HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Devonshire Research Group ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:07PM

March 22, 2016 08:30 ET

Devonshire Research Group Announces the Issuance of Tesla's Intellectual Property Research Analysis

BOSTON, MA--(Marketwired - March 22, 2016) - On Tuesday, March 22nd, Devonshire Research Group issued a research presentation that provides in-depth analysis of Tesla's technology and intellectual property. The presentation, entitled "Tesla Motors," is a result of extensive engineering analysis and is based on months of research. The presentation can be found on Devonshire Research Group's website at www.devonshireresearch.com

"Tesla Motors" puts forth three distinct arguments for why the firm believes Tesla's share price is overvalued. Tesla has succeeded in creating a unique product that appeals to a specific sector of mostly American consumers. Although there is demand for Tesla vehicles and the brand has gained significant value, Tesla has yet to generate profit since its IPO in 2010. Yet, it is trading at revenue multiples many times higher than its competitors and/or comparables. The only companies trading at multiples comparable to Tesla's are in the biotechnology, software, and social media sectors, all of which have starkly different financial profiles. Although the rate of innovation within Tesla is impressive, Devonshire Research Group argues that neither substantial R&D spending, nor the ever-increasing brand value can justify Tesla's current valuation.

"Tesla Motors" next includes an overview of patents held by various automotive companies both domestic and international. Tesla's patent holdings are dwarfed by its technology competitors, limiting its freedom to operate in the electric vehicle market where its technology position is modest. Research shows Tesla lagging far behind General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Daimler, BMW, and others.

Moreover, Tesla's decision to make its intellectual property public has eliminated its competitive advantage. It has also enabled Tesla's competitors to readily copy Tesla's valuable inventions without the threat of being litigated against.

Finally, Tesla's cost position is heavily dependent on its bargaining positions with strategic suppliers who have an incentive to price aggressively for their advanced technologies. Devonshire Research Group believes that these decisions are bound to have a negative impact on Tesla and its ability to remain competitive in the future.

Tesla gained popularity due to its environmentally-friendly status. Research released by Devonshire Research Group, however, points to the toxicity of Tesla batteries and argues that Tesla's electric vehicle production has a heavier carbon footprint than traditional vehicles. Devonshire Research Group emphasizes the risk that the disposal of Tesla batteries at large scale will create a heavy toxic burden. "Tesla Motors" also argues that battery charging shifts the carbon burden to electric power plants, thus, rather than eliminating the environmentally harmful impact, it augments the negative impact of the grid.

Tesla is a commendable company because it has been able to build a meaningful market position in one of the most difficult-to-enter industries. It has created valuable, innovative technology, exciting new car designs and pushed the automotive industry towards increased environmental-friendliness. Unfortunately, it has relied heavily on existing technology in designing a successful EV model, and while it may have generated some valuable IP it now controls little of it and has questionable sustainable competitive advantage in technology. Hype surrounding

Tesla's success has translated into significant overvaluation of the stock. Fundamental analysis of Tesla's financials, technology, and intellectual property, however, paint a different picture and show that the company's value is significantly lower than the current market valuation.

About Devonshire Research Group

Devonshire Research Group, LLC is an investment firm specialized in using large scale data mining, analytical methods, and semantic mining across 1,000's of datasets to determine the long-term viability of technologies, and to assess their competitive advantages.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:12PM

Its not clean. It's dirty. It's the dirtiest car on the face of the planet.

It's American though. Made in America, powered by American energy its entire life.

These Koch brothers desperation articles aren't gonna make any difference in its success.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Devonshire Research Group ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:12PM

According to the March 21 report, everything about the Tesla — from its headlights, to its chassis, to the way it is produced — creates massive damage to the environment.

Tesla, as insiders explain, has to rely on lightweight structures to maintain its sustainable credibility. And one of the best ways to accomplish this feat, the company has wagered, is through the use of a massive lithium ion battery.

Lithium ion batteries soak up energy equaling about 1.6 kilograms of oil per kg of battery produced. They also rank dead last in greenhouse gas emissions, ratcheting up to 12.5kg of carbon emissions equivalent emitted per kg of battery.

Lithium is a rare metal, making it difficult and time-consuming to discover and produce. Mining it results in staggeringly negative side effects for both the environment and those producing the metals that will eventually go into making Tesla products, but more on that later.

