This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

TSLA - Tesla Motors Inc (NASDAQ)

Jump to new
Does anyone take that sort or rubbish seriously? Anyone with the slightest ability to think rationally would see straight through this nonsense. "Nothing goes right for Tesla, it cant lower costs, build factories effectively, or launch its autonomous network" - Price target -$750. Yeah, right.
 
I'm sure the rationale behind any company analysis can be questioned. I don't have a horse in this race but I suggest the more detailed breakdowns in the paper are worth reading to understand the thinking and the figures behind the projections.

But as we have all seen there are some extremely creative people making up scenarios for companies.
 

I have been taking a closer look at TSLA lately, and I can see a case for the company being worth a lot more than its current share price in the future.

They have two operating vehicle factories, another under construction in Germany, and will be building a second one in the USA probably in Texas to produce the cyber truck, plus they have the Nevada giga factory to produce battery packs.

When you look at the number of vehicles that they will be producing when all these plants are ramped up, and their margins they are making on vehicles now, it's looking like their share price may be justified, and thats before you factor in their solar panel and battery storage business and the possibility to earn profits on their charging networks in the future, and the blue sky stuff like the robocalls taxi network.

-----------

I don't won any stock yet, but I think I would comfortably sell anyone a 2 year European style put contract at $800 if they believed Tesla was over priced.
 
The Fremont factory is getting expanded. New factories for cyber and semi. Battery efficiency improvements on September. Robotics and manufacturing have improved. FSD released. Leasing ATH. Even more. Everything is stacking up. I predict $3k+ end of year.
 
Value Collector said:
I have been taking a closer look at TSLA lately, and I can see a case for the company being worth a lot more than its current share price in the future.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the point i was challenging, its people so caught up in emotional speculation that they can't spot the gratuitous ramping from so called analysts. As I said its arrant nonsense to suggest that if nothing goes right for the company its shares will be worth $750.
 

I think you misread the brief summary galumay.

If Tesla fails completely ie can't stay solvent, losses market share whatever. it goes broke and is worth nothing. That possibility is at the bottom of the scenario page.

The third bottom option was suggesting that the big advances promised don't come to pass. Tesla keeps going but the doesn't tick the boxes it wants in terms of successful new factories and so on.
In that context the share price would be $750 .

But who knows anything ?
 
I was directly quoting the 'research' @basilio -
"Nothing goes right for Tesla, it cant lower costs, build factories effectively, or launch its autonomous network." -$750
 
The battery car will die ones synthetic co2 neutral fuels are released. A fuel that contributes no extra co2. To me that’s more then what a battery car dose and you can fill it up in any car you drive now and you don’t need to turn your engine and your car will run better and cleaner. Diesels will no long have partial filters before there will be no Sulfur in the fuel.
 

How are these fuels made, are you talking about hydrogen based fuels that are bonded with CO2 to form longer chain carbon based fuels? if so these fuels have a place, but they can't compete with charging batteries.

The energy lost in electrolysis to produce hydrogen, run compressors, bond the Co2 etc is massive compared with the 5% or so energy lose to have when you charge a battery.

and then after you have lost all that energy to create your liquid fuel, the combustion engine itself is only 30% efficient compared to the electric car being about 85% efficient.
 

There is some very basic physics which makes it clear an electric motor and a quality long life battery system is far more efficient than an ICE.

The hydrogen fuel cell model that creates electricity from hydrogen (or ammonia.) is an alternative. But it depends on the cost of hydrogen and cost effective transport of hydrogen in some form- preferably not gaseous.

I have had an eye on Alkaline Fuel Cells for a few years as a producer of very cost effective fuel cells that don't even need particularly clean hydrogen. They have a commercial product that seems to make good economic sense.
https://www.afcenergy.com/
 

Gas to liquids cheeper then oil base fuels
 

I say to anyone who’s pro battery to go to any auto wreckers and picture that every car is a lithium battery.
Your a fool to think that battery cars are the be all end all answer. They just are not the answer. They have so many flaws. The battery is the problem.
Combustion engines are not the problem. It’s the fuel. Clean the fuel up and you have a carbon free engine.
Why would you want all the inconvenience of a battery car if you had an internal combustion engine that burnt zero emissions. Why would you choose a battery. Answer that one ?
 
Its often the path with disrtuption, what seems the obvious winner in the initial stages, ends up being a stepping stone to the ultimate solution. Batteries are very much the achillies heal of EV's, not least from the terrible environmental impact.

I wont be surprised if the eventual solution is an ICE using a environmentally sustainable fuel or even a entirely new propulsion unit that has yet to be invented.

