Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Tesla: 4 month's to live
Comments
-
gas is getting phased out? Not in back the pack''s lifetime.
-
I completely understand the sentiment, but it isn't like corporate tax incentives are unique to Tesla. Nevada wanted the battery plant so they offered the best package ($1.3B). New York wanted the solar factory, so they did the same. As long as there isn't cronyism, and the state does an actual analysis that shows they will be better off, I feel okay offering incentives. Washington has definitely benefited from doing the same for Boeing.Southerndawg said:
Agree, overly simplistic on that point, but not the point of the link. @HoustonHusky posted that he doesn't "want to fund something that makes no economic sense". Taxpayers provided Musk with 4.9B in public funding up to the time of the blog post, and as @HoustonHusky subsequently noted, tax credits for EV further force taxpayers to foot a portion of the bill. From a purely technical point of view, I'm a fan of what Tesla has been doing, but also understand the perspective (and fall on the side) of letting the market decide winners and losers without government intervention.UWhuskytskeet said:
Is that guy seriously taking Tesla's quarterly P&L and dividing it by the number of cars sold in order to claim Tesla loses $4000 a car?Southerndawg said:
AgreeHoustonHusky said:
Its not that I want them to fail badly...I just understand thermodynamics. I don't want to fund something that makes no economic senseWilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
For the high-end market nobody cares about the economics of gas vs. electricity, but for an average car it makes no sense.
http://blog.independent.org/2016/01/28/the-truth-about-tesla-motors/ -
We fund defense contractors like Boeing for national defense purposes. But we also benefit from better commercial aircraft, a byproduct of their military R&D.
Why do so many of you casually disregard a company like Tesla? We are investing into their R&D for better batteries/solar/transportation, which has the byproduct of boosting our national defense by making us more energy independent.
It's effectively the same thing in a reversed order. -
Batteries are expensive but (obviously) become a smaller percentage of the cost of ownership as the cost of the car increases. Here's an admittedly dated source, but you might find it useful.greenblood said:
That's good to know...UWhuskytskeet said:
I think we'll see taxes shifted toward registrations once gas becomes more phased out.greenblood said:
But doesn't that play into the notion that their market may be limited, especially once the government gets smart and starts creating more taxes on electric usage?UWhuskytskeet said:
Northwest is way cheaper.greenblood said:Is the cost of charging an electric vehicle more expensive than paying for gas on the east coast? If so, that's what I see as a problem for them going forward.
The midwest I believe has the cheapest electric costs, but being geographically spread out, it's not really an ideal market for Tesla as well.
But let's say gas tax is applied to electricity rates. We'll use Washington which is in the top 3 for gas tax, currently at $0.56/gallon. Using $3.50 as the average price, you can say 16% of the cost of gas is tax.
Apply a 16% tax to electricity rates, $0.08/kwh for WA, and the price raises to $0.093.
Basically it doesn't really change the equation much at all. Electric vehicles will still be cheaper to fuel. Even the least efficient EV will still be cheaper per mile than a 45mpg hybrid. This is ignoring the decrease in maintenance (though you'll have to replace the battery some day so it could be a wash).
The battery kind of freaks me out though, because I've heard a battery replacement could be in the thousands.
https://www.aol.com/article/2013/06/24/gas-vs-electric-cars-cost-comparison/20633103/
Here's a crude breakeven cost analysis that includes the the tax credit benefit but also assumes a fixed cost for gasoline (bad assumption).
http://www.fleetcarma.com/miles-recoup-cost-electric-car/
I'm not advocating for or against EV's. I certainly appreciate the technology and they will no doubt continue to improve via technological innovation to at some point perhaps becoming economically viable on a large scale without direct government subsidy.
I'm a bigger fan of KERS/hybrid mixes that optimize performance with advanced energy recovery, storage and delivery systems. A ton of technology across multiple scientific disciplines, very exciting stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaFerrari
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_E3bSFi8lI -
Good thing we took all of Afghanistan's lithium.
-
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours.
