Forbes Administers a Slap and a Tickle to Fans of EVs

[dannyf]

I believe this is GAAP/non-GAAP stuff, though I can't be sure.

If you exclude wrong information in that sentence, you have a complete void,

[tom66]

Isn't this not opposite day today or not?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generally_accepted_accounting_principles

You just can't face the fact that something "green" might actually make some green.

[suicidaleggroll]

Each Leaf is profitable if sunk costs (R&D, facility construction) are ignored:

Every decision you have made is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;

Every answer you give is correct, if the incorrect ones are ignored;

...

That's liberal's mentality.

You MUST be joking?  Please tell me you're joking...

Dannyf has an idea for a widget.  He invests $10k in R&D to bring that widget to market.  Once the R&D is complete, he analyzes the hardware and labor cost to produce a widget, and estimates that it will cost around $100, so dannyf picks a price point of $200 to give some profit margin. Excited, he sells the first one.  As soon as he does, tom66 comes along and writes an article about how dannyf is losing $9900 on each widget sold!  Then a second one sells.  "Dannyf is losing $4900 on each widget sold!"  A third sells..."Dannyf is losing $3233 on each widget sold!"

You can see how this accounting analysis is pure idiocy, but that's what a lot of people are doing for the Volt, Leaf, etc.

It makes much more sense to put that $10k in a bubble.  Ignore it just for a second, and look at the ACTUAL profit on each unit sold...$100.  It doesn't take a genius to see that dannyf only has to sell 100 widgets before he's paid off his initial investment and the entire project is net positive.  If he's selling 20 per month, then in 5 months he'll be in the clear.  He's obviously not losing $x,xxx on each unit sold, a 5th grader could see that.

I like how you conveniently left off the second half of tom66's point:

Each Leaf is profitable if sunk costs (R&D, facility construction) are ignored
...
By the end of next year, the Leaf will probably be making Nissan a net profit.

Which makes this point painfully clear.

[tom66]

This is the important statement:

“We are getting there,” Ghosn said. “Are we amortizing and depreciating everything we have spent? No. But if you look at the margin of profit – the direct cost of the car and the revenue of the car – we are getting into positive, which is good for this technology.”

Dannyf and others make it painfully obvious that the right-wing pundits on here appear to have very few reasonable arguments. Or, if they do, they're keeping them close to their chest.

I can agree to an extent that some of the subsidies might be too high or GM executives might be hypocrites. Still doesn't change the root of the argument. You can't argue with actual numbers: More and more EV sales, and profit being made on each vehicle, and consumers are becoming accepting of the technology.

50k Model S + 100k LEAF + ....

edit: derp fixed error

[dannyf]

Ignore it just for a second,

Why just for a second? If you ignore it forever, every thing you make is profitable!

and look at the ACTUAL profit on each unit sold...$100.

Why get burned by the cost? Ignore it and you can count all of your revenues as profit. Wola! huge bonuses for all!


And I heard that's apparently "GAAP" too.

[mtdoc]

Dannyf and others make it painfully obvious that the right-wing pundits on here appear to have very few reasonable arguments.

In general I agree but I think it's important not to paint all "right wingers" with the same brush. I participate on a Chevy Volt forum and there are many political conservatives - some far to the right, who own Volts.  I generally try to avoid the whole right vs left, dem vs repub,  liberal vs conservative nonsense since it has become a relatively meaningless dichotomy - at least here in the US.

What is true is that there is a certain simple minded subset of people on the right who seem to have bought into the whole anti Volt, anti EV, anti renewable energy, climate change denial propaganda campaign promoted by Fox News and conservative talk radio here in the US. It began in part as an attempt to knock down Obama but has continued beyond that.  Part of the funding for this effort comes from well known far right groups and the fossil fuel industry.  Part of the effort even involves "astro-turfing" with some being paid to post on internet forums.

What is clear from the pattern of starting threads and postings by Sgt Rock and dannyf is that facts don't matter. Their posts are full of misinformation and some outright lies. They repeatedly ignore posts with factual information and provide few or no links to facts to support their views.

