Thứ Ba, 22 tháng 11, 2016

Nonsense from John Petersen part 3

  • Sep 20, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Thanks rolo, I think that should help confirm peoples' thoughts about how John "C" Petersen operates.
    �
  • Sep 20, 2013
    vfx
  • Sep 21, 2013
    JRP3
    ORNL? Or because it was funded by the Aluminum Association?
    �
  • Sep 21, 2013
    hcsharp
    Some interesting points:
    • Recycling aluminum creates only 5% of the of the carbon emissions required for primary aluminum manufacturing. 90% of automotive aluminum is currently recycled.
    • It builds on an earlier study by the EPA
    • It's consistent with an earlier independent study by the magnesium industry which also concluded that aluminum has the smallest carbon footprint of competing materials.
    The study was underwritten by The Aluminum Association so it's possible that might have influenced the researchers. OTOH, they said...
    �
  • Sep 21, 2013
    vfx
    To be fair,I look at studies sponsored by Chevron that tell me that ocean birds enjoy the occasional oil bath with much skepticism.
    �
  • Sep 21, 2013
    hcsharp
    I agree but those studies are always torn apart when peer reviewed. This study was not. Still, there's good reason to be skeptical.
    �
  • Oct 15, 2013
    JRP3
    An AXPW article from Petersen, nothing to do with Tesla, but he still manages to work the TSLA ticker symbol into it, I'm sure for the "click" potential.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1745832-axion-power-an-extraordinary-nano-cap-opportunity

    Yeah, with the cratering stock price the risk is almost gone at this point :biggrin:
    �
  • Oct 15, 2013
    vgrinshpun
    Am I missing something, or the following two statements seem contradictory?

    "The result is immense torque for acceleration and hill climbing..."

    "For big climbs, the five-speed automatic transmission simply downshifts to a lower gear like all other heavy-duty tractors"
    �
  • Oct 15, 2013
    Chickenlittle
  • Oct 15, 2013
    Discoducky
    JP's titles to articles continue to make me laugh out loud to the point where my wife says "What are you laughing at?" and I say "Spin" and she knows exactly who and what I'm speaking of.
    �
  • Oct 17, 2013
    Mario Kadastik
    There's a new one on SA where he now doesn't attack valuations, but attacks Teslas claims to being CO2 clean. His claim os that EVs are far more polluting in the manufacturing phase due to their pattery packs and that the MS is worst of all for its gigantic disproportionally large battery. Oh well, just to let you know...
    �
  • Oct 17, 2013
    JRP3
    Just a sad rehash of his previous article. Weak.
    �
  • Oct 17, 2013
    dhrivnak
    I must say on one hand I am impressed with JP's tenacity. It is hard for me to imagine another person being so wrong for so many years and yet keeps on trying. But I will no longer read his rants as I feel I am just feeding his "click" machine. My time is better spent elsewhere.
    �
  • Oct 17, 2013
    JRP3
    Basically he used this presentation from VW, which clearly shows EV's charged from renewables as the cleanest solution, but used the electric vehicle production emissions value on page 15 to claim they are dirty. He also ignored subsequent pages which show a path to CO2 neutral mobility.
    �
  • Oct 18, 2013
    Dan5
    I'm not too happy with the VW presentation with the well to wheels.
    Anyone else try to back calculate the use phase?

    Diesel -> 110 grams per km indicates that car would be getting 57+ miles per US gallon; common consensuse, full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 76 mpg; 1 mile shy of the world record
    gasoline car -> 168 grams per km, the car alone needs to have a minimum of 33 miles per US gallon (assume refining is carbon neutral); common consensus, full well to wheel LCA's would mean the car would have to get 43 mpg
    hybrid -> 143 grams per km indicates a 38.5 miles per US gallon; common consensus full well to wheel LCA would mean the car would have to get 51 mpg

    This are kind of unrealistic and do not exist. Not every hybrid is a Prius and even a Prius is rough to get 51 mpg.