Tesla vehicles, primarily through the use of the lithium battery, cause more pollution during their production stage than gas-powered automobiles cause during years of service, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a science advocacy group in favor of environmental causes. They also create 86 percent more deaths from air pollution than conventional vehicles, Devonshire points out.

These statistics, Devonshire’s report notes, eat into the efficacy of Tesla’s sustainability claims and its brand credibility.

There are other rare metals such as cobalt and nickel peppered throughout Tesla’s fleet of vehicles — their headlights and on-board electrical systems, for instance, are all made of precious metals that are difficult and dangerous to mine.

Tesla contains a whopping 18 pounds of cobalt throughout its entire battery, Devonshire’s research shows. It is considered deadly at 20 milligrams.

Worse still, the mining of cobalt, an ABT Associates study found, leads to debilitating health effects to those exposed — “respiratory, pulmonary, and neurological effects” are cited as just a few examples.

The mining of these metals is ultimately where the fossil-burning, carbon emitting, environment degrading, action really takes place, according to Devonshire’s report.

In the Jiangxi, a rare metal mine in China, workers hollow out massive holes in the ground and pour in ammonium sulfate (which was allegedly used as a component in explosives for terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan before its ban in 2009) to dissolve the hard clay lying beneath.

The muck and grime remaining is washed in acid, baked in a kiln, and then used to make all the parts that go into a Tesla. The wallowing out of the mine’s clay is aided, of course, by massive fossil fuel-powered earth-moving equipment like backhoes, excavators, and bulldozers.

China’s graphite mines are destructive to the environment as well, Devonshire points out, ultimately causing outbreaks of lead poisoning, acid spills and heavy smog in the country.

Only 2 percent of the stuff pulled out of the Jiangxi mine is used on Tesla’s parts, according to WIRED, who published an extensive report fleshing out some of Devonshire’s findings. The other 98 percent of the now-badly contaminated muck, mud, and refuse is then shoveled back into the ground, causing more environmental damage.

The investment firm concluded its report by asking if the monolithic lithium batteries can be recycled once they reach the end of their life cycle.

Well, according to Tech Metals Insider, which is run by precious metals market analyst group, Kitco, the answer is … not really.

Tech Metals Insider found that the recovery rate – or the recyclable rate – for lithium ion batteries is in the single digit percentages, even for wealthy first world countries. In fact, most of these highly combustible, poison-leaching batteries end up in landfills.

Devonshire’s conclusion:

Elon Musk better tread lightly, as the technology he is creating (all-electric, lithium battery-powered vehicles) could well become a future bugbear for environmentalist global warming fear-mongers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:14PM

What about the engine and transmission of cars. Exhaust systems. Exhaust emissions. How much mining and energy goes into that?

Where's the comparison? Is this supposed to be a joke?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Date: April 03, 2016 11:16PM

"About Devonshire Research Group

Devonshire Research Group, LLC is an investment firm "

Fail as article someone desperately trying to close their short position


http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/03/devonshire-short-tesla-motors-inc-tsla/

Devonshire Research Group presentation on Tesla Motors discussing their short position in the stock.

As of the publication date of this report, the Principals and Clients of Devonshire Research Group LLC have a net short position in the stock

Sucks to be shorting Tesla this week, suckers.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: ripper ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:17PM

sounds like some shorts are getting desperate.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:18PM

lol, trying to desperately to capitalize on a short by talking about the mining emissions from the materials extracted in a Tesla?

What is that supposed to do? Stop the deposits?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:18PM

People that buy Tesla's highly intelligent people. They're not fucking dumb ass rightards that buy into the newest dumbest bullshit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Date: April 03, 2016 11:19PM

2539132-6916208239-24395.gif


OP doesn't know much about investment firms, obviously

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Wired ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:21PM

LIZZIE WADE SCIENCE DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03.31.16.

TESLA’S ELECTRIC CARS AREN’T AS GREEN AS YOU MIGHT THINK

ELON MUSK IS unveiling the Tesla Model 3 today. If you’re planning to buy one, you’re probably feeling pretty good about yourself. Not only will you have a sweet ride, but you’ll be doing something good for the environment! No gasoline-powered sports cars to get you through your midlife crisis, thank you very much. You care about global warming.

But how green is a Tesla, really? Devonshire Research Group, an investment firm that specializes in valuing tech companies, dug into the data and concluded that Tesla’s environmental benefits may be more hyped than warranted. Devonshire isn’t saying that Tesla is pulling a Volkswagen, or that its cars are spewing greenhouse gases from invisible tailpipes. It’s arguing that Teslas (and, by extension, all electric vehicles) create pollution and carbon emissions in other ways. Each stage of an EV’s life has environmental impacts, and while they aren’t as obvious as a tailpipe pumping out fumes, that doesn’t make them any less damaging.


