More Fake News Supporting Electric Cars

 

Another advertisement in The Telegraph today for electric cars, this on claining it only costs £4 to charge the batteries to the same level as filling the tank of a conventional car.

I fill up my car’s tank for just £4′: have electric cars reached tipping point?

Screams the headline over a picture of a couple of proud (and surprisingly unburned) Tesla owners and their pride and joy, £75,000 worth of what looks like a family sized car with nothing special about it, apart from the fact that by the time you get to the end of the street you will probably need to stop for several hours to recharge the batteries.

Tony Cuthbert with £75,000 Tesla (picture Telegraph)

 

But does the owner’s boast stand up to scrutiny?

The cost of owning an electric car could come down to equal petrol and diesel within two years, according to auditor Deloitte, but for savvy drivers, going green could already make financial sense  the Telegraph says.

The market for electric vehicles (EVs) is growing at a rapid rate, with the number of models available set to exceed 200 in the next two years. Analysts predict another 10 million electric cars will be on British roads by the end of the next decade. But while the number of models has increased, growth in the numbers of actual sales is positively sluggish.

As combating climate change becomes increasingly important to many consumers, according to maker’s publicity, yet electric cars accounted for only 1.15% of global sales in 2017. I could not find a figure for 2018, but reports say there was modest growth. There are also reports that energy providers are flooding the market with innovative tariffs specifically aimed at drivers of electric cars, but here too the low cost of energy does not compensate for the high initial cost of installation. .

Tony Cuthbert, 59, from Gateshead, has been driving his Tesla Model S for just over a year after deciding he could be doing more to save the planet. His conscience has paid off as the company’s national network of free-to-use charging points, combined with cheap energy at home, means his running costs have fallen. Mr Cuthbert, an IT manager, mainly charges his vehicle overnight at home. He uses Octopus Energy’s Go EV tariff, which provides power at the reduced rate of 5p per kilowatt hour for several hours overnight, meaning a full charge of the Tesla costs around £4.

 

It costs £4 to fill up the tank because the tank isn’t very big.

At 14p/kWh, £4 would get you 28kWh of electricity. 1 litre of petrol is equivalent to 10kWh.

Electric engines are more efficient, so it would give you the same number of km as 5kWh.

£4 is therefore the equivalent of putting 6 litres of petrol in your car, which would cost £7.38 at £1.23 per litre, which is what I paid on Thursday.

The tax on £7.38 (6 litres) of petrol is £4.82, meaning it costs £2.56 for the actual petrol. The tax on £4 of electricity is 19p, meaning the actual electricity costs £3.81. So the only reason electricity is cheaper for filling your car is because the tax is cheaper.

And while it does not entirely account for the discrepancy, I guess the tax is cheaper partly because electricity doesn’t pump exhaust fumes into the air as much at the point of use as petrol/diesel do, but simply moves the dirt to the places where mining of materials and manufacture of batteries takes place, (i.e. not in countrys that have committed to zero carbon targets.

When a newspaper publishes an advertisement disguised as an article isn’t there some law that says readers must be clearly informed the content is advertising material.
The article is just another ad for EVs and Tesla in particular, none of the problems of EVs are mentioned, not even the tendency of Tesla vehicles to barbecue theior occupants.

It isn’t until we get to the comments we read of the vast subsidies governments are giving EV makers due to the punitive taxes on petrol and diesel, or the absolutely filthy and energy intensive industrial processes involved in manufacturing batteries (especially the mining and refining of rare earth metals,) and the equally filthy and energy intensive processes involved in recycling or scrapping batteries.

 

 

Unplugged Tesla Model S Spontaneously Ignites While Parked In San Francisco Garage

With governments and academics seemingly set on persuading us all to switch to electric cars very soon, electric cars themselves, and those made by Tesla in particular, seem intent on proving they are not only ridiculously expensive, hopelessly inefficiant and unarguably not fit for purpose. As more Teslas are sold and delivered, increasingly the model range of appear to be spontaneously combusting more regularly than Spinal Tap drummers as a result of shoddy production, careless quality control or a reckless disregard of safety considerations in the quest to make the cars get further than the end of your street you live in before the batteries need to be rechrged.

from Zero Hedge
In the latest embarrassing spontaneous combustion incident, a Tesla caught fire in a San Francisco garage last night, prompting an investigation from authorities, according to the local KRON 4 TV station.

