Recs

13

Tesla May Be Headed for the Junkyard

The year of the electric car was supposed to be 2011. But, while President Obama predicted Americans would be driving a million EVs by 2015, last year they only purchased 20,000. Both the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf both undersold projections.

Tesla Motors (Nasdaq: TSLA  ) , whose Model S is set for a July rollout, is hoping 2012 will be the year. The maker of the Roadster and the highly anticipated Model S has excited investors and EV-drivers alike with its futuristic vehicles; unfortunately, the company's financials have been nothing but a lemon so far.

Founded in 2003, the company has never turned a profit, and currently operates at an unbelievable 111.5% net margin. In nearly nine years, the carmaker has sold just 2,100 vehicles, and the company continues to burn through cash after an IPO in 2010 and a secondary offering last June.

With the Model S expected for delivery this July, 2012 will be a make-or-break year for the cutting edge car company. Let's take a closer look at some of Tesla's numbers to see if this company will ever turn a profit.

2 plus 2 still equals 4
Based on current figures, Tesla is one of the most expensive and least profitable stocks on the market.

As the chart below shows, the EV-maker looks like an even worse investment than any of the much-maligned Web 2.0 IPOs of 2011.

Company

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

Profit Margin (TTM)

CAPS Rating

Tesla 13.88 (111.5%) *
Pandora Media 8.89 (3.89%) *
Linkedin 16.55 2.36% *
Zillow 13.70 (0.55%) *
Groupon 10.47 (40.89%) *
Zynga 5.82 7.19% *
Angie's List 9.92 (65.31%) *

Source: Yahoo! Finance

Of the six other companies listed above, only Linkedin has a higher price-to-sales ratio, and none are nearly as unprofitable as Tesla. Investors gave all seven a one-star CAPS rating, indicating they believe these stocks will all underperform the market.

The S is for suspect
The electric carmaker is going all in with its Model S sedan, allowing production of its Roadster sports car to lapse for now. By the end of 2011, the company had taken 8,000 orders for the car, which starts at a base price of $57,400; it hopes to produce 20,000 in 2013.

Despite these projections, it's hard to see Tesla turning a profit anytime soon. CEO Elon Musk has said that the gross margin of the Model S should be at least 25% in 2013. Assuming the company sells 20,000 vehicles, as hoped, at an average price tag of $65,000 (up from $57,400 for add-ons), the company would bring in revenue of about $1.3 billion from the Model S. With a little extra income from its development services and any Roadster sales, 2013 revenue could clock in at $1.6 billion. The chart below imagines how this might affect the bottom line.

Item 2011 (first nine months) 2013 (projections)
Revenue $164.9 million $1.6 billion
Cost of Goods Sold ($111.1 million) (1.2 billion)
Gross Profit $53.8 million $400 million
Operating Expenses ($221.9 million) ($600 million)
Operating Profit ($172.9 million) ($200 million)
Operating Margin (104.8%) (12.5%)

Source: Company 10-Q

In what I basically see as a best-case scenario, where the company sells 20,000 of the Model S and operating expenses (R&D and GS&A) only double, Tesla still would be operating at a loss two years from now. While the 2013 operating margin isn't nearly as horrifying as it is now, the volume loss is actually greater.

The continued operating losses are also putting pressure on Tesla's balance sheet. The company has managed to keep its debt under control, currently with $225 million in long-term debt and $268 million in cash, but every quarter of losses means more cash walking out the door. The Q3 figure dropped $62 million from its Q2 level, and if the company can't make a profit for another two years and wishes to pour greater levels into research and development, it will surely need another cash infusion.

A secondary offering in June 2011 raised $233 million, but had no significant effect on the share price, perhaps because CEO Musk purchased nearly 1.4 million shares at the time. Another offering may not be so kind to current shareholders.

Outside factors
Even if Tesla executes its plans perfectly, there are a number of issues outside the company's control that greatly influence electric vehicle sales. A spike in oil prices may create buzz for EVs, but under current gas prices, consumers seem to be happy to continue driving gas vehicles, or are looking at other options, like Zipcar. Furthermore, the production boom in natural gas may be tilting the strategic scales back toward fossil fuels, which means a slower move toward renewable energy.

Another change could come from a Republican administration in the White House, which may have a different attitude toward electric cars. A new president could revoke the $7,500 EV tax credit, and may look askance at Tesla's recent request for another Department of Energy loan, on top of the $465 million it received to develop the Model S. It's likely that even the Obama administration may be wary of sinking more money into renewables in the aftermath of the Solyndra scandal.

Finally, these are luxury vehicles; few, if any, consumers are using them as their only car. Automobiles are notoriously cyclical, and a pullback in the economy could eat into Tesla's already small market.

Foolish bottom line
With its Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL  ) -style stores that dot the tonier parts of the country, Tesla has made a big bet on its brand. But great brands are usually led by great products, not the other way around. Ten years ago, Apple was far from the tech darling it is today, before its i-ecosystem revolutionized everything from music to computing. Furthermore, Apple competes in the high-margin, mass-market, tech industry against the likes of Microsoft and Google, all three of whom have some of the fattest margins of any publicly traded company.

Tesla bills itself as "a different kind of car company" but they're still making automobiles, just as Ford (NYSE: F  ) and GM (NYSE: GM  ) are. Those two companies may be back from the dead, but at 5.06% and 6.62%, respectively, their profit margins are nothing compared to Apple's 23.95%.

Tesla's mission statement says it was founded "to prove that electric cars could be awesome," but the automaker may want to borrow another play from the tech company it admires. Apple's Lisa and Newton products were considered to be groundbreaking pieces of technology, but both were commercial flops.

As that company learned the hard way, just because you can make something, doesn't mean you should.

If you want another shot at the high-flying returns that Apple provided over the last ten years, check out this new report from experts at the Fool: "3 Hidden Winners of the iPad, iPhone, and Android Revolution". Best of all, it's free. You can access it by clicking right here.

The Steve Jobs Betrayal
You may already know that in the final year of his life, Jobs revealed a stunning betrayal — and told his biographer, "I will spend my last dying breath... and every penny of Apple's $40 billion in the bank to right this wrong." What was it that made Jobs so irate — and why could it make a few in-the-know investors some major profits over the coming months and years?

Enter your email address below to find out what made Jobs so enraged!