It's all rather silly isn't it?. I mean EVs, renewable energy, climate change - they should be inherently apolitical topics.  They are science and engineering topics. Rational people ought to be able to discuss their pros and cons in the context of science and engineering facts - but instead some continue to want to make them political - even here on an engineering forum!

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Outright lies, eh! Smile when you say that partner. Be specific and show the proof, or hold your water.

--Please see the below article from huffnpuff 08/12/2008.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-romm/obama-delivers-a-real-ene_b_116751.html

"Senator Barack Obama has fulfilled the promise of his earlier climate plan with a detailed and comprehensive "New Energy for America" plan.
"Invest in Developing Advanced Vehicles and Put 1 Million Plugin Electric Vehicles on the Road by 2015: As a U.S. senator, Barack Obama has led efforts to jumpstart federal investment in advanced vehicles, including combined plug-in hybrid/flexible fuel vehicles, which can get over 150 miles per gallon of gas..."

--Senator Obama, 2008! Does anyone still seriously maintain that the above statement was not made until 2012, and that I am lying about it.

--Generally it is best if you are going to accuse someone of lying, to prove it and document it.

--I say that Wagoner, drove a Chevy Volt-Mule to Capital Hill, in 2008. I have provided an article and a picture. I really do not see how any one can continue to believe that I am lying. I would be interested to see any proof that lies behind these accusations.

"I sell here, Sir, what all the world desires to have—POWER."
James Watt 1736 1819

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[mtdoc]

--Outright lies, eh! Smile when you say that partner. Be specific and show the proof, or hold your water.

ok - here's a couple of the most recent just from the last few pages of this thread.:

--In October of 2008 GM was given the first 13.4B in bail out money, under TARP (Troubled Asset Recovery Program)

--I seems likely that GM and Fiat Chrysler were "encouraged" to do projects like the Volt and 500E, when the federal bailout terms were being negotiated.

Both already proven to be false.

[dannyf]

there is a certain simple minded subset of people on the right who seem to have bought into the whole anti Volt, anti EV, anti renewable energy,...

What the simple-minded leftist tree-hugging liberal envrionmental extremists have trouble comprehending is that people aren't "anti Volt, anti EV, anti ....".

What the rest of us want is not to allow you to take my money to subsidize your crony capitalists. If it is your pet projects, you fund it. Leave us alone.

But even something that simple has proven to be impossible for those tree huggers to understand.

[tom66]

I ask for the same.  Please don't let me subsidise your fuel burning cars by means of the health service. After all, smog and pollution causes 200,000 early deaths per year in the USA alone. MIT study: http://lae.mit.edu/air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-u-s/

I wonder what the additional cost on the health services, and the general economy is, as a result of these deaths?

FEMA value a human life somewhere around ~$2mn USD (That's typically the average amount spent to prevent any readily preventable death.)
http://lae.mit.edu/air-pollution-causes-200000-early-deaths-each-year-in-the-u-s/

So 200,000 early deaths x $2mn USD = $400 billion dollars. 

Kind of makes subsidies even on fossil fuels look light.

EVs contribute to this in a way if they are powered by coal/gas electricity. But they contribute much less. They still are very far from being perfect (ideally: wind+nuclear+carbon-capture nat gas CGGT ... that's if fusion doesn't take off.) But right now, they're the only solution that allows us to live in first-world comfort whilst doing something to reduce overall emissions.

[zapta]

Road tax is based on emissions, i.e. it is not a tax on road use, it is a tax on pollution.

It's a blasphemy tax, similar to dhimmi.

Oppression always comes with 'justification'.

[dannyf]

Please don't let me subsidise ...

I am sorry, aren't you guys parasites on the rest of the society?

Show me what "taxes" have you contributed to the society, vs. what you have taken from the society?

[zapta]

Tesla did what no-one else has managed to do for 50 years -start a new car company in the US and make it work. Nissan produced the first practical, affordable electric vehicle to go into mass production and make a profit.

'The money'? You must mean tax payers' money and subsidies.