Let’s start with the basics. Your electric car doesn’t need gas, but it still might get its energy from burning carbon. It depends on how your local grid generates electricity. “If you use coal-fired power plants to produce the electricity, then all-electrics don’t even look that much better than a traditional vehicle in terms of greenhouse gases,” says Virginia McConnell, an economist at the environmental research firm Resources for the Future. But if your local grid incorporates a fair amount of renewable solar and wind energy, like California, your electric vehicle is pretty clean.

Of course, gasoline doesn’t exist in a vacuum, either: Refining, processing, and transporting gas add emissions that car owners must factor into their overall carbon footprint, the so-called “well-to-wheel” tally. It takes as much energy to produce a gallon of gasoline as a Model S consumes in 20 miles of driving, according to Department of Energy data. When you add all those extra expenditures up, “an electric car like the Model S has almost four times lower CO2 per mile than an equivalent gas-powered car,” says a Tesla spokesperson. So while the emissions argument is tantalizing for gas guzzlers, the average numbers still come out in favor of electric vehicles.

Beyond Emissions

The math gets trickier, though, when you include other forms of environmental damage. Electric cars need to be light, which means they include a lot of high-performing metals. The lithium in the batteries, for example, is super light and conductive—that’s how you get a lot of energy without adding a lot of weight. Other, rare metals are sprinkled throughout the car, mostly in the magnets that are in everything from the headlights to the on-board electronics.

But those rare metals come from somewhere—often, from environmentally destructive mines. It’s not just Tesla, of course. All electric vehicles rely on parts with similar environmental issues. Even solar panels depend on rare metals that have to be dug out of the earth and processed in less-than-green ways, says David Abraham, author of the book The Elements of Power. (Disclosure: I helped edit some chapters of the book.)

We can’t look at mining as an over-there thing and at Tesla as an over-here thing. They’re intricately linked.

Rare metals only exist in tiny quantities and inconvenient places—so you have to move a lot of earth to get just a little bit. In the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, Abraham writes, workers dig eight-foot holes and pour ammonium sulfate into them to dissolve the sandy clay. Then they haul out bags of muck and pass it through several acid baths; what’s left is baked in a kiln, leaving behind the rare earths required by everything from our phones to our Teslas.

At this mine, those rare earths amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground. The other 99.8 percent—now contaminated with toxic chemicals—is dumped back into the environment. That damage is difficult to quantify, just like the impact of oil drilling.

And, as in every stage of the process, mining has hidden emissions. Jiangxi has it relatively easy because it’s digging up clay, but many mines rely on rock-crushing equipment with astronomical energy bills, as well as coal-fired furnaces for the final baking stages. Those spew a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the process of refining a material destined for your zero-emissions car. In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found.

“We’re shifting pollution, and in the process we’re hoping that it doesn’t have the environmental impact,” says Abraham. He believes that when you add all the environmental impacts, they still come out in favor of electric vehicles. (The Union of Concerned Scientists agrees; it found that even when you add in emissions from battery manufacturing, EVs generate half the emissions of a conventional car over the course of its life.) Still, consumers and investors should understand what it takes to make the materials that enable their green choices. “I don’t think there’s been much discussion of that,” Abraham says. “We can’t look at mining as an over-there thing and at Tesla as an over-here thing. They’re intricately linked.”

Overall, “the greenhouse-gas-emissions footprint of electric vehicles can be pretty high on the front end, as they’re being built,” says McConnell. “And so you need to get a lot of benefits on the other side, when you use it.” And after you’re done using it.

http://www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Date: April 03, 2016 11:25PM

Almost 300k pre orders so far, TSLA is going to be up tomorrow, after rallying nicely on Friday.


Same article by the hedge fund with a short position on TSLA, that is posted on wired. The fund probably payed Wired and a quite a few sites a good amount to post that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Delusional Gerrytard ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:27PM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People that buy Tesla's highly intelligent people.
> They're not fucking dumb ass rightards that buy
> into the newest dumbest bullshit.
Attachments:
file.jpeg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymandererez ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:33PM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about the engine and transmission of cars.
> Exhaust systems. Exhaust emissions. How much
> mining and energy goes into that?
>
> Where's the comparison? Is this supposed to be a
> joke?