Fool contributor Jeremy Bowman holds no positions in any of the companies above. The Motley Fool owns shares of Apple and Ford Motor. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended buying shares of Tesla Motors, Apple, Ford Motor, and General Motors. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended creating a synthetic long position in Ford Motor. Motley Fool newsletter services have recommended creating a bull call spread position in Apple. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 3:34 PM, tukuemuaca wrote:

    The only car technology that is stupider than the plugin is the compressed air car.

    Why in the world would anyone buy a car that is tethered to its home base? Recharge time is overnight. You can't drive anywhere at all, let alone up a hill, or with an air conditioner...let alone a heater!!!!

    The only jerks that would buy a Tesla are Silicon Valley idiots that want to show their buddies what a wonderful toy this is. IT IS A GOLFCART, and a very expensive one to boot.

    So, all you Silicon Valley idiots, go buy a TATA compressed air car...10 times worse, but you can show all your buddies what a sage you are.

    Dopes.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 3:38 PM, mfrmurray wrote:

    A car selling about 50K, is not for the masses of people. I really want a Model S, because the other EV cars don't give the range I need. Unfortunately, my price range is in the 25K range.

    :-(

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 4:24 PM, deasystems wrote:

    @tukuemuaca: A plug-in electric is no more "tethered" than a gasoline-fueled car. In fact, electrical outlets are considerable more ubiquitous than gas stations. In addition, EV charging stations can fully recharge an empty Tesla S battery in as little as 45 minutes, not "overnight."

    By the way, I've never seen a "GOLF CART" that has a top speed of 120 mph, can go from 0 to 60 in less than 5 seconds, and has a range of 300 miles per charge. That's what a suitably optioned Tesla S is capable of...

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 4:36 PM, spawn44 wrote:

    It's stated range is 300 miles. That's 150 one way.

    On the way back you have to prey you don't hit a traffic jam, bad weather or some other unseen delay or you will be on the side of the road waiting for a tow. If you don't want to go anywhere this is the car for you.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 4:46 PM, blandman wrote:

    I'm disappointed in the short-term thinking in this article that has characterized Wall Street investing over the past 30 years. Trying to measure profitability over such a short time frame is what has gotten US Manufacturing where it is today.

    Tesla will be a success either as its own company, are the target of an acquisition sooner or later. At a minimum they are doing the R&D work for some larger auto company that can come in and purchase the badge rights, technology and manufacturing facility for a relative bargain in a few years. Same for VIA Motors in Utah.

    Electricity will be the Energy "lingua franca" eventually, with regional options on how to generate the energy source (wind, solar, natural gas, petroleum, etc.).

    My expectation is that in 20 years, articles like this willl be laughable.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 5:30 PM, RobertBoston wrote:

    It's folly to look at price-to-sales or profit-margin comparisons for a company that is just on the verge of commercializing its first mass product. The investment thesis in the Tesla IPO was completely different than any of the web IPOs the author compares it to.

    The author's slap-dash margin forecasts are in sharp contrast to those of Goldman Sachs and of JPMorgan. Goldman sees 2013 revenues at 2.0b, less COGS at 1.7b and other costs at $204m, for a pretax profit of $170m, yielding an EPS of $1.56.

    JPMorgan sees revenues at $1.8b, less COGS of $1.35b, and a net income of $154m, yielding an EPS of $1.35.

    The common theme here is that the author underestimates revenues (by ignoring the fact that a majority of Model S buyers are getting the 85kWh pack, and only a small minority getting the 40kWh pack) and overestimating costs (where DOES that $600m come from?).

    You can trust whom you will, but I put more trust in JPMorgan and Goldman's equity analysis than this guys.

    Disclosure: I am long TSLA.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 5:42 PM, TMFHobo wrote:

    @RobertBoston: Thanks for sharing the JPMorgan and Goldman figures.

    As I said in the article, I got the op. expenses from doubling their extrapolated 2011 total.

    You can look at it on pg. 4 here in their most recent quarterly report.

    http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/0001193125113...

    Seeing as they already had $224 million of other expenses in the first nine months of this year, I'd be surprised if they would have less than that in 2013 as Goldman's predicting.

    -Jeremy Bowman

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 5:53 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    @Spawn: I'm not sure how often most people go further than 300 miles in a stretch.

    I'm also not sure how many people go 150 miles somewhere and then either immediately turn around and go home, or stay somewhere with no electrical outlets.

    My wife is Canadian; every weekend I travel about 170 miles to Toronto, and then 170 miles back on Sunday. Presumably I would be able to find an outlet somewhere in the city of Toronto to charge over the course of the weekend, so if I were the sort of person who bought cars, a Tesla would more than meet my needs - and I travel far more frequently and for far greater distances than 99% of my peer group.

    There are a lot of headwinds for Tesla to be sure, but I don't think this is one of them.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 5:57 PM, DJDynamicNC wrote:

    @Robert - good points and I'm long Tesla as well, but I can't resist pointing out that if it comes to trust, I'll take any Fool, any day, over JP Morgan or Goldman Sachs.

    Fool authors aren't perfect and are wrong as often as the rest of us, but they own up to it and learn from it and they post their reasoning when questioned, which is more than I can say for JP "we need a bailout because we mismanaged all your money" Morgan or Goldman "we'll settle out of court for that thing that we did but won't admit to doing anything wrong" Sachs.

    Completely tangential and irrelevant comment on my part, I just felt like pointing it out. :)

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 6:12 PM, Hawmps wrote:

    1- There are Tesla Roadster owners that currently recharge the vehicle using rooftop photovoltaic in there homes (PV/EV). I'm sorry, you just can't get much better than that.

    2- Think really hard about the last time you drove 300 miles in one sitting. If you actually do drive that far regualarly, imagine in the not to distant future pulling into the Denny's, IHOP, truck stop, or what have you and plugging in your model S for 30-40 minutes at a charging station in the parking lot while you eat lunch and then go on your way (or rest stop on the Interstate). I would wager that you wouldn't need a "full charge" to continue on your journey or to get home (how many people only put in $10-$20 in the tank when they fill up?) Teslas also have an econo mode that has less power output and has slower energy consumption.

    3- The article actually makes the case for rapid expension of Tesla's manufacturing capabilities. If they go from 8,000 units to 20,000 (a 250% increase Y/Y) do you think investment dollars are NOT going to come out of the woodwork to purchase and setup aditional plants across the country? With aditional manufacturing capacity comes the benefit of economies of scale and the entry price has the potential to come down or margins to go up. With selling out at current pricing I'd lean toward the latter.

