Tesla

[dreamybear]

Chicken Genius - Tesla will be the biggest company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-5vEZ5qfnc

I wonder whether Tesla can become the next Apple, i.e. can Tesla build up its own ecosystem like Apple(Apple Watch, iPad, iPhone, Apps) one day. Will it be like Tesla vs Others(Toyota, Mercedes, etc), similar to Apple vs Android(Samsung, LG, Xiaomi, etc) ?

Michael Burry of ‘The Big Short’ reveals a $530 million bet against Tesla
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/17/michael-...tesla.html

What ‘regulatory credits’ are — and why they’re so important to Tesla
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/18/tesla-el...ained.html

[karlmarx]

What's even better than having your portfolio companies achieving tremendous growth is being able to sell the idea of tremendous growth to the market. This way, an investor doesn't need to be right about a company's future trajectory, they just need to know where the excitement will be.

WB did not invest in tech stock and he still doesn't. His purchase of Apple was after the company has matured and established its moat, not before. Apple is not just a tech stock, but to me, it is more like a 'consumer staple' with no substitute. Samsung used to be a competitor but has now fallen away; in the same way that Nokia pulled away from Ericsson/Motorola, Blackberry pulled away from Nokia, and Apple/Samsung pulled away from Blackberry. Apple has no more serious competitors, until the next tech revolution.

Tesla has been around for a long time and it has yet to prove that it can be the 'Apple of automobile.' As previously mentioned, I think this is a highly difficult task.

Flip flop tendencies notwithstanding, Musk is an undoubtedly smart and competitive individual who has achieved a lot in his career. The fact that Tesla started from 0 many years ago to its present size today is yet another testament to his above-average abilities.

But whether the company can truly realise the kind of growth which its market value implies is an important consideration for a conservative investor.

[weijian]

Since EVs are inevitable, the table that breaks down the costs of maintaining an EV is informative.

It’s Official: US Government Says Electric Vehicles Cost 40% Less To Maintain

In its latest study, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy says,

“The estimated scheduled maintenance cost for a light-duty battery-electric vehicle (BEV) totals 6.1 cents per mile, while a conventional internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) totals 10.1 cents per mile. A BEV lacks an ICEV’s engine oil, timing belt, oxygen sensor, spark plugs and more, and the maintenance costs associated with them.”

The government did what the government does best. It drilled down into all the details of vehicle maintenance and came up with the following chart. Notice that hybrids and plug-in hybrids also had lower maintenance costs than conventional cars but only slightly so.

https://cleantechnica.com/2021/06/22/its...-maintain/

[Wildreamz]

Since EVs are inevitable, the table that breaks down the costs of maintaining an EV is informative.

I remember saying EVs are inevitable used to be controversial on this forum, so heartening to see that changed.

(vested)

[corydorus]

EV is much more energy efficient using coal fire energy than Petrol car. Is indeed inevitable for human kind.

[Wildreamz]

EV is much more energy efficient using coal fire energy than Petrol car. Is indeed inevitable for human kind.

It's hard to parse this sentence, lol.

1. But if you are talking about energy efficiency, according to Union of Concerned Scientists (https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/a...heres-why/):

Electricity power plant emissions data for 2018 has just been released and we’ve crunched the latest numbers.  Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel economy. That’s significantly better than the most efficient gasoline car (58 mpg) and far cleaner than the average new gasoline car (31 mpg) or truck (21 mpg) sold in the US. And our estimate for EV emissions is almost 10 percent lower than our previous estimate two years ago. Now 94 percent of people in the US live where driving an EV produces less emissions than using a 50 mpg gasoline car.

2. EVs also reduce/eliminate air pollution in (usually population dense) locations where they are driven, according to European Public Health Alliance (https://epha.org/electric-vehicles-and-a...the-facts/):

1.EVs reduce pollution from brake and tyres
On brake pollution, conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) cars mainly use disc brakes to slow the car down, which emits particle pollution. In contrast, EVs use “regenerative braking” as it restores braking energy back to the car’s battery to power the car. This process reduces the need to use the brakes and therefore reduces particle emissions.

On tyre pollution, EVs have heavier weight compared to ICE cars and, according to some reports, this extra weight increases wear and thus particle pollution. Yet, EVs are mostly fitted with special tyres designed to cope with the heavier weight of batteries to ensure that they do not wear out too quickly. More studies are needed to measure particle emissions from tyres, especially from EVs, but all road vehicles, including heavy SUVs, are to blame for tyre pollution.