The only joke is you, Gerry. Additionally, hard-working conservative capitalists buy hybrid or "green" vehicles so they can use the HOV lanes to save time on commuting because their demanding jobs require them to be at the office more.

Meanwhile, Liberals buy hybrid or "green" cars because they think they are saving the planet. Emphasis on "think". You just can't fix stupid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Stanphyl Capital ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:34PM

Stanphyl Capital letter to investors for the month of March 2016 discussing their short position in Tesla Motors. Stanphyl was up almost double digits in Q1 2016. Also for in-depth coverage of Stanphyl’s latest small cap killer picks check it out -> here.

In addition to SPY we remain short what I believe to be the market’s biggest single-company stock bubble, Tesla Motors Inc. (ticker: TSLA; March close: $229.77) which in February reported a horrendous Q4 for 2015, with normalized free cash flow of negative $660 million (-$30 million from operations, $414 million in capex and subtracting the one-time $216 million of cash created by liquidating finished-goods inventory by selling several thousand more cars than the company produced). In fact, the free cash flow number was so bad that in the earnings release the company actually omitted it (after including it in previous ones) and instead substituted several completely nonsensical self-created metrics of its own. Then on the conference call Tesla said that under one of its whacky definitions of “cash flow” it would be cash flow positive for 2016 including the borrowings on its credit line. In other words, Tesla is trying to define “borrowed money” as “cash flow— just par for the course for this highly deceptive company.

As the “mass market” Model 3 is currently getting the most attention from the Tesla hype machine, I’ll point out that in Q4 2015 the company averaged an $18,400 GAAP loss on every Model S it sold despite a starting price of $70,000 and an average price that ran much higher. So how does anyone with a brain in his head think this company can make money selling a car—even one 20% smaller—starting at $35,000? I sure didn’t when I first wrote about this over two years ago and more recent analysis reinforces that conclusion. As we’re short the stock, I actually do hope it stickers the car at $35,000 and gets a trillion “reservations,” as the more it sells the more money it will lose. In reality though, Tesla will probably only be willing to sell Model 3s in the $50-$60,000 range (thereby substantially limiting its appeal), larded up with “options” that will be standard on mid-level Hondas by the time the small Tesla is available. Of course the idea that the Model 3 can be in mass production by late 2017 (as Tesla claims) is a pipe dream, considering that the company’s February 2016 10-K states: “We have not yet finalized the design, engineering or material and component sourcing plans for Model 3.” So when you read stories about the Model 3 “driveable prototype,” keep in mind that Tesla did the exact same thing with the Model S a full 3.5 years before it was in mass production, and even if we were to credit Tesla with “additional experience” and shave a full year off that figure, it wouldn’t put the Model 3 in meaningful production before late 2018. Oh, and one other thing: if Tesla goes belly up before your Model 3 is delivered, your $1000 deposit will make you just another unsecured creditor; i.e., a generous donor into the pockets of the $3 billion of bondholders who will auction off whatever’s left of the company.

Meanwhile in January General Motors formally introduced its new Bolt EV which really will sell for $37,500 (before the $7500 Federal tax credit) and offers true five-passenger seating, a range of over 200 miles and a 0-60 time of under 7 seconds for HALF the price of the cheapest Tesla Model S while matching its 94 cubic feet of interior passenger space (albeit with less storage). Seeing as studies show that 15% of Tesla buyers come from a Prius and many others come from other inexpensive “eco-favorable” cars, I expect the Bolt to grab back a significant number of them—what I call the “stretch buyers” who paid up for a Tesla because they wanted an electric car with 200-miles of range; those people can instead now choose the much less expensive/easier to park Bolt which will be available late this year, probably two years before “the comparably priced Model 3 that won’t really be comparably priced.” Perhaps the most interesting thing about the Bolt is that its 60kWh battery pack (made by LG) weighs just 960 pounds while the 60kWh Tesla pack (when it was offered) weighed 1125 pounds, a significant disadvantage for Tesla. Even if the Tesla pack’s housing was somewhat handicapped by needing to be large enough for the 85/90kWh models and thus as a 60kWh “pureplay” its weight might be closer to the Bolt’s, the Bolt’s energy density-per-pound at the pack level seems to show that the assembly, housing and cooling complications of Tesla’s method of wiring together many thousands of separate Panasonic cylindrical batteries vs. Chevrolet/LG’s much simpler use of just 288 prismatic cells makes Tesla’s first-to-market approach obsolete. As de facto proof of this, every manufacturer currently developing an EV has the option of using Tesla’s “thousands of cells” approach yet (as far as I know) none of them are; it thus seems clear that large-format prismatic batteries—not available with sufficient energy density at an attractive price when the Tesla Models S&X were designed—are now the superior approach and thus may render Tesla’s Gigafactory obsolete even before it opens.