    4- Let's just supose Model S is successful (if it's not, end of story), do you think Tesla might come out with a smaller, more economical model for the masses in the near future?

    5- It seems to me that with the rollout of the Model S, R&D should be able to cool down a bit while they sell some cars.

    6- It seems to me that an EV has far fewer moving parts and major components that require oil and other corrosive liquids meaning no oil changes, no replacing the fuel pump or filter, no radiator/water pump trouble, no transmission fluid, etc. etc.... and I think you'll see owners holding on to their cars significantly longer than they do today with petrol power vehicles. On the electric motor you might have to replace the brushes after 100,000 miles and I believe the batteries have an 8 year warrantee. After 8 years, I would expect to replace the batteries with better bateries, not the car.

    7- How many times have I read about this on Motley Fool... you know that one favorite metric called insider buying? This is a CEO that is fully vested and believes in his company.

    8-And then there's the cool factor, and if you believe that people aren't going to buy the product at least partially for the cool factor, then what's that little tech company everyone loves so much that's named after a common fruit?

    I do not own Tesla stock or a Tesla vehicle (unfortunately), but I really love what this company is doing. I hope to have a Model S (or whatever the next model will be) one day when I have PV on my rooftop and can significantly reduce my annual vehicle expense.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 6:15 PM, Hawmps wrote:

    Wow, that was much more long winded than I intended. :)

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 9:18 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    Lot of clay pigeons in these comments, so from the top...

    "...electrical outlets are considerable more ubiquitous than gas stations. In addition, EV charging stations can fully recharge an empty Tesla S battery in as little as 45 minutes, not "overnight." "

    Sure, electrical outlets are more common if you've also got an extension cord long enough to run from inside your host's kitchen or hotel room. But public recharging stations, where you could recharge your car without risking arrest or at least a dirty look and is the equivalent of a gas station, are approximately one hundred times more rare than a place to buy gas.

    The quick charging stations don't exist, and won't anytime soon unless the government throws billions of dollars at it. The kind of charger that could fill up a Tesla in less than an hour costs over $60,000 each and would require tens of thousands more in infrastructure investments from the electrical substation to the site of the charging station.

    It's one thing for a consumer to be an early adopter and take the possible inconvenience of an electric car to be the first on their block. (Or zip code.) But what business is going to make the investment in quick chargers - or even the $5000 220v chargers - when there will be just a few thousand EV's in the entire country? Even in the areas where the Model S is most common how many quick charge customers could you expect in a week?

    And how would those customers react when you add the cost of your hardware investment to their bill? If you have to spend $75K on a charging station and you sell ten charges a week (a wildly optimistic number, I think), you'll have to add a $50 per charge fee just to recover the cost of your equipment in two years.

    The quick charge costs the car owner in another way, too. They're hell on the batteries. Each quick charge takes dozens of cycles off the life of the battery pack. That isn't a small consideration when you're talking about a battery pack that has a mid five-figure price tag.

    Any economic advantage of an electric car disappears unless you charge it overnight, at home.

    Pull.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 10:11 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    "I'm disappointed in the short-term thinking in this article that has characterized Wall Street investing over the past 30 years. Trying to measure profitability over such a short time frame is what has gotten US Manufacturing where it is today."

    What's a good time to expect a company to be profitable? I kinda expect profitability before a company goes public, but I'm old fashioned, I guess.

    ****

    "Tesla will be a success either as its own company, are the target of an acquisition sooner or later. At a minimum they are doing the R&D work for some larger auto company that can come in and purchase the badge rights, technology and manufacturing facility for a relative bargain in a few years."

    Probably not. Tesla's IP is on software to regulate battery temperature. Other automakers have found ways to use liquid cooled/heated batteries without violating Tesla's patents. Tesla doesn't have patents on the battery composition or chemistry, those are from Panasonic.

    But whatever Tesla's value as a brand or source of IP, their value as an acquisition is greatly undercut by a deal that the Tesla fanbois like to tout as proof of its being a big league player - the ex-Toyota/GM NUMMI plant in Fremont, California.

    When Tesla "bought" NUMMI, they took over liability for the eventual cleanup and redevelopment when the plant is closed. Since this is an auto assembly plant opened in 1960, there is a lot to clean up. Automakers typically spend up to a billion dollars cleaning up and razing closed assembly plants. With its age, size and location NUMMI would be at the top end of the cost scale.

    But, I hear you saying, wouldn't an automaker who needed extra capacity like Hyundai/Kia buy Tesla to get an existing plant? No. NUMMI was perennially one of the least-efficient plants for either GM or Toyota because its age and layout didn't allow implementing modern design efficiencies. For the cost of making NUMMI competitive you could build a new plant somewhere else, with a lower operational costs and without what will probably be a superfund remediation bill. Toyota pulled the evil genius move of the decade in unloading NUMMI on Tesla (and, I fear, ultimately on California taxpayers), but no one is going to be dumb enough to pick it up.

    Pull.

  • Report this Comment On January 20, 2012, at 10:52 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    "The author's slap-dash margin forecasts are in sharp contrast to those of Goldman Sachs and of JPMorgan. Goldman sees 2013 revenues at 2.0b, less COGS at 1.7b and other costs at $204m, for a pretax profit of $170m, yielding an EPS of $1.56.

    JPMorgan sees revenues at $1.8b, less COGS of $1.35b, and a net income of $154m, yielding an EPS of $1.35.

    You can trust whom you will, but I put more trust in JPMorgan and Goldman's equity analysis than this guys."

    Ancient Hungarian proverb: "The believer is happy, but the doubter is wise."

    Or the modern investing version, if you prefer: "You're taking Morgan and Goldman on the strength of their reputations? Remember what those clowns said about Enron? Or the housing bubble?"

    Goldman and Morgan are smoking crack with these numbers. To get $2b of revenue in 2013 Tesla will have to hit their 20,000 unit production goal and sell each car for $100,000. (Their other income is a rounding error. The entire value of their deal with Toyota for the RAV4EV is $100 million spread over three years.)