[tom66]

Tesla did what no-one else has managed to do for 50 years -start a new car company in the US and make it work. Nissan produced the first practical, affordable electric vehicle to go into mass production and make a profit.

'The money'? You must mean tax payers' money and subsidies.

Tesla is far from government subsidised. Don't forget they paid back the $465 million from the US government several years early. They received a tax break from California and Nevada, but so did Boeing in Washington. And while the $7,500 tax credit applies, this is for individuals only. Tesla would still sell plenty of cars without that subsidy. They don't see a penny of it. They're just making good use of what subsidies are provided to sell more cars.

[zapta]

Tesla is far from government subsidised.

"Analysis: Tesla may have made over $100 million off the CARB enabled battery swap ZEV credit scheme"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/12/analysis-tesla-may-have-made-over-100-million-off-the-carb-enabled-battery-swap-scheme/


"Common EV incentives include tax credits, rebates, free parking, and unrestricted access to high occupancy commuter lanes on major roadways"

http://my.teslamotors.com/incentives/US

"The governor signed four bills in a ceremony in Carson City, including Senate Bill 1, which exempts the Palo Alto, Calif.-based company from paying property taxes for up 10 years, and sales and local sales and employer excise taxes for 25 years. The bill also approves up to $195 million in transferable tax credits, those that allow a company to sell the credit to another"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-nevada-tax-breaks-incentives-package-approved-1410507190

Crony capitalism at its worst, and the free loaders come here to brad about their loot.

[tom66]

ZEV credits provided less than 1% of Tesla's revenue last year. ($1.3bn revenues, $127mn credit sales)
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/3858687290x0xS1193125-14-403635/1318605/filing.pdf

Tesla would be profitable without those credits (if they also weren't spending lots on capex, r&d, etc.)

Again, this is a case of a company making use of what is available to it. It would be bad practice not to do so. The oil industry also receives subsidies, but I don't see complaints from you over that.

The ZEV mandate is poorly implemented because it supports hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles over battery-electric vehicles, when it has been shown time and again the FCEVs don't work. The ZEV mandate was established many years before Tesla was. In my mind, just because an EV is purchased doesn't allow an ICE to also be purchased to make up for that (that's essentially what ZEV lets you do.) However, how do you get car companies to produce lower emission cars? It's been shown time and again that the free market simply will not optimise for externalities like pollution and smog.  So rewarding companies who actually manage to do this is the only realistic way to achieve these goals. (And if you think that Joe Q Public cares, you just need to look at polling statistics on AGW to convince you otherwise.)

The Nevada tax breaks are interesting, too. If Nevada did not offer these breaks, would Tesla be in Nevada? Probably not. So, net Tesla tax income for Nevada = $0. Or, Tesla can come to Nevada, employ many thousands of people who pay income tax and contribute to the local economy, and Tesla can get a break from taxes for some years. And, eventually, they will have to pay taxes. So they win there.

Boeing received an extremely large subsidy for building in Washington:-
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2013/11/11/boeing-biggest-state-subsidy-in-u-s-history/

[tom66]

Lobbying from:
Oil industry - https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01
General automotive industry - https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=M02&year=

and...

Tesla - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057516 / https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000057516&year=2014

(that's ~$100k dollars/yr, last spent in 2011, compared to ~$140mn oil, ~$60mn automotive)

[zapta]

Lobbying from:
Oil industry - https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01
General automotive industry - https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=M02&year=

and...

Tesla - https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057516 / https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000057516&year=2014

(that's ~$100k dollars/yr, last spent in 2011, compared to ~$140mn oil, ~$60mn automotive)

Why should Tesla spend more, this administration is in their pocket, and so is the government and legislators in their home state, all socialist leaning. This is how crony capitalism work.

[dannyf]

Tesla is far from government subsidised.

How can any reasonable and well intentioned person argue that, in the face of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry in general and tesla in particular?

You simply want to starve poor kids in Africa, or deny those pregnant women in South America their rights to quality health care simply because they are not compatable with your pet projects.

Those evil deniers of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry are simply that, evil.

