Those are not incompatible statements.

Self-driving AI is not the same as teaching a machine to have "human-level visual perception." It's simply unnecessary, for example, for a SDC to recognize a woman on scooter is chasing a duck. It's only necessary to recognize there is an object chasing another object in an odd path.

http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.30.1.117

What do you guys think of this? Academic paper stating it will be tough for EV's to disrupt ICE vehicles.

Overall it seems to underrate how fast the components for EV's are getting better. Cleaner grid, faster charging, li-ion costs dropping, all the research $ flowing.

Academic papers are almost all useless. Too much research is just fraud and driven by an agenda rather than curiosity.

"Otherwise, we could transition from oil-based transportation with
moderately high carbon emissions to coal-fired-electricity-based transportation
with even higher carbon emissions. As noted in Graff Zivin, Kotchen, and Mansur
(2014), effective carbon emissions from electric vehicles that are powered by the existing
US power plant fleet are generally higher than emissions from high-efficiency
gasoline-powered vehicles. Only 12 percent of fossil-fueled power plants have low
enough carbon emissions that electric vehicles powered by them would have lower
emissions than a Toyota Prius"




That excerpt just shows they have an agenda or are completely obtuse. Let's compare the production of an 80-150k vehicle to that of a prius assuming the electricity used was produced via coal. Oh look, the prius is cleaner than the electric vehicle. Electric vehicles are dirty!

What are everyone's thoughts on Google continuing their multiyear trend of shedding top tier talent? Clearly their ship is way off course and has been for quite some time. How does this affect TSLA and their chances? Or will it just introduce a lot more possibility for catchup from companies like GM who felt they were behind and scoop up talent in the form of tech + acquihire?

Their agenda is actually carbon tax if you read the paper.

I just read the electric vehicle part

How hard do you guys think it will be to disrupt ICE without a carbon tax though? Huge economies of scale, cheap, abundant energy and as we replace more and more of it, it just gets cheaper and cheaper. You can get a nice ICE vehicle that will drive 250k miles for 15k. Maybe the fact you don't have to replace an EV and can just replace the battery pack will help a lot?

I guess a lot easier if people aren't really going to own EVs much and we go right to ride-sharing.

The thing is, so many parts get replaced with ICE and people hate going to mechanics, FEVs don't have any parts (there isn't anything to break down when it comes to the engine) and are superior in terms of performance.

How many times does one have to service that 15k car en route to 250k kms?

A carbon tax would amplify the process massively and a carbon tax should be implemented. The problem on the consumer end is the price of energy. The US is cheap but in Europe the energy is taxed independent of where it comes from so there is no incentive to get a FEV because they are more expensive and almost as expensive.

Overall, the number of FEVs on the road need to improve and it needs to be affordable to buy one second hand and that will slowly start the process.

The cost of ownership of a FEV is cheaper and for most people it will be cheaper to own one if they're to buy one second hand. Buying a $100k Model X will never be economical for most people. But a 50k 3.5-5 year old one might actually be worth it.

50k for a 3.5-5 year old car is not going to disrupt the ice vehicle market anytime soon.

You can buy a used Rav4 or CRV in that range for like 15-20k and those are excellent vehicles.

It seems to me like EV's will never really scale to the level of ICE vehicles and the value of them is in assisting the transition to more ride-sharing.

I get the repairs/components issue, but we're still talking huge cost differences for the vehicles.

Not to mention all the infrastructure improvements needed to support EV's.

Well, a Rav4 is in no way comparable to a Model X. Of course Tesla's premium models will not disrupt the ICE low end market but they will over time disrupt the high end market because it becomes economical.

If you have 2 year old Model 3s on the market for 20k, this will disrupt the ICE market. The cost of ownership is not comparable. An ICE vehicle is extremely expensive to maintain.

All the SV companies lose talent all the time. Tesla has lost a lot top tier talent and gained some new. Media will always spin this, often it just that the people want new challenges, got a higher salary or didn't get their ego stroked enough.