    There's an obvious high-as-a-kite problem with the average transaction price, but the production numbers are a cry for Betty Ford, too. There's nothing to suggest there is a market for 20,000 luxury EV's even at $65K. It's taken almost three years to get 7,000 reservations for the Model S, and it's not like other electric cars are selling great, either. Nissan projected 20K annual sales for the Leaf and then had to cut it almost in half, and still missed for 2011.

    But wait - whoever came up with the COGS numbers needs to pee in a cup, too. Tesla's 2013 costs are going to be astronomical compared to other automakers. They'll have a massive outlay in equipment for the assembly line and labor, and with all new equipment, employees and car design it will take months at least to work out the bugs and get the line running smoothly and reliably. Until they do, the labor costs will be huge.

    Yet even when they do get the line running smoothly, their material costs are going to be greatly higher than any other automaker. They will never have economies of scale of BMW, Daimler or VW, and their cars use very expensive components and materials. An aluminum chassis like Tesla uses costs several times as much as the same part made in steel and the battery pack has been estimated to cost more than 50% of the base price of the car for the 300 mile pack. Even if their per unit assembly costs were equal (and at 20K units they never will be) the Model S would have a significantly lower profit margin than the A6, E-class, or 5-series because the parts cost so much more.

    If Jeremy has made a mistake it's in being too generous to Tesla. He's presuming the Model S will match the sales of the Leaf (10K) at an average selling price in the $60K range, even though Nissan has a fully established dealer network and the Leaf costs half as much. My estimate is that they'll be lucky to sell 5,000 cars in 2013. The market just isn't there.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 12:19 AM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    And last, Hawmps - this is how you do long-winded. ;)

    1) Good for the consumer, but irrelevant for Tesla. Solar panels on the garage roof would work for any EV or plug-in hybrid.

    2) You might not regularly do 300 miles in a day, but most people won't find it hard to imagine where they would make a trip like that once or twice a year. Unless you can get a direct flight, it's usually faster, always less expensive and infinitely more convenient to drive any trip less than 350-400 miles than to fly. If you have family that lives 4-5 hours away, or if you take short getaway vacations/weddings/funerals/etc., the range of the Model S will be an issue.

    So, are you going to spend $75K+ on a luxury sedan that can't do those trips in one day? And for end users, it's not going to be 300 miles of range. The penalty for running out is so severe that Model S owners will hesitate to push the car to its range limit. They will want a reserve, and if they run the car to 20% of the battery capacity their real range will be 240 miles. Now you're talking about a four hour drive. How uncommon are those in your life?

    You can avoid this by having a gasoline-powered car for those trips, but $75K is a lot of money for a limited-use vehicle. There are people who will buy it and keep a big SUV for road trips with the family, but that's not a huge demographic.

    3) NUMMI has more manufacturing capacity than Tesla will be able to use in their wildest dreams. When Toyota and GM were producing cars and trucks there it was good for around 275,000 units a year, and that was with four weeks of downtime.

    But even if they maxed out capacity at Fremont they'd still be a niche player. Economies of scale in the auto business don't kick in at 20,000 units, or 200,000. You have to sell millions of cars to get those benefits.

    4) Unfortunately, no. It's not just a problem for Tesla. Consumers expect a compact car to cost significantly less than a midsize, and a midsize to be significantly less than a full size. But it doesn't work that way because labor costs don't drop with a small car, the components are only slightly smaller, and the cars even weigh almost as much. The Chevy Cruze only weighs a couple hundred pounds less than the midsize Malibu.

    It's difficult for any automaker to turn a profit on smaller cars because of the clash between real costs and customer expectations, but it will be much harder for Tesla to scale down because their battery requirements and costs will not fall significantly with a smaller car. If it carries four people and passes crash testing it's going to weigh well north of 3500 pounds, and that's going to require almost the same amount of battery power as the Model S. With the 300 mile pack of the Model S estimated to cost ~$40K, that will make it very difficult for Tesla to move down to a lower price compact or CUV.

    5) R&D costs never go away. The life cycle of a new design is 5-7 years and a manufacturer will have to do a mid-cycle refresh/update after 3 years. In a traditional automaker work on the mid-cycle refresh would begin before the end of the first year. And remember, that's just one car. Tesla wants to follow the Model S with the Model X, the compact SUV. So if it goes to plan they'll begin R&D on a clean-sheet new model immediately after they wrap up work on the Model S.

    6) I'd be surprised if that happens. The buyers Tesla is trying to reach (A6/E-class/5-series) overwhelmingly lease for 2-3 years and then get a new car. They don't get rid of these cars because they're falling apart, they do it because they want something new and they can afford it.

    7) CEO ownership is a good when it happens, but it's far from being the only barometer. Musk has no experience in the field and is arrogantly dismissive of those who have succeeded, and he's also running a rocket manufacturer and a solar panel company. Focused he's not.

    8) Apple didn't succeed because it was cool, it became cool because it worked better than any of its competition and it opened up new features to owners. Tesla, in at least one area, is asking customers to accept less convenience. Also, Apple consistently started with small products, refined the design and process, and then worked up to higher margin products. Tesla is stepping up to the plate and betting everything on a grand-slam home run on their first swing.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 1:38 AM, electricavenue wrote:

    It makes little sense to evaluate a company who is primarily spending money on R&D by its Price-to-sales ratio and profit margin.

    For those who doubt the market is or will be there, I've been driving an EV for almost a year and one of the first things you learn is that you made far more compromises to drive on gas than you ever will with electric. I never would have believed it, but almost every EV owner says the same thing. It's a better experience than gas in virtually every way. Once the public stops listening to the misinformation and discovers the truth, there will be a tipping point and Tesla will be 3 - 5 yrs ahead of the other automakers with R&D in place to meet the demand.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 3:52 AM, deasystems wrote:

    @baldheadeddork: “...public recharging stations...the equivalent of a gas station, are approximately one hundred times more rare than a place to buy gas.”

    Pike Research projects 13,000 public charging stations by the end of 2012. There are about 160,000 gas stations in the U.S. so if their projection is correct, gas stations will only be about 12 times more ubiquitous than charging stations by the end of this year, not “one hundred times.”

    You then claimed that “The kind of charger that could fill up a Tesla in less than an hour costs over $60,000.”

    That is not true. Mode 3 stations can provide charging at that rate and they are much less expensive than the Mode 4 type stations you are presumably talking about. A 480-volt "fast" charger, capable of recharging a vehicle in 30 minutes or less, typically costs $40,000, plus installation. They’re cheap enough that organizations like Cracker Barrel restaurants are rolling out pilot programs to provide a mix of regular and high-speed charging stations, which are capable of providing a full charge in about 30 minutes.

