Tesla to lay off 9% of its workforce.

Messages
43,082
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk
Many people use solar panels to charge their cars, as well as to power their houses.
If they have an in-house battery bank and aren't just using net metering to offset their power usage with their power back-feed during the day when they aren't home. To fully charge a 90kWh battery within a reasonable timeframe with solar panels would require far more than what could fit on your typical house and of course requires you do it while it is sunny, so during the day when you'd be using the car, unless you have a battery that's larger than 90kWh at home that you can use to both feed the house and charge the car when you are actually home. Somehow however, I doubt that's the scenario you were alluding to.
 
Messages
740
Location
Under the hood
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
When Hyundai started offering Korean cars in N. America in the mid 80's, nobody thought they'd make it either. Fast forward 20 years and they are gaining market share over their Japanese and American rivals. The world wants something different, new and fresh (I don't, but I'm not in the majority) and Tesla is willing to offer it. Only a matter of time until these alternate fuel vehicles become the norm.
That's an apple-to-oranges comparison; Hyundai faced a different challenge than what Tesla is dealing with now. Hyundai wasn't bringing anything new to the table when it introduced a cheap, Mitsubishi-derived econobox to the US market in the form of the Excel. Its chief virtue (and disadvantage) was that it was a cheap econobox (IIRC, only the Yugo cost less at the time), whose natural appeal only extended so far. But, it was an entry point for a fledgling, but not young company (HM was ~20 years old at the time), backed by a large chaeboi which could afford to be patient and take time to grow its business. Conversely, Tesla hasn't had difficulty finding appeal, even outside of the techies and early adopters. The interest in the 3 alone is indicative of that. Tesla's challenge has been a continuing inability to execute on its business plans, and to actually deliver what it has promised, on time, on budget, and on price. Investment in production lines and equipment is costly, even for established OEMs, and Musk's risk in ignoring a century's worth of industry experience and attempting to shortcut his way in making Model 3s has been a costly failure, both in terms of capital and opportunity cost, as well as lost volume. It has been forced to discard equipment, and reconfigure the line with new equipment and more workers to do the job that the original plan could not. The company's immediate concern is slow down the rate at which it burns cash, hence the layoffs, and ramp up volume to grow cash flow. If it doesn't get things in order, a three-year future is in jeopardy, never mind a thirty-year future. Musk has repeatedly stated the Tesla doesn't need to raise any more capital, but it's on borrowed time if it doesn't act, and probably do that, as well as cutting costs. Investors have been patient, but such patience is not infinite (at least to those who are wise), and faith alone doesn't pay the employees or the bills. Tesla was already facing a challenge in driving EV adoption in the mass market, and hasn't made it any easier on itself by doubling down, in the way it has tried to operate. It still has certain advantages, but the window of opportunity is shrinking as the other OEMs enter the market. They will have to catch up in establishing charging infrastructures and supply lines for battery and motor production, but they do not lack the experience, nor expertise in mass vehicle manufacturing, or lack the capital to make those investments. Why it finds itself in this situation is another topic in itself, but suffice it to say, Musk is a big part of that discussion, as well as contrasts between how Tesla is managed and how SpaceX is managed. That's just how the facts appear to me, as neither a fanboi, nor a hater. But, Tesla is an American company, employing American workers, and on the forefront of a shift in the industry, so it's puzzling how many in the country are rooting against it. There are a lot fewer things than before where the US could claim itself as the leader. This is one of them, at least for now.
 
Messages
17,302
Location
OH
The Model S is an attractive machine while the Model X is plain looking at best and the pug faced hunchbacked Model 3 needs serious help from a designer with credentials extending beyond the sixth grade. Having written the above, while any of the above EVs would work for my wife and I as we use our daily drivers, none of them would make any economic sense even assuming that we could always scam a free charge. This being the case, then what's the point? Someone above mentioned that Tesla is a battery company that happens to assemble cars. FWIU, Tesla has never actually made any batteries but merely assembles off the rack cells into packs, just as anyone might do in their garage. Tesla as an assembler of road vehicles may be no more than a balloon ready to pop or it may be a major player in the near future. Certainly a nice fuel price spike would bring a similar spike in Tesla orders and might enable the investment to bring production volumes up on a sustainable basis. We'll see. Meanwhile, I'll note that I haven't been impressed with Tesla's offerings. Given the lack of a costly engine and transmission, a Model 3 should be priced at the same level as the Honda Accord/Toyota Camry with which it competes, but this is not the case just as the Models S and X seem overpriced for what they are. How much can it cost to assemble a bunch of Panasonic batteries into a pack and the computer and software requirements should be but a fraction of what a machine with an actual engine and transmission requires.
 
