Musk endeavours

[odysseus2000]

Those interested in Solar Power might like to read this article https://www.chemistryworld.com/features ... 77.article which indicates major problems ahead, when solar panels wear out in 25-30 years time.

But as PV leaders are well aware, the pathway to sustainable energy generation is not yet complete. A typical PV module is expected to have a 25–30 year working life. Today’s rapid growth in installed PV will be mirrored, a couple of decades down the track, by an equally sharp rise in PV panels ready to be retired. Heath and his Task 12 colleagues have estimated that the world will face a cumulative mass of 8 million tonnes of end-of-life PV modules by 2030, and 80 million tonnes by 2050, by which time it could represent more than 10% of global e-waste.

‘A lot of people have the misconception that putting solar panels on their roof solves the problem of sustainable energy generation,’ says Meng Tao, a solar researcher at Arizona State University in the US. ‘But there are two elements to it. One part is having a sustainable energy source – but the other part is having a sustainable technology to utilise that resource.’ Today, most used PV ends up in landfill, hardly a sustainable solution. But work to circularise the PV economy is well underway.

It might be something to bear in mind.

TJH

I have come across these arguments before and yet I can not see any reason why solar panels can not be recycled. All that would be required is for the politicians to forbid the land filling of PV panels and mandate re-cycling. Or am I wrong and there are reasons why PV panels can not be re-cycled?

Regards,

[tjh290633]

I have come across these arguments before and yet I can not see any reason why solar panels can not be recycled. All that would be required is for the politicians to forbid the land filling of PV panels and mandate re-cycling. Or am I wrong and there are reasons why PV panels can not be re-cycled?

Regards,

Did you read the article?

TJH

[odysseus2000]

In terms of trading, in the latter part of Cathy Wood responding to Jim Cramer's suggesting she close her fund, she discusses some of her trading which gave 175 bps (basis points 1.75%) in 2018 and 320 bps in 2019 in Tesla, this on top of the appreciation. Trade around volatility, buy when high conviction stocks creamed, when media hyper ventilating sell. (2mins 43 seconds):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rObIQxhG-Fo

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Giga Somerset!

Kind think this is all wishful thinking (11:05 mins):

https://youtu.be/nWGWciJ2doY

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

I have come across these arguments before and yet I can not see any reason why solar panels can not be recycled. All that would be required is for the politicians to forbid the land filling of PV panels and mandate re-cycling. Or am I wrong and there are reasons why PV panels can not be re-cycled?

Regards,

Did you read the article?

TJH

Yes, it reads like a bunch of chemists trying to find funding for more research.

E.g. they talk about the impure state of silicon they end up with but don't say why this can't be purified back to silicon grade needed for solar panels.

There is nothing that I saw in the article which states that solar panels can not be recycled, no fundamental limits. The authors quote some practical limits and it is nice that they have achieved this level of recycling, but to me it just reads like a thinly disguised funding application.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

A review of the id4. Some good points, but several part finished aspects to a car that lags contemporary BEV cars in many ways, (17 mins):

https://youtu.be/EotuxCptcM4

Regards,

[tjh290633]

Yes, it reads like a bunch of chemists trying to find funding for more research.

E.g. they talk about the impure state of silicon they end up with but don't say why this can't be purified back to silicon grade needed for solar panels.

There is nothing that I saw in the article which states that solar panels can not be recycled, no fundamental limits. The authors quote some practical limits and it is nice that they have achieved this level of recycling, but to me it just reads like a thinly disguised funding application.

Regards,

That is cynicism on your part. The writer was reporting the "state of the art" by talking to various people active in the field. Purification of silicon, as you put it, would not be a simple process, even if it is possible to remove the contaminants.

The writer is a journalist, not a researcher.

TJH

[odysseus2000]

FSD beta being expanded:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/136 ... 12193?s=20

Regards,

[dspp]

Yes, it reads like a bunch of chemists trying to find funding for more research.

E.g. they talk about the impure state of silicon they end up with but don't say why this can't be purified back to silicon grade needed for solar panels.

There is nothing that I saw in the article which states that solar panels can not be recycled, no fundamental limits. The authors quote some practical limits and it is nice that they have achieved this level of recycling, but to me it just reads like a thinly disguised funding application.

Regards,

That is cynicism on your part. The writer was reporting the "state of the art" by talking to various people active in the field. Purification of silicon, as you put it, would not be a simple process, even if it is possible to remove the contaminants.

The writer is a journalist, not a researcher.

TJH

My assessment is the same as Ody's. Yes it seems more work is required on the module-level approach, but it also seems that there are no fundamental obstacles and that solutions are identified and identifiable to go through the TRLs at the necessary pace. So it does indeed read like a light jorno gloss on the exec summary of someone's grant application.