The San Francisco Fire Department responded to a reported car fire just after midnight at a home on the 1300 block of 26th Avenue near Irving Street. The crews saw “smoke near the rear right tire of a Tesla Model S” that was not plugged in at the time and put out the fire.

The Tesla was then towed from the garage by the fire department. There were no reported injuries at press time.

This was the second incident in which a Tesla reportedly caught fire after smoke started to spontaneously emerge from beneath the car in as many weeks.

Two weeks ago we were first to report on a stunning video that showed a Tesla catching fire and exploding while parked, in China. Similar to the event in San Francisco, smoke can be seen billowing out from underneath the vehicle before it burst into flames.

Luckily, nobody was in the vehicle at the time of the Chinese “incident” which Tesla said it is investigating.

Given this latest incident, the question remains: how long will US regulators allow these cars to continue bursting into flames on their own, without probing into the reasons for the recurring incidents or demanding a recall? How long will they allow this game of flaming Russian roulette continue? And unfortunately, we also have to ask: the next time a car catches fire on its own, will there be passengers in it?

At the least, it certainly makes you think twice about whistleblower Martin Tripp’s allegation that Tesla was letting defective battery cells make their way into vehicles rolling off the line. We will be updating this story as more details become available.

MORE on Tesla:

 

Tesla end game?

Brand New Tesla Model S Spontaneously Combusts And Spontaneously Comusts Again

It is well known that Tesla Model S Cars, like Spinal Tap drummers, have a tendency to spontaneously combust. There have been several instances in the past two years, usually occurring after an accident or collision, not always immediately after but several days after. This led one safety expert in California to suggest there is a serious problem with the battery pack.

Tesla Cars deny there is a problem of course, well they would, wouldn’t they? In a recent court hearing over one case the company bizarrely claimed that one of it’s cars had burst into flames after somebody fired a bullet into the battery pack.

But now there has been a case of spontaneous Tesla Model S combustion (perhaps that’s why they call it the model S,) that does not involve a bullet, or a collision

A Tesla Model S that was not being worked on or driven  spontaneously combusted on Tuesday, catching fire in a tyre shop parking lot near the Bay Area, San Francisco according to NBC news. After the fire department arrived and the Tesla was subsequently towed away, it then reignited a second time at a tow yard.

The owner of the tyre shop said after the vehicle arrived on a tow truck, they noticed a “hissing sound” coming from it shortly before the vehicle went up in flames. The batteries in the vehicle continued to burn long after the flames were put out, the fire department concluded, and there was no indication that anyone was shooting at the batteries this time.

“It’s a brand new car, I just got it three months ago, there’s only 1200 miles on the car,” the owner told NBC Bay Area. The report stated that the owner will likely not replace the car with another Tesla due to “a lack of customer service” and “safety concerns”.

“No more Teslas,” the driver told NBC. “If this car was in the house and we were on vacation, and this thing caught fire in the garage, the whole house could go under!”

Watch a video of the Tesla Model S AutoBBQ feature being demonstrated.

 

 

FBI Is Investigating If Tesla Misstated Info About Model 3 Production

 

Tesla car crash – Elon Musk doesn’t do things by halves (picture: indianexpress.com)

Electric Vehicle maker Tesla, which released astounding Q3 figures yesterday, suggesting the company had turrned a $1billion plus loss in Q2 into a multi million surplus in the third quarter of this year (more on that a little further down the page,) looks to be courting more trouble from Stock Market regulators, and simultaneously tempring the FBI to get involved.

While we already know that following a statement by loony CEO Elon Musk to the effect that he was taking the public company private, a move that netted Musk millions as the value of his holding soared, but resulted in a regulatory investigation as Musk did not have the finance to carrry out the change,  a second SEC investigation is taking place in relation to Tesla’s Model 3 production, because Tesla overstated production figures after news was leaked that production was well short of the break – even target. This afternoon the Wall Street Journal dropped a bombshell  by revealing that a Department of Justice investigation into Model 3 production numbers was also not only was taking place, but was also intensifying.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the FBI is examining whether Tesla misstated information about production of its Model 3 dating back to early 2017. Action in the criminal investigation is reported to have intensified since Musk settled with the SEC last week.

The Journal also reports that the FBI has contacted former Tesla employees for testimony in the criminal case. Many former employees have received subpoenas and have been interviewed by the FBI.

Tesla shares quickly dropped almost $25 off highs on the news before bouncing after releasing its own response, stating it has only received a “voluntary request for documents” and not a subpoena. If people believe any statement from Tesla any more they deserve to lose their money.