[tom66]

How can any reasonable and well intentioned person argue that, in the face of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry in general and tesla in particular?

Trillions? I would need a source. The fossil fuel industry doesn't even receive a trillion $ in subsidies.

Tesla receives very little direct money from government or from favourable legislation. 1% of their balance sheet is ZEV credits, this is falling year on year. They have no outstanding loan to the government having paid it off early with interest.  Tesla is simply taking advantage of what is available to them. (Starbucks paid very little tax due to clever accounting tricks. I don't hate Starbucks, I hate the over-complicated tax code with too many loopholes which allows them to do this.) Fact of the matter is because companies operate on a pure profit and growth motive, if they do not act to improve profit/growth/shareholder returns the executives will find themselves out of a job.

YES, the cars give owners benefits (subsidies) and this may increase the number of sales of the Model S. These benefits were also given to people driving hybrids at one point. Now, you can disagree on whether or not these subsidies are a good thing. Personally I think anything that encourages clean/green tech is not a bad thing, when appropriately managed. 

I guess that's the main difference between our points of view. You seem to think that the free market will sort it all out. I don't. Historically, it has only succeeded at maximising profits at the expense of workers, health and the environment.

For example, I would be in favour of a tax on unnecessary 4WD vehicles in city centres. They pollute much more. They are big, taking up parking space that others need. They are more dangerous in crash for pedestrians.

You simply want to starve poor kids in Africa, or deny those pregnant women in South America their rights to quality health care simply because they are not compatable with your pet projects.

I'm not sure where this came from. It's a straw man and not relevant. And they are not my pet projects.

Those evil deniers of billions and trillions of subsidies to the green energy industry are simply that, evil.

I'm glad you've finally seen the light Danny.  I wouldn't call them evil, though. I'd say that they need to consider both sides of the argument not just what FOX NEWS tells them.

[zapta]

Zapta, Let me give you a reading comprehension lesson.

Deny the facts in the name of the cause and then go personally after the suppressors. The AGW zealots remind me the practices of of another modern religion. There is nothing new under the sun.

[dannyf]

Let me give you a reading comprehension lesson.

from the guy who doesn't understand return on investments.

Classic.

[tom66]

Deny the facts in the name of the cause and then go personally after the suppressors. The AGW zealots remind me the practices of of another modern religion. There is nothing new under the sun.

Except we AGW zealots have provided many pieces of evidence from multiple sources which point to approximately the same conclusion.

You have not addressed them, you just keep telling us we are denying the facts? How about providing some of your own... It could be a dataset, a formal paper (doesn't even have to be in any of those fancy liberal-biased rolling-in-the-dough science publications), or maybe some website with sourced info. Is that too hard?

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--How to identify, and quit responding to, trolls. Your first tip off is that it always has to be personal. Instead of just posting logical arguments and facts, trolls will call you out personally, and then tell you that you are stupid or you just don't understand, or your country is a sh*t hole, or that you are a liar. Strings of nested quotations a mile long. Posts on top of posts. And always personalised with hostility and name calling. Do yourself a favor. Respond to facts, and not to individuals. If they cannot treat you with respect, then do not speak to them. We all should be able to voice opinions with out all the questioning of motives and continous hostility. Tom66 disagrees with me about things political all the time, but he does not go out of his way to be hostile or personal. See the difference.

--I accept the fact that many Volt drivers are happy with the car, that has never been disputed. I just don't think that it was a good idea from a business stand point (capitalism again). So far the Volt has not met the 60,000 per year GM announced benchmark or the lowered 45,000 one. Perhaps the New Volt and the Bolt will eventually sell enough for GM to recoup its investment, but if the fuel glut lasts, it will be tough slogging.
 
"In fact, the thieves were considered social allies of the revolution, since they too were enemies of private property. Stalin who once robbed banks, fondly characterized the thieves' behaviour as redistribution of wealth, an additional form of class struggle."
"Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn  1918  -  2009

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

do not speak to them.

You have no control over who respond to your posts but you have 100% control over whose posts you respond to,

It does provide some entertainment value seeing them getting all agitated from time to time, though.