The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
Comments on Is Tesla On The Verge of Bankruptcy?
User: Not logged on
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
Showing Page 3 of 3  First123Last
User Info Is Tesla On The Verge of Bankruptcy? in forum [Market-Ticker]
Aerius
Posts: 885
Incept: 2008-03-19

GTA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The sad part is anyone who passed high school chemistry should be able to figure out that these battery claims are BS. I don't know how much education sucks these days, but 20-25 years ago we learned how to calculate the reaction energies of various electro-chemical reactions, in other words, battery chemistries. Once you have that number you can find the theoretical maximum energy density of the battery which gives the lower limit on the size & mass of the required battery pack for a given capacity.

The last time I checked the numbers, we're at a bit over half the theoretical max for li-ion chemistries, which makes Tesla's claims bull****.
Vernonb
Posts: 1927
Incept: 2009-06-03

East of Sheol
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Lol....

.6 megawatts on wheels. Imagine the heat generated to get that sudden energy to the wheels for the acceleration burn.

Even if they have such a battery (which they don't for this roadster) the other systems and wiring have to handle the amperage stress.

All I see is a rolling toaster oven on wheels.

All that heat in the electrical is lost energy from the battery and the losses continue until the systems cool.


----------
"Mass intelligence does not mean intelligent masses."
Flaps10
Posts: 6781
Incept: 2008-10-17

PNW
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
The sad part is anyone who passed high school chemistry should be able to figure out that these battery claims are BS.

Well see there's your mistake. Now the calculations are based on how you feel about it. In that regard, Elon could announce that he's going to the moon on a AA battery and start taking deposits.
Tsherry
Posts: 958
Incept: 2008-12-09

Spokane WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
>>If Americans and Europeans are stupid (that word again) enough to accept this, this is an urban centric planner's dream. A trapped population forced to patronize an urban area and not vote with their feet, commute time or completely dislocate will be a future cash cow for everything that left-wing urban areas tend to force upon their people. Add in the merchant princes who would simply delight in people being less autonomous and you have a major social change, not for the better. This is why battery and self-driving are being pushed together. Personal skills have a shelf-life. Once you give up being personally autonomous for the vehicle being so, you will forget how to be this way. Gradually you will stop pondering your environment as you drive, looking for solutions, becoming more involved in other distractions, even reading. When something makes the decisions for you, you cease to do so for yourself. Battery range, ability to charge and planned routes will start to determine people's lives so subtly that they will not perceive it.>>

First off, Americans and Europeans are stupid.

EVERY urban planner under age 35 is working this angle. Your downtowns and near-neighborhoods are being redesigned as I type this to eliminate drive lanes that are being used by fossil fueled vehicles and add bike lanes and walking space that remain unused by bikes or pedestrians. However, the point is to constrict the arteries of transportation to therefore make those in the area look at getting rid of their vehicles and just living where they work. In further-out areas, the lanes are being restricted despite ZERO demand for bike lanes, because 'bike commuters will use them'. No, they won't. No one's going to commute twenty five miles each way in winter climates. Doesn't matter--the point is to get rid of gasoline powered cars.

Where they're implementing this widely (and in places that I've visited) like Seattle and Portland, it's just not on our list to drive around there any more. So we don't visit those areas, don't spend our money there, don't go to restaurants.

----------
Omne mendacium est.
Whitehat
Posts: 190
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Gianmarko

perhaps i was not clear in this thread or elsewhere, but i know that battery electric is bull****. my proposal was to use a gasoline or diesel engine or some other ICE operating at peak volumetric efficiency generating the electricity in the car itself and eliminate the ATX and mechanical drive train. marine propulsion as well as rail transportation has used diesel electric for close to a century. electric motors have full torque at 0 RPM. my experience as a marine pilot is that these are some of the most efficient and controllable setups available. using my proposed setup, you eliminate the ICE running at inefficient RPM's due to the realities of driving. there are losses in the transmission and drive train due to friction and these are hard limits. add in the near ubiquity of 4WD and more efficiency is lost to internal friction. there are also the issues of rotational acceleration and momentum of the drive train components. 4WD is mostly unnecessary, but you can have your cake and eat it too if you drive each wheel electrically. the level of control that you would have would be great.

so to clarify, battery electric is a bad, illogical and downright criminal waste of resources at least in my opinion. this tech will screw us over if it becomes prevalent. i would like to see Tesla's drive train paired up with its own electrical generation, in other words a generator under the hood, no battery ****, no electrical transmission costs, no charging losses, no battery deterioration.