The Tesla Model X Disaster

Meanwhile, Tesla’s rollout of its new Model X has been a disaster, with various enthusiast forums reporting myriad problems with its “falcon-wing” doors, seats and general build quality, as well as a very low confirmation rate for the refundable “orders” the company claims to have. And those orders that do exist are being delivered in ultra-slow motion as Tesla—which despite years of delays clearly did inadequate Model X testing—attempts to fix the vehicle’s problems (although of course its massive size problem is unfixable). In addition to its design, manufacturing and quality problems, the X’s $5000-$7000 premium to a comparable Model S sedan will be a huge sales-limiting factor, as nearly all of the luxury competition prices its premium SUVs considerably less expensively than its premium sedans. For instance, the most basic “X” with no options and a range of just 220 miles starts at $81,000 with only five seats standard. By comparison, the all-new seven seat Mercedes GLS starts at an estimated $65,000, the Porsche Cayenne at $58,000, the Audi Q7 at $55,000, the BMW X5 at $55,000 and the beautiful new (and award-winning) Volvo XC-90 at just $44,000, and all these vehicles average more than twice the range of the Tesla with far faster and more flexible refueling capabilities for long trips.

Tesla is now on Consumer Reports “Used Cars to Avoid” list with “much worse than average reliability” and I think that raises a VERY important point: the “Tesla love” and “Tesla loyalty” that one reads about on the forums (“Even if my Tesla is in the shop a lot I’ll never go back to an ICE [Internal Combustion Engine] car!”) is really “EV loyalty”/“EV love”—in other words, many people like the instant torque and quietness of their EV drivetrains, not necessarily the fact that those frequently

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerry the fairy ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:35PM

,
Attachments:
Tesla-Electric-Car-on-Fire--113459.jpeg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Stanphyl Capital (cont) ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:36PM

repaired drivetrains happen to come from Tesla. This means that when the Germans (Audi, Porsche, Mercedes and BMW) roll out their 300-mile luxury EVs in just two to three years, they’ll capture a lot of Tesla owners who love the driving experience but not the reliability experience, especially as fear grows that Tesla’s cash bleed means it may not be around to honor the eight-year drivetrain warranty that “reliability issues” force it to provide.

The big picture issues for Tesla are twofold (note: these links are updated monthly): 1) The market is under the mistaken impression that it has significant & sustainable proprietary technology when it doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t and doesn’t in cars (in fact LG now offers a complete turnkey electric drivetrain to any manufacturer who wants one) and many of these EVs will be sold at or below cost (subsidized by the profits from their makers’ conventional cars), thereby creating intense pricing/margin pressure on Tesla; it doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t and doesn’t in car batteries (where even its sole supplier Panasonic is going into direct competition with it via a factory unrelated to Tesla’s still 85% unfunded Gigafactory); it doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t and doesn’t in storage batteries (where its supplier Panasonic is going into direct competition with it both at utility scale and in the home) and the Tesla PowerWall has no business model anyway as partially proven in March when Tesla discontinued 50% of its hype-driven home product line; it doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t, doesn’t and doesn’t in autonomous driving while even the new $20,000 Honda Civic offers nearly autonomous driving; and it doesn’t and doesn’t in charging (Tesla has spent only around $200 million on its much-touted Supercharger network, a rounding error for the inevitable upcoming charging consortiums of big auto makers), and 2) The company’s management tells deception after deception after deception after deception after deception after deception.

So in summary, this cash-burning Musk vanity project is worth vastly less than its current approximately $36 billion fully diluted enterprise value and—thanks to over $3 billion of debt plus its credit line—may eventually be worth “zero.”

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:36PM

From Glenn Beck to Donald Trump and all the con artists in between. Fooling rightards is big business and highly lucrative. It's what rightards do best. Buy the bullshit.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymandererez ()
Date: April 03, 2016 11:38PM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Glenn Beck to Donald Trump and all the con
> artists in between. Fooling rightards is big
> business and highly lucrative. It's what
> rightards do best. Buy the bullshit.