    Why exaggerate, baldheadeddork?

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 12:21 PM, tukuemuaca wrote:

    @deasystems

    OK. When you run out of battery, you have to recharge. Fine. Electricity everywhere. YES. HOWEVER, RECHARGE TIME is so long you have to stay overnight somewhere while it charges. BTW, recharge time is estimated using a high capacity 240 volt source. "Electricity Everywhere" is of the 120 volt variety, typically about 15-20 amps, so the recharge time may be as long as a couple of DAYS.

    It is "tethered" because any trip you take, of any length at all will involve a LOT of time waiting to get "filled up". For instance, if I want to drive from Boise, Idaho to San Francisco, I will have to "fill up in Winnemucca, Nevada (overnight), another in Reno (overnight) and maybe in Sacramento, since I had to drive over Donner Summit in the Sierras.

    So, my friend, tell me how you would drive from Silicon Valley to Seattle, or to Las Vegas, Or San Diego, or Denver???? How many days sleeping while your precious plugin was being recharged????

    Golf Cart it is. Plug it in, go back home, plug it in again. Range is NOT 300 miles. Under any normal conditions, up a mountain grade, using heater and/or air conditioning, I am generous in how many stops I would have to make driving from Boise to San Francisco; which I do quite often. Golf carts are used right around their home base, and that is where plug ins will be

    BTW, you notice that the sales of these expensive golf carts is off the predictions by so much that ALL of them will soon be out of business, except for the few "show offs" that I talked about earlier. Rich guys that want to make a statement.

    You have your head in the sand.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 12:37 PM, Dugger69 wrote:

    The Model S is a sexy piece of work. It's the kind of car people are going to look at and say: "My God, I want one of those!" I can't help but think that if it comes out in "mid-2012" as promised, Tesla is going to be able to sell every one it can produce. If that happens, a lot of other companies (eg. Daimler and Toyota) are going to want to get in on it, and the financing, production, recharging stations, and ultimate profitability will more or less take care of themselves. I'm not a professional investor, and this is just my take on the situation. Maybe I'm wrong.

    I also can't help but think that a lot of the criticism of Tesla seems to be ideologically motivated. Republicans in general just don't like the idea of electric cars. But come on guys, a "golf cart" it ain't.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 1:04 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    @deasystems - "Why exaggerate, baldheadeddork?"

    I didn't.

    Let's start with comparing the number of charging stations to the number of gas stations. The DOE counts each charging station individually, even if they're in the same location. An apples-to-apples comparison would either count the number of charging stations to pumps/dispensers at all the gas stations, or you'd count the number of charging sites to gas stations. You can't mix and match. Or, you did - but you shouldn't.

    That difference in how charging sites are counted actually makes a very big difference. The DOE says there are 5430 public* charging stations in the US and over a third of those (1452) are in California. But a second database shows that there are just 425 public charging locations in the state.

    Wait, it's not even that good. The asterisk in the last paragraph is because many of those public charging stations aren't public at all. The DOE counts charging locations at places like Google, HP and Netflix as public because employees can charge there, but they are closed to the actual public. You can also scratch the Nissan dealers off the list unless you're driving a Leaf, and (ironically) all of the charging stations operated by Commonwealth Edison and LADWP are not open to ConEd or LADWP customers.

    That removes 198 of those 425 locations, leaving just 227 places in the state where you can plug in your Tesla. But its still worse than that, because those private sites have a hugely disproportionate number of the charging stations in the state. Google's facilities in Mountain View alone make up 10% of all the "public" charging stations in the entire state. That's great if you work for Google, but if you don't there are just four chargers at one parking garage in the rest of Mountain View.

    That's typical for the state. Want to charge your EV in LA and you're not a ConEd or LADWP employee? You can go to a hospital or hotel parking garage, or an elementary school, or the public library. But only a handful of hospitals, hotels, schools or libraries, and because most only have one or two charging stations if someone beat you there you've got a long wait until you can begin to fill up.

    And that's life for a Tesla owner in the most EV friendly-state in the US. Anywhere else it gets a lot worse very quickly.

    ******

    Now, let's get back to that Pike Research projection for 13,000 public charging stations in the US by the end of this year.

    They're on crack.

    As noted there are just 5400 stations as of last week, and a large percentage of those are not public in any real definition of the word. Does Pike really believe nearly 1000 stations are going to come on line every month for this year? That would be more charging stations per month than EV's being sold in the US. Tell me when this begins to sound a little off to you.

    ***********

    I also wasn't exaggerating about the cost of a quick charger. The charger hardware itself may cost $40K (again, per unit), but refitting your facility to run a 480v circuit gets very expensive, very quickly. It's really easy to spend $20K installing panels and circuits in addition to the cost of the charging equipment, and someone has to pony up for the utility to hang a new transformer and run a 480V/three phase line to your building. Retail and residential areas usually only have 240V single phase.

    But even if the total installed cost was just $40K it doesn't have any real effect on the economics. The very small number of EV's on the road will require a quick charge operator to add a very large surcharge if he or she is going to recover the hardware investment in a reasonable period.

    Run the numbers. If a quick charge operator could expect to average ten sales per week - and I think that is a wildly optimistic number given the small number of EV's in use - and he wants to pay off his equipment investment in two years, he would have to add a $40 surcharge on every bill. This is on top of the cost of electricity and all of his other operating expenses.

    And that will kill the widespread adoption of EV's. For quick charging to be commercially viable it has to get nearly all of its business from local EV owners and it can't do that while it still takes an hour and costs ten times as much as plugging in at home overnight. No convenience store or gas station will invest even $40K on quick charging to sell to someone who might be passing through in a Model S and needs a quick one-hour refill at that exact moment, and without that infrastructure the EV will remain a commuting car.

    Pull.

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 1:06 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    Oops - forgot to include these. Here are the links to the DOE charging station databases.

    http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/electricity_locations....

    http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/stations_counts.html

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 1:32 PM, deasystems wrote:

    @ tukuemuaca: I hope Tesla's specification for range includes normal use of accessories like heating, lighting, and air conditioning. I don't think the Tesla people are so stupid as to leave those typical power drains out of their calculations...

    Second, even with just 120 volt charging, it takes less than 10 hours to significantly recharge, not "days."