Cost of maintenance doesn't really favor Tesla which needs a new battery every few years and still needs to replace stuff like brake pads and tires.

Tesla is giving 8 years guarantee on the batteries at the moment. At current prices of $200/KWh this means between $12000 and $18000 to own a car for 15 years. An ICE needs everything else new at least once in that time frame.

This is absurd.

I agree. Lot's of cars are going >200k miles now with few problems other than routine maintenance. A tesla is going to need as much or more routine maintenance over 200k miles due to less long term testing & development.

Tires, shocks, brakes, drivetrain components, interior components, sensors, fans, component motors, wiring issues are where most of the issues arise. You can't tell me Tesla is going to have any less problems or need less maintenance of these systems.

I'm not really trying to debate Tesla as a company and what they will do (I tend to agree with TS that the big boys will beat them but my opinion isn't as informed as yours)

What I am debating is about ICE vs EV's overall and how much EV's can penetrate because ICE is such a good low-middle end vehicle.

How much can EV's disrupt ICE? Especially without massive grid and charging infrastructure improvements?

Yeah. A lot of the cost in cars is add-on systems (airbags, Western safety standards, cabin features, etc). You can easily make a $12K quality ICE car for the upcoming second world if you want. That includes everything - the body, cabin, trim, tyres, axles, etc etc, and the ICE, which comes at less than $5K, and finished. Batteries are not going to beat that any time soon.

Which is why Musk is such a charlatan, getting chumps to see him as a savior, via very careful PR. Nothing he does is going to affect mass electric car adoption - it's dependent on battery cost/power density, and little else, and the outcome of that has zero to do with Musk.

Far from being a savior, Musk is an environmental vandal and wealth destroyer (this applies to TSLA/SCTY, and not SpaceX, which is at least doing something useful).

lol the guy that didn't know the difference between starting price and average selling price in the auto industry and assumed all model 3 cars would be sold at starting price is calling Musk a charlatan.

I mean, your point was so dumb it's not even worth responding to. It's really incredibly cute that you think you have something here.

You think $5K/car matters when you're ballparking (for contrast) $17 billion in revenue vs $200 billion in capital/revenue.

You're so ignorant of the auto industry and basic logic that you don't realize that a higher ASP than $35,000 works AGAINST the generous revenue estimate I was making. Sales start dropping off rapidly after around $30K for a car. Reason being that there simply isn't that much consumer money lying around. Or else everyone would be owning a BMW/Mercedes for $40K instead of standard $15K-$25K consumer cars. You think people like driving mid level ****boxes rather than Model-3-priced BMWs?

Really man, use your head. A $40K ASP reduces the revenue estimates, which is what I used the $35K for.

lol, my point was merely pointing out how ridiculously dumb and ignorant it is to think that every model 3 will sell at their starting price of 35k. How ignorant do you have to be about the auto industry to make that mistake?

Actually it's more like 7k/car. Musk said very clearly in I believe Q1 call, average selling price would be low 40k.
I have little interest in unpacking this internet tough guy blather, but this analysis is wrong. Happy to let time and the market play this one out, I've placed my bet.

This is true for buying a car. But running costs for many cars is also a big part of the tco. For cars driven many hours per day, these running costs tend to be rather large. Electric cars generally use less energy and have less complex engines and fewer parts making running costs significantly smaller. Thus it seems very likely to me that in a few years a lot of miles will be driven using Electric Vehicles for economic reasons.

Imo people seem to overestimate the wear on BEV batteries. Their large thermal control systems keeps degradation much lower than electronic devices' lithium-ion batteries. And in 8 years when the warranty ends it seems very likely that battery costs will be significantly lower than todays $200/Wh, I would guesstimate them to be ~2016$50/Wh by then.

This is hilarious:



How rotten is this deal?

$SCTY losing 202m in cash Q1, stating they want to focus on free cash flow: losing 212m in Q2, guide Q3 installations down 30% yoy. lol. what a pile of ****.
Elon bailing out his cousins and tsla holders paying the bill.