Here’s what an experienced US market analyst had to say about those third quarter profits yesterday:

Analyst Erupts At Tesla: “They Used Every Trick From Every Fraud To Put Lipstick On Q3 Results”

by Adventures in Capitalism

On October 11, I noted that “…I have booked all of my Tesla (TSLAQ – USA) Jan 2019 250/175 put spreads after owning them for almost a year, at a reference price of $255 compared to a reference price of $320 when I first wrote about them. While I am certain that Tesla collapses in the near future, all evidence seems to show that they’ve used every trick from every financial fraud over the past 100 years to put lipstick on the Q3 financial results.” Modern day Ivar Kreuger has not disappointed.

Over the years, I have purposefully kept accounting and numbers to a minimum on this site—they’re “boring.” Besides, if you must use a fancy spreadsheet to prove a point, then your thesis isn’t very good to begin with. The numbers should fit onto a bar napkin after a full night of drinking. Unless, of course, you suspect fraud—in that case, numbers and financial ratios are everything. With that out of the way, let’s delve into the Q3 Tesla numbers.

Big picture, from Q2 to Q3, there was a sequential improvement in operating income of $1.038 billion, and they delivered 43,007 incremental cars. That’s $24,140 per incremental vehicle on a car that is retailing for as little as $49,000. No other auto OEM even comes close to that. Something simply doesn’t add up—so I went looking for it.

I get that when revenue grows, you get operating leverage. This can be seen where SG&A as a percentage of revenue declined for 4 sequential quarters (green). This is normal. You would expect with a huge increase in Q3 revenue, that there would be more operating leverage. Would you expect that SG&A drops 2.8% sequentially on a 70.5% increase in revenue (red)? That’s not how manufacturing companies work. The expense is obviously still there, we just don’t know where they hid it…

Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph was running a story about how lousy electric cars are when faced with real, open road driving conditions (they don’t like hills according to this road test, carried out in southern England. Imagine driving one round the Lake District, the north Pennines, Snowdonia or the Scottish Highlands.

Tesla’s Single Point Of Failure

Interesting and well researched article comparing the success of Ford with the chaotic meltdown of Tesla.

Tesla crash and burn

Authored by Chris Whalen via TheInstitutionalRiskAnalyst.com,

Watching the meltdown of Tesla Motors (TSLA) founder and CEO Elon Musk last week unfold in the pages of The New York Times, we are reminded that enterprises need both vision and operating smarts to be successful. It was obvious years ago that Elon Musk needed help to build a new car company. Yet somehow the members of the board of directors of TSLA did nothing as Elon Musk led this extraordinary endeavor.

We noted in Ford Men: From Inspiration to Enterprise that Henry Ford had the vision thing, but his partner James Couzens turned the idea into a successful business. So bad was his reputation for tinkering and racing that Ford was not even an officer of Ford Motor Co (F) when it was founded, but he had an idea.

Thanks to Jim Couzens, in less than a decade that idea Henry Ford nurtured exploded into one of the great American fortunes, a transformational fortune built on manufacturing. The business was wildly successful and repaid its investors and more in the first year. And thanks to another Ford Man, engineer Charles Sorensen, Ford Motor Co invented the assembly line that enabled the company to meet the astronomical demand for cars a century ago.

Musk is no Henry Ford, but TSLA is the latest case in point to the lesson that solitary leaders often fail. No matter how brilliant or inspired, most of us need the moderation and help of business partners, directors and investors to make an enterprise succeed and endure.

READ ALL >>>

Readers may think my tracking of the Tesla meltdown is a case of a Musk hater wallowing in schadenfreude. Not so, I think Musk is a dick who has made the mistake of believing his own hype, but what has really appalled me is the Tesla fiasco shows the business community learned nothing from the the dotcom bubble’s bursting in 1999 / 2000. Once again in recent years thay have jumped on the bandwagons of Silicon Valley start ups, abandoning caution and common sense when it should have been clear the wheels would drop off the first time they encountered a bump in the road.