Feel the Bern! LoLz @ Libz.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Building and Construction Trades ()
Date: April 04, 2016 12:01AM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From Glenn Beck to Donald Trump and all the con
> artists in between. Fooling rightards is big
> business and highly lucrative. It's what
> rightards do best. Buy the bullshit.


Construction workers walk off Tesla's new Reno site in protest over pay

Hundreds walk off job at battery manufacturing plant as union organizers say out-of-state workers are increasingly being hired for lower pay

Associated Press

Hundreds of union construction workers walked off the job at Tesla Motors’ battery manufacturing plant in northern Nevada on Monday to protest what union organizers say is the increased hiring of out-of-state workers for less pay.

Approximately 350 plumbers, carpenters, electricians, painters and others walked away from the construction site Monday along US Interstate 80, about 25 miles east of Reno, said Russell James, District 16 business development specialist for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Northern Nevada.

More than 100 picketed outside the main gate against what they say is an unfair labor practice that undermines promises to hire mostly Nevada workers in exchange for more than $1bn in state tax breaks, James said.

“It’s corporate welfare at its worst,” he told the Associated Press.

Union officials said work at Tesla’s Gigafactory is increasingly being done by crews for the non-union, New Mexico-based Brycon Corp.

“Nevada’s tax dollars should be used to provide jobs for Nevada construction workers, not New Mexico construction workers,” said Ted Koch, president of the northern Nevada council.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Canukerer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 12:12AM

Excited for Tesla’s Model 3? You should be—you’re paying for it

Subsidies will play a huge part in the success of electric vehicles like the new Tesla Model 3.

Chris Sorensen
March 31, 2016

Tesla vehicles are shown at the 2016 Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto on Thursday, February 11, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette
Tesla vehicles are shown at the 2016 Canadian International Autoshow in Toronto on Thursday, February 11, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

Bold styling. Roomy interior. Sporty handling. All are well-worn car company clichés to describe a shiny new vehicle. But when was the last time you heard an auto executive call a car “profound?” Elon Musk’s assessment of Tesla’s new Model 3 sedan, to be officially unveiled Thursday evening, hints at how much the electric carmaker has riding on its first truly mass market vehicle, priced around US$35,000—about half the cost of previous efforts, the sleek Model S and crossover Model X.

Yet, for every person lined up outside a Tesla store in Canada Thursday morning, eager to reserve a Model 3 that won’t even be available until late 2017, there are untold numbers of Canadian taxpayers who will be chipping in, through government incentives, to help make their electric dreams—and Musk’s—a reality.

Canada’s three most populous provinces, comprising about three-quarters of Canada’s population, all offer rich incentives to consumers who purchase an all-electric vehicle like Tesla’s Model 3 or a plug-in hybrid like the Chevrolet Volt. In B.C., consumers are eligible for up to $5,000 in incentives. In Quebec, it’s as much as $8,000. Drivers in Ontario who purchase an electric vehicle with a battery capacity larger than 16 kWh and five or more seats are in line to receive as much as $14,000 from the province. There are also rebates in Ontario and Quebec for installing charging infrastructure at people’s homes.

Even Ottawa is getting in on the action. This year’s budget earmarked $62.5 million over two years to support the deployment of charging stations for electric vehicles and natural gas and hydrogen fueling stations. “Early action is needed to support the transition to low-carbon transportation fuels, as vehicle choices made today will determine the mix of technologies on the road in 2030,” the government said.

Such subsidies are generally justified as necessary to offset the higher price of electric vehicles—particularly their giant lithium-ion batteries, which can account for as much as a third of the cost—and even the playing field when it comes to critical infrastructure. But it’s not yet clear if the strategy is working. Despite several years of consumer incentives, electric vehicles still account for a puny percentage of vehicles driven off dealers’ lots—less than half of one per cent of the nearly 1.9 million cars, trucks and SUVs sold in Canada last year. “EVs are failing miserably and subsidies and EV charging infrastructure is not the solution,” says Dennis DesRosiers, the president of Richmond Hill, Ont.-based DesRosiers Automotive Consultants.