( as an aside cell level recycling seems most unlikely to me, and thin film has yet another reason to disappear forever)

regards, dspp

[odysseus2000]

( as an aside cell level recycling seems most unlikely to me, and thin film has yet another reason to disappear forever)

regards, dspp

For the Nickel/cobalt electrode cells there seems to be plenty of potential money to make recovery of these expensive elements a commercial proposition.

In the by and by I do expect complete recycling at the cell level. This is a long technical article from Nature, covering many of the issues and some hints as to ways and technologies:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1682-5

This work is hardly yet in its infancy and I expect substantial progress to occur rapidly.

As a general point the world is moving a way from landfill as a solution and the potential for profits from complete recycling without waste, thence no commodity bills for the next device has long attracted Apple et al who have moved a long way towards making their iPhones 100% recyclable.

At my local tip the vast majority of manufactured goods are now recycled. Glass goes into one bin, fluorescent tubes another, electronics another, wood another and so it goes. The days when one could dump what ever one wanted in the skips are over.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Tesla and Curavac working on mRNA printer:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3670330-t ... king_alpha

Regards,

[Howard]

"Tesla Is Losing Market Share In Every Major Car Market"

https://seekingalpha.com/article/441193 ... king_alpha

Is John Engle right?

His figures are for January and February figures don't look much better.

China February sales figures look a bit disappointing at 18,318.

regards

Howard

[odysseus2000]

"Tesla Is Losing Market Share In Every Major Car Market"

https://seekingalpha.com/article/441193 ... king_alpha

Is John Engle right?

His figures are for January and February figures don't look much better.

China February sales figures look a bit disappointing at 18,318.

regards

Howard

Wake me up when Tesla say sales are slowing.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

Another spin on China Tesla sales:

https://seekingalpha.com/news/3670612-t ... king_alpha

Regards,

[dspp]

"Tesla Is Losing Market Share In Every Major Car Market".........Howard

[TUK020]

dspp,
that's really interesting.
9 of the top 20 brands are now Chinese.
Where this has happened in other markets, the main outcome has been insane price competition that drives everyone's profitability towards zero.
Do you think there is a risk of that here?
tuk020

[dspp]

dspp,
that's really interesting.
9 of the top 20 brands are now Chinese.
Where this has happened in other markets, the main outcome has been insane price competition that drives everyone's profitability towards zero.
Do you think there is a risk of that here?
tuk020

Yes, I don't understand why more people don't make the effort to look at the data.

In general terms I think that commoditisation is the direction of travel unless a brand has a USP that can be defended. In China historically the Germans managed to maintain/defend that with their ICE offerings. However I feel that is slipping as the shift to BEV undermines their perceived lead. Now it is quite clear that the aspirational brand in China is Tesla. And these days China is the global manufacturing powerhouse so this propogates globally. The ways in which Tesla is defending against this appear to be:
- speed of execution;
- range & performance, which are closely allied to kWh/km driving efficiency;
- autopilot;
- charger network.
At the moment I think Tesla has a defensible position in each of those areas and are maintaining their margin of lead, and that together no other manufacturer can thereby achieve such a good aspirational position in the buyers' mindset. Clearly VAG are trying as hard as they can to reach an equivalent positioning though I am unsure if they will completely make it. So overall I am expecting general automotive profit margins to remain low for quite a long time globally because of this, however I am also expecting Tesla to be a notable exception for at least several years and you will have seen me tracking Tesla GM% quite carefully because that trend interests me.

A wrinkle in the normal is that Tesla are very aggressive in pushing pricing down as soon as they are able to deliver localised production in meaningful quantities. This has the effect of holding Tesla GM% fairly steady (20-25% from memory) rather than rising, but it simultaneously starves competitors of both GM% and volume, thereby impeding them from gaining scale to become more dangerous competitors. I would not be surprised if Tesla were not able to run at (say) 25% GM and 5% NM, but to be able to force all other BEV competitors into a (say) 15%GM and -5%NM position. Then as the BEV wedge cuts into ICE the legacy-origin competitors simply go bust, leaving primarily the new-entry pureplays most of whom will be perennially gasping for profit. If VAG gave access to their BEV and PHEV findata we could form a better informed view, but of course they don't.

If any of the BEV entrants manage to breakthrough on generalised autopilot (perhaps via IP theft), and also on forcing (via M&A) consolidation in a competing global charger network that might be rapid gamechangers. So far I am not seeing that imho. Another gamechanger will be if a government tries to break Tesla's lead, perhaps by forcing resource allocations. The most obvious danger in that respect is the CN gov but Tesla appear to be managing that situation. Ironically the DE gov is the most effective at pushing this and again by going to Berlin I think Tesla has neutralised that risk.