-
But it's not R&D for what you want. Ramping up manufacturing on Tesla's batteries is ramping up production on a pretty old battery technology. The only novelty in their batteries is how they manage heat, and even that isn't that high-tech.WilburHooksHands said:
Consider it to be as much about R&D as it is profitability. You could consider it the government essentially contracting out the most viable candiate for alternative energy R&D, its really no different than a defense contract. Do you care if Lockheed Martin makes economic sense?HoustonHusky said:
Its not that I want them to fail badly...I just understand thermodynamics. I don't want to fund something that makes no economic senseWilburHooksHands said:Why the fuck do some people want alternative fuels to fail so badly? I don't get it.
For the high-end market nobody cares about the economics of gas vs. electricity, but for an average car it makes no sense.
You are better off having Tesla being a profitable, specialty car manufacturer for very high-end cars and have them continue to work on technology instead of locking into a non-breakthrough technology and almost (to maybe actually) bankrupting themselves by spending all their money on capex ramping up production on a product that really needs subsidies to survive. Doesn't do much for their stock price/valuation though.
Think about it...they have been cash-strappped for a couple years now. They have a huge R&D budget, but all of that R&D is going to get their Model S and Model 3 up and running. You think they can afford to spend much time/attention on something that may help them 10 years from now? And why should the govt pick them over 20 other battery technology companies to give tons of money to, esp when most of it will get spent on commercializing an older technology? -
Because they are standard means they don't count? Right. Why don't you just say that you support oil companies and don't support investment in future technologies?HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours. -
How about the federal funding invested into commercializing fracking back in the mid 70s when it wasn't economically viable? DOE helped get that industry off the ground and look what happened. Was that a waste of money? Similar situation now with some of these early stage renewable investments.HoustonHusky said:
Yes, esp considering the size of the "subsidies" to the market.2001400ex said:
Are you saying oil companies receive less in subsidies? Use your brain, there's so much information right at your fingertips.HoustonHusky said:
I like to link to a electric industry magazine that says "subsidies the big three and oil industry", which links to data that the big three automakers get in subsidies and an IMF report that is pretty wacky (i.e. includes the "subsidies" of not charging for global warming, etc). and then claim its "oil company" "subsidies"2001400ex said:
Why am I not surprised you aren't educated on this? Over the last few years, how much do you think oil companies have received in subsidies? It's better because they are viable in your opinion? Between NASA and the military, how much innovation in our country has been from government?doogie said:Rich people want to spend their own capital, go for it.
Pretending you're economically viable by including $4 billion in government subsidy, without government benefit? Not so much
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla-subsidies-big-three-oil-industry/
Speed limit IQ...
The actual "subsidies" (and not the made up crap from environmentalists...) are mostly standard manufacturing and corporate tax breaks that are standard for all businesses whether they are in oil and gas or manufacture helmets to protect soft skulls like yours. -
They are and also are extremely harmful to the environment.greenblood said:
That's good to know...UWhuskytskeet said:
I think we'll see taxes shifted toward registrations once gas becomes more phased out.greenblood said:
But doesn't that play into the notion that their market may be limited, especially once the government gets smart and starts creating more taxes on electric usage?UWhuskytskeet said:
Northwest is way cheaper.greenblood said:Is the cost of charging an electric vehicle more expensive than paying for gas on the east coast? If so, that's what I see as a problem for them going forward.
The midwest I believe has the cheapest electric costs, but being geographically spread out, it's not really an ideal market for Tesla as well.
But let's say gas tax is applied to electricity rates. We'll use Washington which is in the top 3 for gas tax, currently at $0.56/gallon. Using $3.50 as the average price, you can say 16% of the cost of gas is tax.
Apply a 16% tax to electricity rates, $0.08/kwh for WA, and the price raises to $0.093.
Basically it doesn't really change the equation much at all. Electric vehicles will still be cheaper to fuel. Even the least efficient EV will still be cheaper per mile than a 45mpg hybrid. This is ignoring the decrease in maintenance (though you'll have to replace the battery some day so it could be a wash).
The battery kind of freaks me out though, because I've heard a battery replacement could be in the thousands.