Its first level thinking to assume the EV is in a winner takes all, disruptive, position. It ignores all the things we dont know that we dont know.
 
Muckman said:
Gas to liquids cheeper then oil base fuels
Click to expand...

That doesn’t address my point at all.

I my point is whether using these fuels is the most efficient way to extract and use the energy.

but, I can kinda of tell you have you mind made up, and probably don’t want to delve into the side of things.
 
Muckman said:
Why would you want all the inconvenience of a battery car if you had an internal combustion engine that burnt zero emissions.
Click to expand...

I feel like I have explained this many times on multiple threads, but I will do it again. (Head over to the EV thread to discuss further)

Ev’s are more convenient than petrol cars, unless you have owned an EV you probably haven’t realised just how inconvenient petrol cars are compared to EV’s.

People often make the false assumption that charging an EV is harder than fueling a petrol car, but that just is not so.

it is far easier to park in your garage and take 10 secs to plug in, than it is to pull off the road, and spend 10 mins at a petrol station every week filling up.

With an EV you start each day with a full battery with the same range as a petrol car, and you never have to go to a petrol station unless you are road tripping, and even on road trips charging is more convenient than stopping at petrol stations, you just plug in go use the toilet and grab a drink and then drive off vs having to stand there and fuel up, then move car, then go to toilet and drink.
 
Petroleum is already the most efficient means of energy storage when it comes to density compared to battery.
Take for a example 1 litre of fuel can run a 100Kw engine for an hour give or take. That’s 100K hours of electrical energy. Now try and find me a battery in the size of a litre that will produce 100KW hours of energy ? There is no such thing. Not even close. Maybe 10Kw hours but definitely not 100. So yes liquid fuels are still more efficient.
Batteries are not energy. They still get power from fossil fuels in one way or another.
If you clean the fuel up you have clean engines.
The more emission restrictions we put on current burning fuels the more pressure it puts on companies to produce synthetic fuels.
Fuel that is made up from renewable means of gas and carbon capture. Hydrogen is always burnt off at gas refinery’s as a by product. It’s an abundant resource. Carbon capture proses powered by natural gas technology. There you have it. A liquid fuel that’s fully co2 neutral. I don’t see any battery car doing that ? No raw materials mined, no waist, it’s all recycled..
Oh and it also feeds the industry sector as a diesel and aviation fuel lol so yeh I don’t see battery powered planes any time soon.

Fact of the matter is cars are not even the biggest concern, you need to fix the transportation industry such as the trucks, trains, ships, busses. Just because you have a Tesla that don’t mean anything. How did you think your new Tesla is going to arrive at your dealer?
Fix the fuel first not the car. There’s nothing wrong with the engines, it’s the fuel.
 

You are getting things a bit mixed up there.

Yes, liquid fuels have great energy density so they are a good way to store energy, but but combustion engines are not the most Efficient way to use energy.

that is why even hybrid outperform Straight combustion engine systems.

I suggest you look back over the electric car thread, we had a detailed conversation going over this.

My Tesla model 3 can travel 100km using only 12 KWH of electricity.

when you compare how many BTUs of energy is in 12KWH of electricity vs How many BTUs are in the petrol you would need to drive 100km it crazy.

so even though the battery is less dense when it comes to energy storage you need to store less energy
 
Muckman said:
Your thinking so small

The fact that formula E have to swap cars for a refuel is just a pure joke
And another joke is they power there cars using generators using liquid fuels that came from renewable means.
Click to expand...

I don’t think car racing has any relevance to how any or us use our cars in our daily life.
Eg. none of us have pit crews change our tyres and we can just charge our cars while we sleep or work.
 
Can I ask you this.
If a combustion engine produces zero emissions and can supported using existing industry’s, why would you want car?
I’m all for electrical cars but I’m not for battery cars it’s just not the answer it not. Definitely the electric engine is by far the answer. One moving part, no gear box, less servicing, consistent torque curve. But when you have to design the whole car around the battery it self compromising design aspects and limiting your innovation. It’s just not right. Your making a car to fit onto a battery, it’s ment to be around the other way around. They are just a engineering nightmare. Not to mention the longer the rang the heavily equipped they are meaning more energy consumption to cart the batty pack even though your cell is dead. Unlike a liquid fuel where on depletion it gets lighter as it gets empty. A battery is dead weight. You drive 10kms down the road and your already caring excessive loads. So there fore it’s not efficient at all.
So no batteries are not efficient
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
R
The 7 Moats of Quality Companies
Replies
7
Views
7K
divs4ever
Tape Reading
2
Replies
26
Views
12K
WaveSurfer
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...