I could of course be completely wrong and I am very interested in what others have to say regarding the extent to which Tesla's margins can hold up and for how long.

regards, dspp

[odysseus2000]

dspp,
that's really interesting.
9 of the top 20 brands are now Chinese.
Where this has happened in other markets, the main outcome has been insane price competition that drives everyone's profitability towards zero.
Do you think there is a risk of that here?
tuk020

In addition to the points dspp has made, I think you have to factor in how prosperous many people are and with that prosperity comes the need to demonstrate by having the top of the range company products. The shining example of this is Apple which many said would be buried by cheap clones, but which has instead extended its lead and developed its technology so that it is both aspirational and able to offer hardware-software combinations that other can not, while at the same time being only a little more expensive that competitors.

The history of low cost cars has not been a happy one in the prosperous nations. Sure the Reliant Robin was a very economical car, the Yugo was cheap, the Lada etc similarly low priced, but none of them sold in large quantities. I suspect similar issues with the coming crop of 3 wheeler BEV. They may or may not have solved the rolling over problem, but people like to be able to move stuff in cars and 3 wheelers don't have the space nor the feeling of security that a bigger 4 wheel machine has. However, for folk at the bottom of the economic rung they are good deflation, as Cathy Wood calls it, as the $5000 vans and associated Chinese cars take someone from a rickshaw to something far more productive and at the same time hurting the sales of small and polluting 2-stroke and ice vans and two stroke motorcycles.

Regarding VW, I was looking at an etron last night and it came over to me as over gaudy, like they had let loose a bunch of non-auto electronic folk and told them to make something that would appeal and in so doing have created something that is unattractive and which has a number of issues with usability and with updates.

The other aspect to Tesla are the revenue streams from non-automotive: Solar roof, Storage (Powerwall and bigger), AI developments, batteries, heat pumps and several other potential revenue streams.

Generally in technology one brand becomes the aspirational choice and as things now are Tesla are accelerating their lead over the competitors, many of whom are still assuming they can run and run their ICE business.

Regards,

[Howard]

John Engle reported some interesting trends which may have an effect on Tesla's margins.

“Softer than expected sales have translated to diminishing EV market share. In January, 158,000 EVs were sold in China. Tesla’s 15,484 sales mark a continuation of the downward trend that began in June last year. Since then, Tesla’s share of monthly EV sales has declined from nearly 20% to less than 10% in January.”

Despite having four Tesla models all in the premium BEV segment now available in China and applying frequent price drops Tesla has let their market share of the still small but fast-growing BEV market drop significantly. This is mainly because cheaper models are now selling in volume. Not surprising really. But does this suggest that the space for a cheaper Model 2 will quickly become crowded before it's launched?

And it's worth asking if Tesla's Chinese factory is producing the volumes one might have expected if demand still outstrips supply?

“2021 has started off poorly for Tesla in Europe, thanks in no small part to its having no manufacturing capacity on the continent as yet, which makes it reliant on shipping from the United States or China. Thus, January tends to be a bad month for Tesla in Europe. Even so, January 2021 was worse than usual, seeing just 1,619 sales for the month, a visible drop from the 1,977 it managed in January 2020. Tesla’s weak January showing gave it a meager 3.5% of EV market share, which was only good enough for eighth place.”

In Europe Tesla’s strategy has been to let sales volumes drop as well as prices thus unsurprisingly achieving a substantial drop in market share.

“Having sold the lion’s share of Tesla vehicles to American buyers, especially in California, demand has started to show signs of plateauing. Last year, Tesla saw sales fall in 22 states. While one might chock that up to pandemic-related disruptions, it is harder to dismiss the broader slowdown in delivery growth nationwide.”

Tesla is still absolutely dominant in the US BEV market, but the pandemic hasn’t allowed it to grow significantly and some competitors are nibbling at market share.

John Engle’s views on the future for Tesla may not be right but his comments on the current situation look sound.

What does it mean for Tesla’s margins?

It’s an interesting strategy for a growth company to let its market share drop in all its major markets at the same time as reducing prices. Obviously this has been possible to fund with the proceeds of the subsidies from selling credits to the less successful ICE manufacturers. This year will see the effects of this subsidy dropping out of the figures and may affect gross margins.

regards

Howard

[Howard]

The history of low cost cars has not been a happy one in the prosperous nations. Sure the Reliant Robin was a very economical car, the Yugo was cheap, the Lada etc similarly low priced, but none of them sold in large quantities. I suspect similar issues with the coming crop of 3 wheeler BEV. They may or may not have solved the rolling over problem, but people like to be able to move stuff in cars and 3 wheelers don't have the space nor the feeling of security that a bigger 4 wheel machine has. However, for folk at the bottom of the economic rung they are good deflation, as Cathy Wood calls it, as the $5000 vans and associated Chinese cars take someone from a rickshaw to something far more productive and at the same time hurting the sales of small and polluting 2-stroke and ice vans and two stroke motorcycles.

Regards,

Fun fact:

There are more Trabants on German roads today than there are Teslas according to the source below.

regards

Howard

https://twitter.com/fly4dat/status/1369080615459561476