Tesla Motors Update

"say because oil drops below $50 dollars a barrel"

Most people are not that shallow - they understand the need for zero CO2.

"... Most people are not that shallow - they understand the need for zero CO2..."

.

Many people are quite shallow. Not necessarily because they choose to focus on and give value to superficial things at the expense of more truly important things. Many are shallow because they define themselves (and often judge morality) by devotion loudly proclaimed to various concepts for which they have a very poor understanding.

.

What could be more shallow than to measure what is important/right/good based on claiming belief in things which are not well understood?

.

Take the statement "...they understand the need for zero CO2...."

That is clearly a proclamation of a personal and ostensibly communal belief and an inference of a strong moral judgement. Where is the understanding that should be a prerequisite of any statement that strong?

.

There is neither a need for zero CO2 (as it is needed by plants, upon which we utterly depend), nor can it be truthfully said that use of electric cars does not add CO2 to the atmosphere.

"There is neither a need for zero CO2"

Ok, words of one syllable.

Zero ∆ CO2. No change from the stable range of CO2 of last ½ mill years or so, ~280 ppm. Now 42.8% higher.

There remains a glaring imbalance, with the levels of conviction and righteousness far exceeding the rationale and support. It suggests apathy toward analysis and a devotion to chanting the socially acceptable mantra.

.

Words and the way they are used is important.

.

Okay, let's get the ancillary stuff out of the way first. The first two words (and arguably the third a d fourth words you wrote immediately following;

"....OK, words of one syllable...",

all have more than one syllable (remember 'syllable' describes pronunciation, not they symbol used to convey the word). See what I mean about conviction apparently trumping content?

.

On to the more substantive part:

In comparison to what are you evaluating CO2 concentrations as 'stable' over the past 1/2 million years? Var6ong somewhat with the location of the evidence for the estimations, concentrations were as low as 180 ppm and then increase by 50% to 270 ppm in a couple decades. Hardly stable, and not the exception, but instead, the norm.

.

I suspect you are easily capable of doing the analysis in a rational conscientious way, but I think you haven't really evaluated all the arguments that have been suggested to you, yet.

If you feel that my assessment is incorrect, here is a chance to prove it. You used 500,000 years as the basis for comparison. What is the rationale for using that period of time?

It certainly looks like someone chose it because it supports their argument, and that you came along and picked up the handy talking point. The reason I say this is because if you use other time scales the story appears far different.

Using 50 million years or 150 million years, for example, would indicate we are just coming off a bottom, but still pretty low.

So, what is so special about 500,000 years that makes it the best yardstick?

Oh, one more thing. You seem to be holding tightly onto the idea that operating an electric vehicle does not cause carbon dioxide to be released. Are you sticking to that point?

"what is so special about 500,000 years that makes it the best yardstick?"

That is the recent stable state, in which 'civilisation' (term used advisedly) has evolved. Man interferes with his 'nest' at his peril. Do you have a particular reasoned argument for any other particular CO2 level?

Are you offering to indemnify anyones losses from CO2 / AGW?

"You seem to be holding tightly onto the idea that operating an electric vehicle does not cause carbon dioxide to be released"

Depends entirely on the source of the 'electric'. Manufacturing EVs does produce CO2 - it would be good to see Tesla work down their supply chain, & convert it to zero CO2. They might announce this soon.

No thoughts of your own? Just reposting of a graph presumably you did not make...

Did you truly completely miss the point, and yet offer such strong confirmation of that very point in your reply? Surely, you are putting us on with a self deprecating ruse.

Yes. :) I'm still buying sweaters and planting trees! Warmer volume of 'air' can hold more molecules. Time to plant trees...

Which 'point'? There were many in your post. Are these more pertinent to the conversation?

c

Note the Mass Extinctions at the peak of every rise in CO2.

One tree uses as much CO2 as an acre of pasture land.

The question isn't really about atmospheric carbon dioxide, it is about the Carbon Cycle and how excess CO2 was stored in the ground. Best explained in the new work from MIT:

http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2015-52-01/S0273-0979-2014-01471-5/S0273-0979-2014-01471-5.pdf

Much better. Thank you.

So where do those of us who have read and studied up on theories and predictions only to find that additional warming is by our views a good and likely gainful thing fit in?

Comes to mind: some liability for the damage your actions (will) have caused to others.

He does not use "his own money"--Please go to Seeking Alpha, and other sites and examine the funding he is using. It is quite intricate, and involves a lot of borrowed money….He pays the Govt. off with other bonds….Please look, and if I am missing something, report back. I am enamored with his executive brilliance, as well as Technological prowess (He has hired a lot of engineers away from other companies, as is the way in the Silicon Valley, who thinks the same)--I just want to make sure everything is "Transparent"….

Hey C, been to your recommend site. Not seeing any problems there. I see some really solid financial accumen to go with the solid engineering. I also see the quarterly reports being that I hold a few shares of Tesla.

Next let me be more clear, Musk used his own money to set up the initial charging stations. (using them is free to those who own a Tesla P85) He was not going to wait for the government to do it. (I think he may have watched "Who killed the Electric Car" more than once) He also didn't figure BP, Shell, Exxon/Mobile were going to jump at the chance to set up electric car chargers at their gas stations.