And a lot of people do not account for the fact that the deterioration of the battery makes the car useless a lot sooner than an ICE vehicle. you can replace or rebuild major parts of an ICE car for less than the battery replacement, not to mention how energy and resource intensive battery production and recycling will be.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150696
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Quote:
my proposal was to use a gasoline or diesel engine or some other ICE operating at peak volumetric efficiency generating the electricity in the car itself and eliminate the ATX and mechanical drive train. marine propulsion as well as rail transportation has used diesel electric for close to a century. electric motors have full torque at 0 RPM. my experience as a marine pilot is that these are some of the most efficient and controllable setups available.

Diesel-Electric locomotives use it due to the zero-RPM torque capabilities, which means no transmission requirement, and at the power levels involved that's a big deal. In addition you have regenerative braking (dumped to a HUGE load resistor) for "free" from such a set-up.

It is only used in marine applications where there are very large house loads. Direct shaft drive is MUCH more efficient otherwise. You will find exactly ZERO container ships, for example, running D/E. Cruise ships are all D/E because most of the time a huge amount of their energy requirement is to run the hotel, and that load varies a lot with time of day.

The problem is the additional conversions; every conversion of energy costs you some of the input; it cannot be avoided. In the case of a car running all the conversion through the battery makes no sense, which is why nobody does it.

Some years ago I toyed with the idea of converting one of my vehicles to electric drive That part is actually not very hard; you remove engine and gearbox and find an electric motor that will couple to the output of same at appropriate RPMs. The idea was to run batteries for "local" use but have a small trailer you could tow that had a generator on it for longer trips, making it unlimited-range when needed or wanted.

The calcs said it wasn't worth it. The conversion losses on steady-state operation once the battery was discharged made it a material lose over just coupling the engine to the driveline.

That's why all the existing "hybrids" operate on that model.

----------
Winding it down.
Whitehat
Posts: 190
Incept: 2017-06-27

New York City
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Interesting Karl, i see your points. This probably explains why some Navy ships use the electrical propulsion. they have other massive loads from their equipment with variability. the large container ships that travel rather slowly are an engine coupled to driveline for the reasons that you state. years ago they would actually change fuel type for maneuvering. the denser, thicker fuel is for the long distance run. when you want maneuverability they had a less dense fuel for this that could run the diesels at more varied RPM. some of the coastal and sea tugboats still do the same.

conversion losses always get you in the end.

cannot wait to see the fallout when Mazda has its new engine in full production.

----------
There are two ways to be rich: One is by acquiring much, and the other is by desiring little.
Analog
Posts: 1494
Incept: 2010-12-29

arkansas ozarks
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List

We might have a sleeper Ammonia technology lurking out there.

https://www.agmrc.org/renewable-energy/r....

Ammonia is really annoying stuff ,

but so are burning Li-Ion batteries.


a.

----------
Never trust a computer with anything important.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150696
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
It's a viable alternative, but the question becomes what is the cost-per-BTU compared against hydrocarbons?

One nice thing about it is that it's easily made and infinitely renewable; both hydrogen and nitrogen are of course trivially obtainable. The safety issues are very real, but then again they are with high volumes of gasoline in small spaces too.

----------
Winding it down.
Budget-racer
Posts: 15
Incept: 2016-03-14

Virginia
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Here's a couple interesting quotes found in the ammonia article.

Quote:
However, it has a relatively low energy density per gallon about half of gasoline. The fuel mileage of ammonia is about half of gasolines mileage.

Snip

For example, ammonia is over 50% more energy dense per gallon than liquid hydrogen.

Snip

Ammonia does not burn readily or sustain combustion except under narrow fuel-to-air mixtures of 15-25% air.


Sounds like a worse version of ethanol, except for burning so clean. One take away I also got from the numbers was just how poor hydrogen is and how delusional the people, who think it's just around the corner, sound when talking about it.

The air/fuel ratio mentioned doesn't seem to match up for me though. Gas burns in the 12:1-14:1 air/fuel ratio before you really run into issues. They claim 50% energy density compared to gas but then the burn percentages they give come out around 4:1-6.5:1, either way you'd need a bigger tank to get meaningful range. I'm not saying don't look into it, but the history of fuels has always been one where the next phase was either cheaper, more energy dense or both and blew away the old stuff as a somewhat obvious choice. Interesting read anyway and at least they are making progress on energy density and ease of storage.
Tickerguy
Posts: 150696
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Much depends on the price-per-gallon.