Some argue the problem with consumer subsidies is they disproportionately benefit a small group of wealthy, environmentally minded people, who are among the most likely to shell out for a pricey electric car in the first place. That’s certainly been the case with Tesla. Musk’s business model was predicated on initially chasing rich CEO-types who were looking for an expensive toy, like Tesla’s US$108,000 roadster, and then gradually moving down market with a US$70,000 luxury sedan and US$80,000 crossover, although a US$144,000 “Signature” version of the latter is also available. (By contrast, Nissan initially targeted economy buyers with the Leaf, which starts at around $33,000 in Canada, while Chevrolet’s plug-in hybrid Volt starts at around $40,000). But while it’s true that a $5,000 incentive on an $80,000 car only means the difference between a standard interior and one with “Nappa leather armrests” and “lighted” door handles, the same can’t easily be said for the Model 3, where such subsides will amount to as much as a fifth of the sticker price.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 12:28AM

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2016 12:32AM by Gerrymanderer2.
Attachments:
Haters-Gonna-Hate-GIF.gif
giphy.gif

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: disney ()
Date: April 04, 2016 01:42AM

Gerry= millenial. No facts, just bias.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: kTTTG ()
Date: April 04, 2016 05:42AM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What about the engine and transmission of cars.
> Exhaust systems. Exhaust emissions. How much
> mining and energy goes into that?

Modern reciprocating ICE's and transmissions don't use exotic materials due to years and years of design. The worst part about a modern vehicle is still the big box of lead under the hood. Catalytic converters contain very small amounts of rare earths (that are recycled aggressively).

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Vexxxed ()
Date: April 04, 2016 06:46AM

There's more than one way we're paying for Tesla's success...


Elon Musk's growing empire is fueled by $4.9 billion in government subsidies

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Corporate Socialism ()
Date: April 04, 2016 08:05AM

Canukerer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Excited for Tesla’s Model 3? You should
> be—you’re paying for it
>
> Subsidies will play a huge part in the success of
> electric vehicles like the new Tesla Model 3.
>
> Chris Sorensen
> March 31, 2016
>
> Many countries bailed out their auto industries in 2008-2010. Here in the US GM and Chrysler received $80,000,000,000 from you and me to keep them afloat. That said, Tesla has itself received almost $5,000,000,000 from you and me. We give away 100 billion a year to lots of companies from Nike, to Alcoa, Boeing, Intel and of course the biggest most profitable energy companies on the planet. We work for them even if we dont work for them - our Creators...

Corporate Socialism folks.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Anonymous Userr ()
Date: April 04, 2016 08:58AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Date: April 04, 2016 08:59AM

Tesla up almost 5% in the pre market, sucks to be short.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: EunYW ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:50AM

carl icahn of ffxu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tesla up almost 5% in the pre market, sucks to be
> short.


Yeah, if they keep this up maybe it will be back to where it was a year ago. And the year before that. lulz

I don't think that you understand that this is about as good as it gets. They "sell" 300K cars and pull $10 billion and only get a 3% bump out of it. Most all of the upside is already baked into TSLA. Now they're on the hook to produce. It just gets harder from here.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:52AM

EunYW Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> carl icahn of ffxu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tesla up almost 5% in the pre market, sucks to
> be
> > short.
>
>
> Yeah, if they keep this up maybe it will be back
> to where it was a year ago. And the year before
> that. lulz
>
> I don't think that you understand that this is
> about as good as it gets. They "sell" 300K cars
> and pull $10 billion and only get a 3% bump out of
> it. Most all of the upside is already baked into
> TSLA. Now they're on the hook to produce. It
> just gets harder from here.
Attachments:
hero.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:53AM


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:54AM

Damn that thing is two floors. Ten million square feet.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:55AM

love me some next gen.
Attachments:
Solid-State-Battery-Satki3.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: ppmcx ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:55AM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> EunYW Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > carl icahn of ffxu Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Tesla up almost 5% in the pre market, sucks
> to
> > be
> > > short.
> >
> >
> > Yeah, if they keep this up maybe it will be
> back
> > to where it was a year ago. And the year
> before
> > that. lulz
> >
> > I don't think that you understand that this is
> > about as good as it gets. They "sell" 300K
> cars
> > and pull $10 billion and only get a 3% bump out
> of
> > it. Most all of the upside is already baked
> into
> > TSLA. Now they're on the hook to produce. It
> > just gets harder from here.


Like I said, it just gets harder from here.

You realize that having to build and operate that just makes it harder right?

Of course you don't. You have no clue. lol

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 11:59AM

Yeah I know thanks for the insight. You sound like a moron to me by the way.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 12:02PM

What we have here is the birth of a powerhouse American car company that thinks rightards are complete garbage.