    Finally, I presume your drive from Boise to San Francisco is never done non-stop since it's a 640 mile, eleven hour journey. You'll have to make at least one refuelling stop. In a high capacity Tesla S you'd have to make at least one full and one partial recharging stop. Neither stop would require more than 30 to 45 minutes at a suitable recharging station. The state of Oregon has a web site dedicated to its electric vehicle projects as does Portland General Electric. The U.S. Department of Energy has a station locator web page. There are already lots of recharging stations in CA (including Sacramento) and several in Reno. If your *obviously edge case* journey isn't practical in a Tesla S today, I think it may be by the end of the year.

    Keep in mind that adding EV recharging infrastructure can be done much faster and cheaper than doing the same for gas-fueled vehicles...

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 4:22 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    @deasystems - "In a high capacity Tesla S you'd have to make at least one full and one partial recharging stop. Neither stop would require more than 30 to 45 minutes at a suitable recharging station. The state of Oregon has a web site dedicated to its electric vehicle projects as does Portland General Electric. The U.S. Department of Energy has a station locator web page. There are already lots of recharging stations in CA (including Sacramento) and several in Reno. If your *obviously edge case* journey isn't practical in a Tesla S today, I think it may be by the end of the year."

    Just because I'm enjoying this, let's look at this trip.

    First, the "suitable charger" for a 30-45 minute recharge doesn't exist in Sacremento, Reno, or anywhere else on that route. There are all of twelve in the US, the closest in Portland, Oregon. (The remaining eleven are within an hour or so of the Nissan Leaf plant in Tennessee. Go figure.) Portland Gas and Electric did announce last year that they would install several QC stations on I-5 by the end of 2011, but that plan was shelved when EV sales underperformed.

    Also, and I'm not an expert on this myself but, I believe that 640 divided by 300 would be two full recharges and a top off.

    So let's pull up the AAA Trip Adviser and hit the road.

    Day One -

    There is good news and bad news: Good news is SF-Reno is easily in the range of the 300 mile Model S, there are three public charging stations in Reno and all of them have Level 2 charging stations. The bad news is two are at Nevada Power offices and the third is at an Einstein's Bagel shop.

    It will take 4 hours or more to recharge so you can either a) hang out at the bagel shop or in the electric company's parking lot, b) leave your $100K car unattended for a few hours and get a cab to someplace interesting...in Reno, or c) check into a hotel with parking close to the building, find an exterior power outlet, get the hotel to let you use their power to recharge, haul out your portable charger or extension cord, and hang out by the pool while the Tesla recharges through a 120v/15amp cocktail straw.

    That a hotel will let you recharge shouldn't be a foregone conclusion. If they say yes they have a liability exposure if anything goes wrong. They may not even have a place for you to plug in unless you pull the extension cord into your room. Most newer commercial buildings don't have external AC outlets because of the liability issue.

    *****

    Day two: There is no day two. If you're smart the trip is over and you retrace the route back to SF, or leave the car at the Reno airport and fly to Boise.

    To drive from Reno to Boise, you drive west on I-80 to Winnemucca and then go north on US-95. From there, there's nothing really until you get to Boise. It's one of the most desolate drives I've ever done. The total distance from Reno to Boise is 420 miles and in between there really isn't anything. t's the kind of drive where you don't let the fuel gauge get below half.

    But if you do this trip in a Model S, that won't be an option. There are no public charging stations of any kind between Reno and Boise, not even for a Leaf owner. Burns Junction, Oregon is right on the ragged edge of range from Reno (295 miles) and, according to Google, there is one ten-room hotel/gas station there. In McDermitt, Nevada a hundred miles south there are two hotels that both promote plenty of parking for semis. Maybe you can stay the night there and recharge, but if they say no the only way your Model S is getting to Boise is on a flatbed.

    ******

    This trip isn't just improbable for a Model S because of the desolation between Reno and Boise. Just for fun I mapped out a Model S road trip from LA to Reno. The obvious route would be to drive up I-5 to Sacramento and then take I-80 to Reno. But you can't do that in the Model S because Sacramento is out of its range and there are no public recharging stations between the two where you could top off. So next I looked at California 99, a slightly better drive through Bakersfield and Fresno. No dice with that, either. The only public charging stations on this route are at Nissan dealers.

    To get from LA to Reno in a Model S, you'd have to go west up US101 to San Louis Obipso, recharge overnight in a parking garage (the only Level 2 charging station in town) and take a car to your hotel. The next day you'd have to drive from SLO to somewhere in the East Bay, but you still wouldn't be able to get to Sacramento or Reno.

    Now if Tesla puts a quick charge station at its factory in Fremont you could fill up and make it to Reno that day. But otherwise you have to find a Level 2 station in Oakland, Fremont or Concord and camp out for a few hours while it charges. Reno is still four hours away after a 4-6 hour drive from SLO and a 4+ hour recharge, so it's probably going to be another night in a hotel. But on day three you will make it to Reno! Yay you!

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 5:55 PM, deasystems wrote:

    @ baldheadeddork: "First, the "suitable charger" for a 30-45 minute recharge doesn't exist in Sacremento, Reno, or anywhere else on that route. There are all of twelve in the US."

    Citation?

    Also, you'll note my comment that if that journey isn't practical in a Tesla S today, I think it may be by the end of the year.

    You then stated "I believe that 640 divided by 300 would be two full recharges and a top off."

    Do you start a long journey with an empty tank, baldheadeddork? I guess math and planning aren't your strong points...

  • Report this Comment On January 21, 2012, at 8:17 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    "Citation?"

    Via Portland Gas and Electric. Use the location filter pull down on the right and select DC Fast Charge.

    http://www.blinknetwork.com/locator.html

    This is the only source I could find showing any Fast Charge stations.

    *******

    "You then stated "I believe that 640 divided by 300 would be two full recharges and a top off."

    Do you start a long journey with an empty tank, baldheadeddork? I guess math and planning aren't your strong points..."

    :facepalm:

    1) Start with a full charge. Drive 300 miles.

    2) Recharge

    3) Drive another 300 miles.

    4) Recharge.

    5) Drive another 40 miles, complete 640 mile trip. Top off to restore to a full charge.

    Do you understand now? That isn't "one full charge and a partial charge."

    And tell your sixth grade math teacher he owes me $20. If I'm doing his job, I want what he was paid.

