for the law were extremely unrealistic. When that fact becomes clear, and they find it difficult to exclude Tesla in some fashion, the law will be amended or go away.
It's hard not see that this Better Battery Bill nonsense is in direct response to the current IRA backfiring on Model Y due to Tesla price correction. Heck, I thought the bill was originally created to slow Tesla. Now I'm certain due to the timing here. They will effectively cause some to wait and see, adding to FUD. It doesn't need to pass (and won't IMO). But tie it to the debt limit mess? Hope not, a game of chicken that is.
Olle
Active Member
Westerns brands with pedigree will be very helpful for the Chinese to break into Western markets.
It's happening already. SAIC bought MG and is already high on the sales lists in Europe. Geely bought Volvo/Polestar.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
