[confluence]

I've been 100% long TSLA since the beginning and really don't understand the reasoning behind the doubts people have - given how little they actually know about a) the car industry and b) electric batteries and c) the ability to think on first principles and not by analogy. But I guess everyone has the right to an opinion - even if most of them aren't a) warranted b) backed up or c) logically reasoned.

We are past peak oil. Battery tech will reach oil parity within the decade. Solar PV will reach grid base line within the next 2 decades. Fusion will be introduced within the next 3 decades. Electric engines already run 92% efficiency (vs the combustion engines 15%) and global warming externalities are finally being priced.

The electric car is a no brainer (it wasn't a decade ago, and it'll be too late a decade from now) just like the electrification of trains were. This company will electrify suburbia and reduce costs while they are at it.

Timing + skill = Very nice stock returns (timing is about 10x more important).

Disclaimer: Goes without saying - I am long TSLA and will continue to be long for the foreseeable future.

[aidenn0]

Battery tech will not reach oil parity within the decade. Oil parity would be batteries with roughly 1/3 the energy density of oil (maybe 1/4 if you factor in the fact that electric motors are lighter than ICE motors).

Predictions are hard, but I'm going to go on the record (and am willing to wager) saying that the batteries in EVs produced in 2012 will have an energy density lower than 9MJ/L.

Ultimately that doesn't matter though. The ED in the Model S is already almost good enough, it's the cost that matters, and I think that will go down. If you end up having a car that is a bit bigger and a lot heavier than an equivalent ICE car would be, you can still sell it.

[stcredzero]

> If you end up having a car that is a bit bigger and a lot heavier than an equivalent ICE car would be, you can still sell it.

The Tesla Roadster was heavier than the Lotus car it was based on, but had quite respectable performance. That fact, combined with the electric car cachet was enough to sell it.

If they can keep putting the batteries in the floor, they could consistently wind up with a roomier and more versatile vehicle than the equivalent ICE car. Then again, what Ford is doing with Ecoboost is very impressive. I suspect there's a lot of untapped potential for different form factors with ICE technology.

[ta12121]

Respectable, but not as good, except for straight line speed, for more money. And I'm saying that as someone who'd love a Tesla Roadster.

[confluence]

See here http://evworld.com/insider.cfm?archyr=2012&nextedition=3...

[aidenn0]

It doesn't matter if the customer never drives more than 195 miles, if they won't buy a car that can't go at least 300 miles.

[edit] Also I was specifically addressing battery vs. oil not ICEVs vs EVs

[pge]

Given your thesis here, why do you think electric cars such as the chevy volt and nissan leaf have had such disappointing sales numbers? I was hoping that those two cars would be the beginning of a mainstream adoption of electric cars, but the car-buying public seems not to have embraced them. Curious if you had any thoughts why?

[confluence]

Because they suck.

Specifically their range - you must appease consumer's range anxiety otherwise you have a golf cart on your hands. Tesla does this.

Furthermore have you seen those cars? They are essentially undifferentiated from their ICE counterparts.

[schiffern]

>you must appease consumer's range anxiety

How does the Chevy Volt not do this?

>They are essentially undifferentiated from their ICE counterparts.

What would you suggest? Furthermore, if a certain gizmo sell cars, wouldn't you use them to sell all your cars?

[ta12121]

You had me until fusion. As nice as fusion is on paper, there is so much cheap coal in the ground that it is economically unfeasible.

[wes-exp]

You know what's economically unfeasible? An unstable climate created by forever burning coal.

[ta12121]

Externalities 50 or 100 years down the road tend to have little influence on economics. Parent strongly predicted commercial fusion in 30 years. That will not happen.

[confluence]

See here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[schiffern]

A vacuum chamber containing 150,000,000 K plasma surrounded by molten lithium blankets surrounded by liquid-helium cooled superconductors. Yeah, that sounds cheap.

Solar, anyone? Somehow I don't see $73/watt 7 years from now competing with $19/watt right now (of which about $5 is the panels) and falling fast. I'm assuming 13% capacity factor for solar here, which is pessimistic (Northeast US).

[ta12121]

I am aware of iter. The proposed claim to be defended is "commercial fusion power by 2040", not "there exists an international experimental project to figure out how to create a fusion reactor with a positive energy balance and an economic durability, neither of which we know how to do yet."