  • Report this Comment On January 22, 2012, at 1:10 AM, deasystems wrote:

    That IS one full charge and one partial charge once the journey has begun.

    No one but you would start a journey THEN realize the tank is empty...

  • Report this Comment On January 22, 2012, at 1:15 AM, deasystems wrote:

    To restate your steps:

    1) Get in your ALREADY fully charged Tesla S, back it out of your garage and drive 300 miles

    2) Get a full recharge and drive the next 300 miles (that's recharge #1)

    3) Get a partial charge and drive the last 40 miles (that's recharge #2)

    Do you understand now?

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2012, at 3:22 PM, blandman wrote:

    Interesting to note: Tesla's majority of income over the next few years is as an OEM for drivetrains. Auto sales with their "Tesla" badge is not going to be their main revenue source.

    I would think that would put them in an important supply chain role for Toyota and others as California mandates kick in over the next few years.

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2012, at 3:28 PM, blandman wrote:

    Sorry to double-dip, and this may be the "Berkeley" in me talking. However - it seems like there is a small army of professional naysayers out their writing articles claiming how impratical it will be to wean ourselves off of gasoline engines. Curious. Given the obvious need to do so to save our environment and economy, you'd think we'd all be working as hard as possible together to make this a reality.

  • Report this Comment On January 23, 2012, at 4:18 PM, Hawmps wrote:

    Wow, a lot of interesting opinions here. Somehow the cases made here against the electric vehicle seem to echo the general sentiment of 110-120 years ago when some loud, new-fangled contraption began running amuck and scaring the horses... I think they called it a horseless carriage or something. And yet somehow I think gas stations came around sometime after that to make them able to go farther.

    Anyway, there seems to be quite a lot of really short term thinking here. Look back just to 1999/2000 when the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius first hit the market in North America and see how far technology has come since then. There are obvious challenges with current lack of infrastructure, but continually, progressively changing technology are addressing these challenges slowly, but surely. Once EVs get to a point of critical mass, and there is infrastructure built-out to support them, one has to recognize that the power of economies of scale will take effect and the cost of this technology (batteries, chargers, etc.) will decrease dramatically. I agree that this is years or decades away from becoming a reality, but look at what has happened to the solar panel market already. The price of the finished goods has declined significantly because of a glut of supply. This will also eventually happen with various components (batteries, chargers, etc.) that are needed to make critical mass of EVs possible. This is an inevitability of technology. Just think back to the mid 1980's and how much did it cost to buy an IBM personal computer? or an Apple IIe?

    The 2008 Roadster had 53kWh battery and the Model S has up to 85kWh battery; perhaps we'll see 150kWh in 10 years? with increased efficiancy and cooling? Well, perhaps 500 miles is still not far enough.

    As photovoltaic rooftop and ground installations become more economically viable for a primary residence, EVs will steadily become more popular. But I also believe that EVs will not replace petroleum powered vehicles entirely. There would need to be some seriously giant leaps forward to compete with 18 wheels and 100+ gallons of diesel.

  • Report this Comment On January 24, 2012, at 2:03 AM, wardco wrote:

    I have converted a small pick-up to an EV. It is a wonderful vehicle for around town. The cost was .1 time that of the Tesla S. Not near as sexy but still, lots of WOW.

    Power density of batteries leaves much to be desired. I always amazed by emotional outbursts among enthusiasts and detractors.

    I'm not sure if the project taught me more about the "automobile affair" or practical application of transportation options.

    After the new wears off, these cars will still be overpriced in relation to utility. It's a shame!

  • Report this Comment On January 24, 2012, at 1:25 PM, 48ozhalfgallons wrote:

    Infrastructure logistics, chassis materials, battery technology, and user interface will be the drivers (no pun intended) for rapid adoption of personal EV's.

    Battery technology: Packs must be manageable by the user. Failing individual cells or module units must be user maintainable and swappable. External charging capabilities and standardized connectivity must exist. Allocation for on board transport of spare pack(s) or modules must be addressed to allow for long range applications.

    Chassis materials: Recoverable dynamics materials must be used extensively. Buying a personal ground transportation electric vehicle (PGTEV) will rival a home purchase. Lifetime ownership, durability, maintainability and upgradability will be the major factors determining purchase. Obsolescence and atrophy must be engineered out of this technology. PGTEV's must be regarded as comprising of four owner interchangeable components: chassis, motor, powerpack, and creature comforts. Size and performance will determine cost variables.

    Infrastructure logistics: The lack of vision of manufacturer and consumer demands regarding the dynamics of user participation in power management inhibits the rapid adoption and market penetration for PGTEV's. One does not wait for a charge to continue trip. One swaps a discharged pack for a charged pack and pays for the service.

    The notion of centralized control by manufacturers overseeing the use and maintenance of PGTEV products must be abandoned. Manufacturers must accept the role of contractor-for-delivery rather than matriarchal overseer tying consumers to the apron strings of engineered dependancy.

    The ability to deliver this technology exists today. Powerpacks can be modularized to allow individualized handling and charging. Power storage and dynamos can only evolve toward greater convenience and efficiency. Connectivity must remain standardized or at least adaptable. Structurally recoverable dynamics plastics have existed for a decade.

    If the market choses to evolve toward this kind of maturity, everyone on this planet will benefit and it can happen in 15 years.

  • Report this Comment On January 24, 2012, at 2:16 PM, Hawmps wrote:

    Yeah, it would be no sweat to convert a drive-thru qwiki lube place into a drive-thru batt-pak swap. Just need standardized connections, paks, etc. for it to work nationwide. The gas filler neck for cars are standardized, why not battery packs? EVs can run on a one standard voltage... gas powered cars are all 12volt systems, standard. Why not just pull thru the "qwiki-lube" to swap out a batt-pak and 5 minutes later your back on the road. It takes about 5 minutes to fill up gas anyway. The propane industry already does this type of service for your BBQ; take your empty tank back to Sam's, Coscto, or even Walgreens for a full one.

  • Report this Comment On January 26, 2012, at 11:50 AM, deasystems wrote:

    @48ozhalfgallons: “Battery technology: Packs must be manageable by the user. Failing individual cells or module units must be user maintainable and swappable.”

    The modules must be swappable (or replaceable) but not individual cells. That would be ridiculous. For example, the Tesla power module contains *thousands* of individual cells interconnected by welds and located inside a cooling/heating matrix. This isn’t a flashlight we’re dealing with here...