If you can have it for "buck-a-gallon" then you'll probably put up with a larger tank to get the same fuel range. In addition it's a bit lighter (~5lbs/gal .vs. ~6ish) but it does require a (low) pressure container, so that's probably a push.

----------
Winding it down.
Little_eddie
Posts: 1098
Incept: 2009-04-30

Delaware
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
If any of these 'Other' fuels where cheaper per mile traveled then we would have been using them years ago.

We had electric, steam, wood, ammonia & etc cars years ago, they all lost out to the oil powered ICE.


----------
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. - George Carlin

Tickerguy
Posts: 150696
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yep.

----------
Winding it down.
Mannfm11
Posts: 5415
Incept: 2009-02-28

DFW, Tx
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I have seen so stuff on Musk lately that has changed my mind about him. What he said would convince me to risk money on one of his ventures u front, but I wouldn't touch Wall Street's stock offerings. Musk actually said, in an interview I saw, that his desire was to push the science, even if he failed and lost his money. I suspect the price to book on the stock is greater than 1, so someone is making money on projected leverage.

The auto business isn't somewhere to go to make a fortune. If Tesla netted $10K an auto, they would need 100K units to make a billion. But model changes and overhead are massive in the auto industry. Note the many billions many make during upswings, vs the billions they lose in recessions. The difference may be 17 million units versus 14 million in the recession. That tells me profits are only made after a lot of units are sold. This tells me 2 things. Marginal unit cost is really low and organizational overhead is high. Until Tesla reaches enough units, they will never be profitable.

As far as the $250K up? That money would have to be escrowed and free of creditor attachment before I would do it. I think battery powered cars are a mistake. I would be more interested in batteries for storage of solar or wind power, or even generated power, where they could be drawn on at peak usage times.

----------
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.---John Kenneth Galbraith
Gianmarko
Posts: 44
Incept: 2013-03-11

Bern, Switzerland
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
i have heard so much BS from Elon Musk that i now believe to zero of what he says.
the mars rocket for example, you can poke so many holes in this fantasy plan that a sieve will be watertight, compared.

the problem is not that people believe to his lies
the problem is that these people vote, in a system where goverment has so much power that they can force you to believe his BS.

Darcane
Posts: 62
Incept: 2008-12-16

Washington
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
I saw this over the long weekend:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/....

Karl's not the only one to notice. A few days after he posted, someone at Bloomberg calculated that Tesla is burning through about half a million dollars per hour...

This has got to catch up to him eventually.
Eleua
Posts: 15161
Incept: 2007-07-05
A True American Patriot!
N 47.72/ W 122.55
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Just looking at the option chains, and I only gave it a few minutes on YHOO...

The June 2018 puts at the 200 strike are about $5. The Jan 19s are just under $13.

The Bloomberg article referenced by Darcane has TSLA burning through cash and will go to zero in August of 2018. It all seems to be hanging on the rollout of the Model 3 in March, where they think they can produce 5000 cars per week.

Bloomberg thinks they need to raise about $2 billion, but the debt offerings they had three months ago are under water, which kinda sucks for a flashy company like TSLA.

So, the $200s would seem like a lock, but could be hurt if TSLA can get the revenue needed from the Model 3, or can raise money either by selling debt or equity. The equity would be tough, as once the debt markets tell you to******up a rope, BK is usually right around the corner, since equity will run.

The June 200s will max-out at 40:1, which for the price of a Roadster deposit, is $10 million, provided it goes to zero. It will take longer than 1.9 seconds, but not much longer.

Anyone remember Bear Stearns in March of 2008?

Anyone remember Juniper Networks back in the go-go days of the first stock bubble? YHOO is showing a drop from 218 to 14 in the span of a year. I seem to remember 244 to sub-5 in that span. Either way, a breathtaking drop, and that is for a company that is still in bidnizz some 16 years later. JNPR held on longer than most in the tech build-out (about 6-8 months), but still had it's day of reckoning.

Thoughts?

----------
http://clearcutbainbridge.blogspot.com/?....
"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." - Karl Marx
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." - Lenin
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Stalin
Tickerguy
Posts: 150696
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
How about JDSU? For a good while they had the moniker "Just Don't Sue Us" smiley

----------
Winding it down.
Eleua
Posts: 15161
Incept: 2007-07-05
A True American Patriot!
N 47.72/ W 122.55
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Back on this TSLA thing...