Messages
1,079
Location
Senoia, GA
Originally Posted By: Kestas
How will they choose who gets laid off?
Ummmm..... big companies have a LOT of dead weight. Big companies allow LOTS of incompetent people to hide. People that could never make it at a highly successful small (6-25 ppl) company. It’s generally no secret who these folks are.
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
Yeah, but surely a visionary such as Musk would never have let that occur in the first place...or losing vast swathes of other peoples money means you don't pay attention. Other dot points... Steam Trains - 5-6% thermal efficiency by the time they included superheaters and economisers. Solar roofs...not many (read nearly none) could possibly power themselves and a car.
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
OVERKILL, was going to do the math from a different angle Electricity 1 tonne per GWh (pretty typical Oz)...Model S "rated" at 209Wh per km. gives 4,780 km/tonne of CO2, or 209g/km Prius ADR Combines 86g/km (still did the calcs LOL) Anyway, found the Oz website... https://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/Vehicle/QuickCompareVehicles So my numbers aren't far off. Have fun with the calculator... BTW, it's nice to "think" or "feel" that things are different.
 
Messages
43,082
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: Shannow
BTW, it's nice to "think" or "feel" that things are different.
Thanks for the share smile And you've touched on one of the biggest factors in all of this: perception People see wind mills and solar farms and go all greeny-gagga assuming that's where their power comes from to charge their E-sled, yet the reality is that this is not the case. - Denmark, one of the staples of the green lexicon given its almost entirely wind-driven generation system, produces less than 40% of its power domestically via this manner, despite pursuing it since the 1970's. The statistic of course varies, but >60% of their power is generated via fossil sources or imported from their neighbours who generate it via coal, nuclear, hydro...etc. And this is a country with overall consumption less than many states and provinces at 34TWh for 2013. For some perspective, the 8-unit Bruce Nuclear site in Ontario produced 47TWh last year. - Ontario, the 2nd greenest province in Canada behind Quebec, is currently in turmoil due to the failings of its Green Energy fiasco (the GEA) which involved insane feed-in tariffs on long-term contracts given to private wind and solar developers as well as gas operations to prop them up. The lofty goal was to eliminate coal and nuclear power but after already cancelling the Darlington nuclear expansion, it became readily apparent that this wasn't viable, much to the chagrin of various advocates and lobbying groups. Subsequently, the plan shifted and the province committed to long-term nuclear involving the refurbishment of 10 reactors over two facilities, which yields a lifespan that will run into the 2060's. Unfortunately, significant damage was already done and while wind, gas and solar represent 8%, 6% and 2% of our generating mix respectively, they account for 18%, 15% and 14% of the cost. Yes, 16% of Ontario's power accounts for a staggering 47% of the cost. So somebody in Ontario, charging their Tesla, isn't getting that power from that huge field of windmills spinning in the backdrop of this idyllic fantasy, nor from the solar panels glistening on the rooftops down the street. 84% of that power is coming from Nuclear and hydro-electric; from the staple generators that had already been in place before this ridiculous detour.
 
Messages
1,104
Location
PA,US
Originally Posted By: billt460
What exactly does, "seem to be selling quite well"...... And, "can't make them fast enough", really mean? Let's examine the numbers. Tesla manufacturers approximately 3,145 model 3's per week. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ In comparison 6,500 new pickups are sold EVERY DAY in America. Or roughly 270 per hour. http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/11278/6500-new-pickup-trucks-are-sold-every-day-in-america So when we use terms like, "selling quite well", and, "can't make them fast enough", it's really not saying much. The fact is it's a small, all but non existent sliver of the actual new vehicle market in this country. And there is no guarantee they can even make that many. There simply isn't enough of these things on the road now, or in the future to make any sort of difference. And I'm talking about the whole EV market. Including the Chevy Volt, (of which I have yet to see a single one on the road), or the Nissan Leaf, of which I've seen a grand total of 2. And I have never seen a Tesla of ANY kind anywhere.
So because they don't sell as well as pickup trucks in America, they don't sell well for what they are? Its funny some in this thread (not you in particular) mention people buying EVs as status symbols, when some huge percentage of trucks are bought for the same reason. I see people who wouldn't be able to lift a cinder block into a truck bed driving King Ranches. I see Volts all over. I think the "seeing" them is more related to area. Sales of the Volt specifically aren't very high, but steady. about 20,000 units per year for the past 5 years. Maybe a better example of hybrid/ev sales would be the Toyota Prius. About 2 million sold since 2000.
 

PimTac

Thread starter
Messages
14,516
Location
...
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk
Elon has confidence; he just bought $25M worth of Tesla stock. Musk buys Tesla Stock $25M
Oldest trick in the book...improving investor CONfidence. And it's only 0.125% of his nett worth that he put up.
Yep and I’ll wager he bought those 72000 shares right before the announcement. This shell game continues.
 