2. EVs reduce particle pollution
Focusing on ‘primary’ particle mass (PM) emissions, i.e those particles which are emitted directly from the exhaust, tyres and brakes, should not lose sight of ‘secondary’ particle pollution. These particles form in the air due to other pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrocarbons (HC) and ammonia (NH3) emitted from the tailpipe. Like primary particles these ‘secondary’ particles also contribute to PM2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns) and PM10 (particles smaller than 10 microns) pollution, thereby causing poor air quality. 

According to a recent study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), these secondary particles can contribute up to 29% of the total PM emissions of a car. Most importantly, the OECD study found that when all particle sources associated with cars are counted, including secondary particles, EV cars contribute less PM2.5 and PM10 than diesel or petrol cars.

3. EVs eliminate all toxic emissions from engines
Switching from an ICE to an EV car eliminates all toxic tailpipe pollution, e.g. NOx, HC and carbon monoxide (CO). A harmful pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), is responsible for over 50,000 premature deaths per year in Europe. It causes respiratory and cardiovascular disease and can be a death sentence for those suffering from asthma.

ICE cars also emit other pollutants, less known but toxic and cancer causing chemicals including benzene (C6H6) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). Car makers themselves acknowledge that it is not possible to eliminate harmful emissions from the engines of fossil fuel vehicles. The only option is to switch from engines to electric motors, i.e. EVs. The sooner this happens, the sooner the air quality benefits will be felt across Europe.

3. If you are worry about coal consumption; according to current trends, we are past peak coal (by energy mix) since 2008, and by production since 2013 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_coal#cite_note-3):

Peak coal is the peak consumption or production of coal by a human community. Global coal consumption peaked in 2013, and had dropped slightly by the end of the 2010s.[1][2] The peak of coal's share in the global energy mix was in 2008, when coal accounted for 30% of global energy production.[1] The decline in coal use is largely driven by consumption declines in the United States and Europe, as well as developed economies in Asia.[1] In 2019 production increases in countries; such as China, Indonesia, India, Russia and Australia; equalled the falls in the United States and Europe,[2] but coal's structural decline continued in the 2020s.[3]

Peak coal can be driven by peak demand or peak supply. Historically, it was widely believed that the supply-side would eventually drive peak coal due to the depletion of coal reserves. However, since the increasing global efforts to limit climate change, peak coal has been driven by demand, which has stayed below the 2013 peak consumption.[1] This is due in large part to the rapid expansion of natural gas and renewable energy.[1] Many countries have pledged to phase-out coal, despite estimates that project coal reserves to have the capacity to last for centuries at current consumption levels. In some countries[which?] coal consumption may still increase in the early 2020s.[4]

[specuvestor]

Just saying that batteries are actually not clean

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/brunch/...n-is-green

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-t...021-06-29/

and it’s also a function of the source of electricity. There’s certain “transfer” of pollution as well if we look at the entire process chain.

But yes EV is as inevitable as SSD to replace HDD, with hybrid in between as well. The key is what timeline. China uses public transport to drive the adoption, infrastructure and establish a critical mass while US relies on the private sector.

[Wildreamz]

As someone who waits at a crowded bus pickup point every morning, breathing in exhaust. I would love for my kids, not having to breathe in Air Pollution ever again. So "shifting" is definitely good enough for me. 

But obviously, it's not just shifting, since petrol/gasoline is entirely no longer needed by moving to EVs (refer to previous link on fuel efficiency).

Natural gas, is both lower carbon footprint, as well as lower air pollution, compared to petrol/gasoline (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural...sions.html).

Yes. And it's inevitability, is not simply due to the environmental benefits, but it's a result of simple economics: EVs are getting cheaper every year (like SSDs) while ICE cars are not (like HDDs). As for hybrids, it will be very very short-lived; as with hybrid hard-drive in the case of storage (SSHDs).

[specuvestor]

Very broad strokes it transfers pollution from urban to rural, developed to developing

https://unctad.org/news/developing-count...-batteries

petrol gasoline not needed means the energy source has to come from somewhere, so the source of electricity is prt of the equation

I'm just sharing here cause most people only see one leg of the equation which is lower pollution / emission in the city.

[Wildreamz]

Very broad strokes it transfers pollution from urban to rural, developed to developing

https://unctad.org/news/developing-count...-batteries

petrol gasoline not needed means the energy source has to come from somewhere, so the source of electricity is prt of the equation

I'm just sharing here cause most people only see one leg of the equation which is lower pollution / emission in the city.

Irresponsible mining (as pertaining to your article) is indeed an issue (some solutions are recommended in your article as well), air pollution shifting to developing countries/region, generally isn't (can't speak for all cases and all countries). 

At the moment there is no perfect solution, it's a work in progress.

Irresponsible cobalt mining should and will be substituted: https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/22/21451...el-ev-cost