    You then state that, “Allocation for on board transport of spare pack(s) or modules must be addressed to allow for long range applications.”

    Impractical and probably unnecessary. Again, see above.

    You then assert that, “Obsolescence and atrophy must be engineered out of this technology.”

    While a good manufacturer will strive for maximum reliability and longevity, it does not seem reasonable or even possible for a manufacturer to create a product that never becomes obsolete. You didn’t really mean that, did you?

    Finally, you stated that, “One does not wait for a charge to continue trip. One swaps a discharged pack for a charged pack and pays for the service.”

    You wait whether you fill up with gas, recharge an EV, or swap a battery pack. The only question is how long each operation takes and logistics/infrastructire concerns. Building a plain charging infrastructure is faster, simpler, and cheaper than either of the other two possibilities. If charge times can be brought down to about 10 minutes or so for a substantial charge--and that happens to be well within possibility today--then it seems to me that’s the optimum choice.

  • Report this Comment On January 26, 2012, at 12:11 PM, deasystems wrote:

    @Hawmps: “Yeah, it would be no sweat to convert a drive-thru qwiki lube place into a drive-thru batt-pak swap. Just need standardized connections, paks, etc. for it to work nationwide. The gas filler neck for cars are standardized, why not battery packs?”

    Pure EVs are all about their battery modules! In fact, I think module design is one of the principal challenges in the design and engineering of a pure EV. A good battery module concept and the quality of its design, engineering, and vehicle integration are (or should be) real competitive advantages. It is therefore undesirable to mandate an industry-standard battery module.

    By the way, it’s much easier to manufacture, transport, and deliver electrons than it is to do the same for bulky 1/2 ton battery packs. The notion that in-trip refueling is better accomplished by swapping standardized battery modules than simple recharging is wrong-headed.

    I like your idea about “qwiki lubes” changing their business plans though--no more oil changes; it’s time to think about “qwiki-charges” now...

  • Report this Comment On January 28, 2012, at 1:54 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    @blandman - "Sorry to double-dip, and this may be the "Berkeley" in me talking. However - it seems like there is a small army of professional naysayers out their writing articles claiming how impratical it will be to wean ourselves off of gasoline engines. Curious. Given the obvious need to do so to save our environment and economy, you'd think we'd all be working as hard as possible together to make this a reality."

    Don't apologize for double-dipping.

    I'm a sharp critic of Tesla for several reasons. I worked in the auto industry for more than a decade and, frankly, a lot of what Tesla is saying is either profoundly ignorant or a bald-faced lie. If this was just Elon Musk's money I wouldn't care. But there is a ton of investor and taxpayer money behind Tesla and I think that means everyone should be a lot more skeptical.

    I'm not a professional nay-sayer, I just know a lot about this industry and I'm trying to point out some of the problems with what Tesla is claiming. I have no investment position in TSLA and no one is paying me to criticize them.

    About the environmental impact of Tesla, if that's your motivation then you're on the wrong track. A few thousand EV's a year isn't going to save the planet, or even a small piece of it. From an environmental perspective the money being spent on EV cars would yield much greater results if it was spent on expanding and improving mass transit.

  • Report this Comment On January 28, 2012, at 2:27 PM, baldheadeddork wrote:

    @Hawmps - "...there seems to be quite a lot of really short term thinking here. Look back just to 1999/2000 when the Honda Insight and Toyota Prius first hit the market in North America and see how far technology has come since then. There are obvious challenges with current lack of infrastructure, but continually, progressively changing technology are addressing these challenges slowly, but surely. Once EVs get to a point of critical mass, and there is infrastructure built-out to support them, one has to recognize that the power of economies of scale will take effect and the cost of this technology (batteries, chargers, etc.) will decrease dramatically. I agree that this is years or decades away from becoming a reality, but look at what has happened to the solar panel market already. The price of the finished goods has declined significantly because of a glut of supply. This will also eventually happen with various components (batteries, chargers, etc.) that are needed to make critical mass of EVs possible. This is an inevitability of technology. Just think back to the mid 1980's and how much did it cost to buy an IBM personal computer? or an Apple IIe?"

    Exactly how far has the technology improved for the Prius and Insight? Fuel economy for the Prius has improved less than gasoline cars over the same period. The Prius went from 48mpg to 50mpg combined, while the Chevrolet Cavalier went from 25 combined to 33mpg combined with the 2010 Cruze Eco. The current Honda Insight gets worse fuel economy than the 2000 model. All of those new models benefit from direct injection gasoline engines and lower rolling resistance tires, but hybrids give up most of those gains because of the extra battery and electric motor weight they carry.

    I don't think you should blindly accept that EV's will inevitably reach critical mass. First, the effects of climate change are so small on a year-by-year basis and the anti-regulation lobby has been so effective in muddying the arguments, that gasoline will only be shoved out as the primary fuel when it becomes too expensive. Economics will drive the change, and that's going to put EV's at a massive disadvantage to compressed natural gas. Current auto engine designs can be adapted to use CNG easily and inexpensively, and the infrastructure is in place in most of the first world.

    By contrast, there is nothing to support the belief that Moore's law will suddenly begin to apply to batteries. In the last three decades new battery materials have allowed storing more power in a lighter package, but the cost per energy unit has risen greatly. Tesla is promising a breakthrough that will make their Li-ion batteries much less expensive than any Li-ion battery that has come before, but it's still going to cost 2-3 times as much as a lead acid battery. If computers had evolved this way, the performance would have been matched by an increase in prices instead of getting cheaper.

Add your comment.

Compare Brokers

Fool Disclosure

DocumentId: 1762226, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 5/27/2012 2:24:27 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

Today's Market

updated 1 day ago Sponsored by:
DOW 12,454.83 -74.92 -0.60%
S&P 500 1,317.82 -2.86 -0.22%
NASD 2,837.53 -1.85 -0.07%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

5/25/2012 4:00 PM
TSLA $29.81 Down -0.51 -1.68%
Tesla Motors CAPS Rating: *
GM $22.44 Up +0.40 +1.81%
General Motors Com… CAPS Rating: **
F $10.60 Up +0.01 +0.09%
Ford CAPS Rating: ****
AAPL $562.29 Down -3.03 -0.54%
Apple CAPS Rating: ***

Advertisement