Love me some Tesla.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 is a child fucker ()
Date: April 04, 2016 03:06PM

Gerry is Tesla the name of your 7 year old boy you fuck you pedophile. Whats wrong with you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Libs love corporate welfare ()
Date: April 04, 2016 03:18PM

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What we have here is the birth of a powerhouse
> American car company that thinks rightards are
> complete garbage.
>
> Love me some Tesla.

How many billions have democrats given Musk in welfare payments? How much has Hillary promised him?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Date: April 04, 2016 03:21PM

Libs love corporate welfare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > What we have here is the birth of a powerhouse
> > American car company that thinks rightards are
> > complete garbage.
> >
> > Love me some Tesla.
>
> How many billions have democrats given Musk in
> welfare payments? How much has Hillary promised
> him?

Con-tardz hate innovation


" Tesla Motors announced that it has paid off the entire loan awarded to the company by the Department of Energy in 2010. In addition to payments made in 2012 and Q1 2013, today’s wire of almost half a billion dollars ($451.8M) repays the full loan facility with interest. Following this payment, Tesla will be the only American car company to have fully repaid the government."


Don't like the government giving loans to innovative companies? Move to Russia.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Lol@thelibtards ()
Date: April 04, 2016 04:03PM

carl icahn of ffxu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libs love corporate welfare Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > What we have here is the birth of a
> powerhouse
> > > American car company that thinks rightards
> are
> > > complete garbage.
> > >
> > > Love me some Tesla.
> >
> > How many billions have democrats given Musk in
> > welfare payments? How much has Hillary promised
> > him?
>
> Con-tardz hate innovation
>
>
> " Tesla Motors announced that it has paid off the
> entire loan awarded to the company by the
> Department of Energy in 2010. In addition to
> payments made in 2012 and Q1 2013, today’s wire
> of almost half a billion dollars ($451.8M) repays
> the full loan facility with interest. Following
> this payment, Tesla will be the only American car
> company to have fully repaid the government."
>
>
> Don't like the government giving loans to
> innovative companies? Move to Russia.

The federal government has no money to loan. That money belongs to Americans.

Corporate welfare by the billions in the form of tax subsidies IS NOT A FUCKING LOAN! It's called a liberal sellout to the highest bidder.

Fuck, libs are dumber than a box of rocks.

BTW, when will GM pay the taxpayers back for their lib bailout to continue with the same failed business model?

Don't like it? Move to Iran or Cuba, which ever totalitarian country Obama is praising.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: <okay> ()
Date: April 04, 2016 04:42PM

Devonshire Research Group Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed


Attachments:
okay.png

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Tesla Not As Green As Once Believed
Posted by: Gerrymanderer2 ()
Date: April 04, 2016 04:52PM

Lol@thelibtards Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> carl icahn of ffxu Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Libs love corporate welfare Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > What we have here is the birth of a
> > powerhouse
> > > > American car company that thinks rightards
> > are
> > > > complete garbage.
> > > >
> > > > Love me some Tesla.
> > >
> > > How many billions have democrats given Musk
> in
> > > welfare payments? How much has Hillary
> promised
> > > him?
> >
> > Con-tardz hate innovation
> >
> >
> > " Tesla Motors announced that it has paid off
> the
> > entire loan awarded to the company by the
> > Department of Energy in 2010. In addition to
> > payments made in 2012 and Q1 2013, today’s
> wire
> > of almost half a billion dollars ($451.8M)
> repays
> > the full loan facility with interest. Following
> > this payment, Tesla will be the only American
> car
> > company to have fully repaid the government."
> >
> >
> > Don't like the government giving loans to
> > innovative companies? Move to Russia.
>
> The federal government has no money to loan. That
> money belongs to Americans.
>
> Corporate welfare by the billions in the form of
> tax subsidies IS NOT A FUCKING LOAN! It's called a
> liberal sellout to the highest bidder.
>
> Fuck, libs are dumber than a box of rocks.
>
> BTW, when will GM pay the taxpayers back for their
> lib bailout to continue with the same failed
> business model?
>
> Don't like it? Move to Iran or Cuba, which ever
> totalitarian country Obama is praising.

So you admit liberals saved General Motors. They paid it back you piece of shit. You fuckin losers don't even admit to being losers after the fact once you've already lost and been proven wrong.

You rightards are just filthy fucking mongrels that shouldn't be taken seriously.

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
dmPW6
This forum powered by Phorum.