(This thread is as close to the "Tesla Death Watch" thread as we will get)


I'm an original TFer, and remember one of the big moments when Christian Gustufson posted the internals from WAMU, and how they were capitalizing interest they had not received. In short, it was a bookkeeping trick that made it look like they were making money they were not. They were bringing forward earnings from the future to make their numbers now.

I'm thinking of Tesla in this light.

The Roadster, M3, and semi-truck are all hype. The $250K deposits for cars that are, at earliest, three years out smack much like the capitalization of interest that WAMU was doing in 2006-7 time frame. They don't have the money today, so they are essentially bringing in money today for product they would sell in the "out years."

Musk may be a huckster, but he isn't random. There must be a reason he is doing this, and it has to be that he is about to be shut out of the capital markets. He is staring down the gun of a $1B/qtr cash burn, and the only thing that can save him is the M3, which isn't getting out fast enough. To compensate for the delay in the M3, he needs to tap the markets for another billion or two, and that assumes he can make good on the M3, which isn't yet proven.

When you tell your California employees that they are still in Model 3 "production hell," that can't be good. This isn't China, where they lock you in the factory and tell you to work or else. It's California, and a job is just a way to get your homosexual partner health care on someone else's dime.

If he can't get the M3 out the door fast enough (he has orders; that's not the issue), he is in a CASH FLOW crunch.

Any lifelong TFer knows that rule number one is "there is never one cockroach." Rule number two is "cash flow never lies."

His previous junk offering immediately went underwater. Who wants the next one? With equity of $52 billion, he needs to sell half a million cars at a profit of $5k each to make 2.5 billion, and that is only a 5% ROE. That's a LOT of assumptions. He has no ability to produce that many cars, nor show that he can make that kind of money, since he loses money on every car sold.

smiley

Check out the quarterly revenue vs profit chart on the right side of the options chain page

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TSLA/opt....

The higher the revenue, the higher the LOSS. It's directly correlated.


I think this is a WAMU. They are in a cash flow crunch and betting everything on the "out years."

Additionally, I was on the Tesla website and was looking at the M3. Sure, I'd like to have one, and it fits what I do (I currently drive a Volvo S40), but one of the big selling points for those that don't think things through is that these cars are "free" to operate.

Well.....if you drive a S or X, you get free supercharges for life, but M3 peasants have to pay.

Hold the phone...I have to pay?

Secondly, if I am wealthy enough to drive an S or X, it's a toy, not my primary commuter car to my 9-5 job. I'll charge it in my garage and not worry about the cost. I'll park it at some charging stand, since it's a toy.

If I drive the M3, it's not a toy. It's my primary car, since the marketing segment is decidedly more middle-class than the target market for the upper models. I'm going to get pissy if I can't get to the places I want to go because they lack charging stations. Even if I can find one, and now there are a million more Teslas on the road, I'm not going to wait 3 deep, at 30 minutes per supercharge, to fill up. My S40 fills up in 5 minutes anywhere I want to go. I can go to Quilcene, WA and there will be a gasoline filling station. There won't be a charging station, unless I want to drive to Bellevue.

My $38000 car goes on Craigslist for $10K, and I'm back in the market for a Volvo S60.

Musk doesn't have the infrastructure to support his product. He doesn't have the physics. It's a toy and an overhyped concept stock with a cult of personality.

For those of us that were here back in the Golden Age of TF, think of Musk as Tanzillo running WAMU, and you get the idea how long he is going to last. The only question is, "Does Musk have pictures of The Sec of Transportation with a goat, who can force GM to buy Tesla and give Musk a multi million buy-out and a gassed up G-IV?"

----------
http://clearcutbainbridge.blogspot.com/?....
"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." - Karl Marx
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." - Lenin
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Stalin
Eleua
Posts: 15161
Incept: 2007-07-05
A True American Patriot!
N 47.72/ W 122.55
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Oops...another problem.

The $35K sticker price is for a 220mile range. If I want to up that to over 300, that's another $9 grand.

For $44K, that thing had better come with a fleet of rechargeable sex dolls.

----------
http://clearcutbainbridge.blogspot.com/?....
"My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism." - Karl Marx
"Destroy the family, you destroy the country." - Lenin
"Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." - Stalin
Acebarefoot
Posts: 101
Incept: 2009-05-20

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
"For $44K, that thing had better come with a fleet of rechargeable sex dolls."


Shhhhh....be quiet!!! Don't give that opportunist any more ideas for the sheep to fawn over!
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 3 of 3  First123Last