Elon Musk, Tesla, Sued For Fraud Over Tweets, Going Private Transaction

img_2804

It’s not just Tesla cars that burn easily, Elon Musk’s credibility has gone up in flames too. (Picture source: https://electrek.co/ )

 

On Thursday (9 August), on the back of a dramatic move by Bullshitter – in Chief Elon Musk, who out of the blue Tweeted that he was taking his electric car / solar panels / space exploration company private, Tesla stocks initially spiked thanks to Musk’s claim that “funding was secured” for the massive buyback needed to take the company off the stock market, then slumped when it emerged that there had been no prior discussion with investors or members of the Tesla board. It quickly became clear that Musk had no funds secured and has already maxed out his company’s credit. Then somewhat more sinister rumours emerged anbout Musk’s motives and gossip in financial markets suggested Musk and Tesla may soon be sued by both traders who had taken short and long positions on the company when the dust finally settles.

To be short on a stock, in very simple terms, means traders have made forward contracts to sell at an agreed proce stock they do not own, in the expectation the market price will fall and the stock needed to cover the contract can be bought more cheaply than the contract price. A long position is simply making a forward contract to buy a stock at a fixed price, anticipating that by the contract date the prive will have risen above that, and the stock can be resold for a quick profit.

In news that emerged yesterday first half of this prediction came true when we learned buth short and long sellers of Tesla stock had filed actions against Tesla and Elon Musk alleging the Tesla CEO and anointed Messia of Silicon Valley tech fanboys had fraudulently engineered a scheme to squeeze short-sellers – something Musk has previously indicated he intended to do – through his shock announcement to take the electric car company private.

The lawsuits were filed three days after Musk’s shocking tweet in which he proposed a record $72 billion transaction that valued the company at $420 per share, and that “funding” had been “secured.” One day later, Bloomberg reported that the SEC had inquired from investment banks about whether this funding was indeed “secured”. the alternative would indicate an attempt by the CEO to launch a short squeeze by materially misrepresenting wishful thinking as reality.

Subsequently on Friday, Bloomberg (again) reported that Tesla’s Board of Directors had only begun canvassing investors and banks about funding of an MBO-type transaction, implicitly confirming that Musk may have misrepresented facts, opening up the company to legal action.

In one of the lawsuits, plaintiff Kalman Isaacs said Musk’s tweets were false and misleading, and together with Tesla’s failure to correct or retract them amounted to an “attack” designed to “completely decimate” short-sellers. The lawsuit filed by Isaacs, and a second one filed by William Chamberlain said Musk’s and Tesla’s conduct artificially inflated Tesla’s stock price and violated federal securities laws.

In the confusion following Musk’s tweet a rumour circulated that Musk had secured an agreement with the government of Saudi Arabia to fund the delisting transaction, but the Saudi Royal House quickly denied any interest in such a deal.

 

As Bad News Continues To Pile Up For Tesla and EV Fans …

As Bad News Continues To Pile Up For Tesla and EV Fans …


Tesla model 3 (source : https://indideevs.com/ )

With a spate of fatal and near fatal crashes raising doubts about the safety of the power storage system in Tesla sports models, the corporate stock exchange valuation taking hit after hit and Elon Musk’s promises looking more and more unrealistic as the company’s operating deficit gets bigger and bigger, today has brought another shock for fanboys of Tesla and electric vehicles in general.

The progress of the Tesla Model 3, which was supposed to be the “entry-level” electric vehicle for the middle class, that would take electric cars into the volume market has been beset failures to meet promised production levels as well as technical setbacks.

Leading up to the launch of the Model 3, it was positioned as the people’s EV, the electric car that everybody could afford, rather than being just a toy for virtue signalling liberal luvvies. Once in mass production, Musk promised, economies of scale would help the cash burning Tesla Corp. generate cash and profits consistently. The car’s relatively modest $35,000 price tag (Only about $10k more expensive than comparable Ford, GM or Volkswagen models,) was heralded as one of its key selling points, low enough that Tesla could generate the volume needed to gain operating leverage by selling it to the masses.

But as Elon Musk himself admitted this weekend on Twitter, selling a $35,000 Model 3 right now would cause Tesla to “lose money and die”. So, instead of selling this mass-market vehicle, Tesla has focused on selling a more expensive version of the vehicle. A much, much more expensive version, in fact more than double the base price. Yes, $70k for a very ordinary family car with a proven tendency to incinerate its occupants.

A lot of bollocks has been talked about Tesla cars, surely the public (apart from sceptics like me who know that the current generation of EVs have no more chance of being commercially successful that the first battery powered automobile, launched in 1829, and for the same reasons. Technology may have improved a zillion times since then, but so has what we expect an automobile to be able to do for us.

Tesla’s $35,000 Model 3 Could Now Cost You $78,000 – Bloomberg