As with any company today, the financing is a rolling deal and is usually through loans, bonds, and stock offerings. Business as usual. I don't know of any successful company that does it any other way. Musk will be the first to tell you that he believes Tesla stock is overvalued. That doesn't stop wallstreet and the speculators though. His company has attracted investors who usually are very cautious with their money. Obviously they do not see a problem.

Elon Musk is a lot of things. I do not see any evidence that he is a Henrik Fisker. (You want to talk about wasted government funding study up on this guy and the Karma)

Wait.....wasn't the Tesla Model S designed by Henrik Fisker?

Elon is not using his "own " money, so to speak. Without Federal Tax Credits, of $7500, per car, California State subsidies of $2500 ($4000 in Illinois), and the sales of Emission Tax Credits, paid for by other Auto manufacturers (Think Carbon Credits , thanks to Al Gore et al.), Tesla would not have turned their first profit. When they did turn their first profit, the stock doubled. Right after that jump in share price, Elon Musk had stock options aligned with his loan to Tesla, and exercised them for a profit of $1.3 billion. The Federal Government's loans' interest came out at roughly 2.6 % while Musks loans' were written at 10%. It is rumored the the reason Musk repaid his loan early was so the early repayment clause effectively cancelled the Feds being able to exercise any Options of their own. We as Taxpayers got the shaft, again . We should have, at Elon's current interest rates, gotten over $300 million out of the deal. You have to realize that Musk did not start Tesla or engineer anything. He bought into an existing business, that was using Lotus as a platform and manufacturing the cars in England, shipping them to Ca. for completion, and forced out the CEO, becoming the face of the company. Go to Business Insider for a more complete article. I could go on , but please do research for yourself...

"...The Federal Government's loans' interest came out at roughly 2.6 % while Musks loans' were written at 10%. It is rumored the the reason Musk repaid his loan early was so the early repayment clause effectively cancelled the Feds being able to exercise any Options of their own. We as Taxpayers got the shaft, again . We should have, at Elon's current interest rates, gotten over $300 million out of the deal..."

.

I don't know the details, but I strongly suspect any of the loans at 10% were subordinate to those at 2.6%. More risk requires the prospect of more return. Similarly, lower risk financing should not cost as much as financing of higher risks.

However, even if that were not the case, it is silly to vilify Musk for negotiating favorable terms and taking advantage of those terms. You don't pay your bills late, so that you aren't 'cheating' the biller out of a late fee, do you?

Good points. I would suggest , again, reading the link I provided , to the Business Insider article, which explains it in much greater detail. Also , a scathing article in Slate, which is very Progressive leaning…Musk is a good businessman, but without his White House business connections, (Starting with Space X), I wonder how far he would have gotten. What if the deals had been given directly to the original developers of the car? That is the point I am trying to point out.

At your suggestion,I read a couple Business Insider articles (there are several) on Tesla, though I still am not sure I read the one you are thinking about.

I also found the Slate article, and although it has a scathing tone, the thing that comes through most clearly is the authors lack of familiarity with meaningful aspects of finance....and possibly the authors disdain of negotiated contracts or business dealings in general.

.

It appears to me that the low interest rate loans were paid off years earlier than originally planned for. That means Tesla has likely incurred significant expense, since it is unlikely to obtain funds that cheaply. Having a low interest rate high risk loan pay off in full years early is a huge positive for any lender.

Paying off early at the expense of future stock options wasn't only a good deal for Tesla, it was a good deal for the US as well.

.

As to the what ifs....part of what makes and effective businessman is their connections.

...so what if the previous leader of Tesla had been a better business man, or what if Musk was not as good of a business man?

What if frogs had wings? Would the bump their butts less?

That power wall...UPS in an attractive package..being sold out till 2016 smells of the Applification of energy storage.

As for Mr Musk, he seems to be getting on with the job, can't criticize him, although why he put that bog ugly screen in the Tesla (car) console has me stumped.

Anybody here have any idea how lethal power islanding issues in the case of a fire (eg) are handled by the Power Wall?

I sent an email to Tesla years ago asking how the aircon worked in the car as I don't really need to reuse waste heat here in the tropics for cabin heating......Never answered. Anybody here know that one too?

Here you go Wal - http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/14842-Heater-and-air-conditioning-on-the-model-s and http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/air-conditioner-strong-while-parked-weak-while-driving and http://my.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/aircon-performance-question Seems it is a conventional Refrig gas / liquid / gas cycle? EVWest has a vid showing the fitting of a compressor to an EV motor -

Thanks

Wal,

I wanted to make a point about your comment "UPS in an attractive package..", I was very surprised to find that the Powerwall does NOT include the DC-AC inverter, it is only the battery, with charge/thermal management. So, it doesn't quite fit the description of UPS, without some additional (expensive) pieces added.

Tom D.

No invertor.....what's the point?

Just a battery and charger in an attractive package then....

Under voltage (UV) trip: The UV trip monitors a voltage across a set of contacts. If the voltage drops to a value below 35% of the specified coil rating, the under voltage trip device trips the circuit breaker. The operation is instantaneous and the circuit breaker cannot be reset until the voltage returns to at least 85% of the specified coil voltage.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/17/1385496/-Shell-Oil-Caught-Planning-for-Deadly-4-to-6-Degree-Rise-in-Global-Temperature