Messages
4,108
Location
IL/GA ,USA
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
... I see Volts all over. I think the "seeing" them is more related to area. Sales of the Volt specifically aren't very high, but steady. about 20,000 units per year for the past 5 years. Maybe a better example of hybrid/ev sales would be the Toyota Prius. About 2 million sold since 2000.
[off-topic] I think some of the Volts sales are Prius converts looking for a "sportier" hybrid ride. (according to some priuschat....) [/off-topic]
 
Messages
6,748
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
So because they don't sell as well as pickup trucks in America, they don't sell well for what they are?
You bring up a very good point. What exactly are they? They are not cheap. It's been pretty well proven here, as well as most everywhere else, they are not "green". At least no "greener" than any comparable gas powered model. They are not practical by any stretch of the imagination. They can only be driven a few hundred miles before they are out of commission for at least 8 hours for a recharge. There are limited places you can recharge them on the road. Are you going to run an extension cord out your motel room door? What if you end up with a room on the second floor? So for any type of long distance, cross country travel they're pretty much worthless. They are useless for pulling anything. (How many Tesla's and Volt's do you see with receiver hitches on them?) So I'm just not sure what is their intended purpose? Right now they don't sell as well as anything with an internal combustion engine in it... Be it pickups, compacts, or anything else with a fuel tank for that matter. No matter how you want to analyze this, they are nothing more than cool, expensive toys. Will they ever be more? Right now I'm not seeing how. When people have to come up with mostly bogus reasoning to buy one, that's not a good sign of long term sustainability in any market. And as was mentioned, even if they improve driving distance and charging times, the internal combustion powered vehicles are improving right along with them. They are getting cleaner, (or "greener"). They are becoming more and more fuel efficient. And they are cheaper too boot. And you can "recharge" them with a full tank of fuel cheaply, and most anywhere in a couple of minutes.
 
Messages
4,515
Location
Los Gatos, CA
I am not sure I agree with the electric vs gas argument proposed here: Where your electricity comes from depends on where you live. Most places are coal dependent, true, but others (like CA) use more renewable sources. You say the electric benefit is false because it costs energy to bring the power to the car, but disregard the gas engine total supply delivery energy costs. You should be comparing source to tailpipe total cost for both vehicles. In total energy cost, electric cars are far greener than fossil fuel cars; perhaps 4 to 1 in terms of CO2. There are other energy costs, such as rare metals used in Teslas to make them light, etc. And what about battery disposal? There is much to be learned. But alternative fuel vehicles are pushing the world in the right direction, as evidenced on lowering all cars emissions. How green are they?
 
Last edited:
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk
I am not sure I agree with the electric vs gas argument proposed here: Where your electricity comes from depends on where you live. Most places are coal dependent, true, but others (like CA) use more renewable sources. You say the electric benefit is false because it costs energy to bring the power to the car, but disregard the gas engine total supply delivery energy costs. You should be comparing source to tailpipe total cost for both vehicles.
And the greens are disregaring the costs in energy to put into the solar panels and windmills, which as I've shown before is a very poor return on energy invested...after all, if you are going to compare lifecycle emissions, then you've got to consider that these "free" energy producers only generate over their entire lifetime the ennergy costs to create them.
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk
In total energy cost, electric cars are far greener than fossil fuel cars; perhaps 4 to 1 in terms of CO2.
4x ??? Man you are entitled to your own opinions, but certainly not facts...if the issue is CO2 produced (or fuel burned, I don't mind either metric, same engineering outcome, that's certainly not the case. Unless you are using the 38 to 142 MJ comparison, which is absolutely a ridiculous use of numbers...especially for an advocate of lifecycle costing.
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
:shaking head: If that'show people are using the science to justify their beliefs, then no wonder there's no rational discussion.
 
Messages
17,302
Location
OH
Here's the deal: As I noted above any current Tesla model would suit my wife and I as daily drivers all of the time with very low operating costs. The thing is that all of these cars are so overpriced as to make no practical sense as daily drivers. I'm a fiscal guy and my wife is a fiscal gal, so we look at things on a ruthless cost basis. No Tesla model comes even close to being economically advantageous even as compared to a thirsty new Suburban. The fact that no Tesla is a practical touring car only adds to the disadvantages column. These are actually practical and useable cars in typical daily driver service and if I were looking at another ten years of my commute and could buy a Model 3 for $35K or so, I'd be seriously interested. At current Tesla prices, no thanks.
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
Originally Posted By: JeffKeryk
What I was pointing out was your comparison of supply cost + emissions to tail pipe only.
Where did you get your 4 times then ?
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2015/ghg_inventory_trends_00-15.pdf OK, here's the GHG intensity for Ca...I'll do the same 300Kg/MWh, 209Wh/km, 4,780km in a MWh, 62.7g CO2 per km Versus the Prius 86g/km. You are claiming that I need to include the extraction energy costs...however, CARB are claiming that solar, wind, hydro and nuclear a "zero GHH power sources. (P7) Is this sort of double ledger bookkeeping standard in Ca ? Those activities certainly aren't carbon free to establish, run and maintain...but THEY get a free pass while I have to include oil extraction costs ?
 
Top