    I think the VW presentation flubbed the numbers, muliplied when the should of divided. here's why I say that:
    VW golf diesel gets 43 mpg highway, which puts it at 145 grams per km
    If they used a full well to wheel, they would have used an adjustment between 0.8 and 0.7 to account for refining, driling, transport, etc, etc.
    I back caculated and it appears 0.759 was the adjustment factor they used incorrectly.

    145/0.75 = 194 grams per km
    BUT had they multiplied incorrectly145* 0.759 = 110 grams per km

    Same is true for the regular car:
    I think they used the average of a 24-25 mpg car; makes sense
    220 grams/km *0.759 = 167 grams per km (incorrect), coincidentally comes very close to matching the VW presentation

    should have been
    220 grams/km /0.75 = 293 grams per km (correct)

    The hybrid numbers are in the ballpark though for just pure tailpipe emissions... so I don't know, maybe they went back and did it correctly for the hybrids, or maybe they used the hybrid average of 38.5 or stumbled into the correct answer.
    �
  • Oct 18, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Have you tried using the New European Fairy Tale ratings?
    �
  • Oct 18, 2013
    Dan5
    Yes, using the EU numbers, can get 110 grams per CO2 per km, BUT it is not even remotely close to a well to wheels LCA. It's a gas tank to exhaust which is compeletly different.
    �
  • Oct 20, 2013
    Julian Cox
    "http://seekingalpha.com/article/1751982-evs-solar-panels-and-free-lunch-sophistries"

    A people (a person) should know when they have been debunked.


    A Tesla Model S is a car, minus all of the carbon footprint for the engine casting, fuel and exhaust systems, plus a large battery that comes from one of four sources:

    1. Panasonic.

    2. Samsung.

    3. LG.

    4. BYD.

    (Please make a point to check the links above).

    And if that is not enough.

    5. Tesla's sister company.

    It will be an extraordinary day for the company and its investors when Tesla can expend enough energy in car manufacturing to catch up with 10% of the carbon offset activity intrinsically linked to its manufacturing activities and the manufacture of its components, particularly considering that all of the above are also in a rapid growth sector of the market.

    The uptrend in production of EV batteries is not only from the same source as massive scale PV panel production, the embedded energy requirement is a small subset of existing solar energy production from the same sources and an amount that trails the trend of the upswing in solar energy production. In fact there is ample solar energy production from SCTY alone to overwhelm all of the energy requirements of TSLA including all of the energy to run the entire fleet of cars on the road, whereby SCTY is currently the smallest contributor to PV energy offset on the list. Tesla's key battery supplier (Panasonic) being one of the largest, if not the largest world wide.

    It is absolutely disingenuous to ignore the intrinsic link that exists at every level between EV battery production and solar energy.

    JC


    Permission to copy and paste universally granted.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    Dan5
    Also, I was thinking, perhaps rolosrevenege could illuminate us a little better on the grid dynamics

    We have baseload electricity production at night, correct?
    For the most part this baseload is used for non efficient purposes, such as pumping water up a hill to be used during the day

    To me, this is not a very efficient process, you get transmission losses, pumping losses, generation losses, then transmission losses again.

    At most, from what I can find is that you are only getting roughly ~70% of the energy you use for this storage back as usable energy.
    7% transmission
    90% pump
    85% impeller
    7% transmission to end consumer


    Now, here's the where is gets "hairy"

    The baseload has to run, so in effect, the EV that uses it is not emitting an more than would be necessary for the grid, BUT it does put a tad more strain on the daytime grid since it is taking away some hydropower and NG, solar and coal does have to pick up the slack.

    So, for the average driver, you would need 14 kw in the car, or 17.5 kwhr at point of generation.

    17.5 kwhr *0.70 = 12.25 kwhr

    If the increased demand was met by all coal, the EV would be emitting 309 grams/mile; 193 grams per km
    If the increased demand was met by all NG (the most likely scenario) the EV would be emitting around 142 grams per mile; 89 grams per km.

    This is muc lower than most papers propose. I am curious about what percentage of nighttime demand goes to water storage though. That could make or break this arguement.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    JRP3
    Water storage is only used in limited locations, so probably only applies to a small number of areas. I'm also not sure I follow your logic, if some power is used to pump water, and then you put additional load on the grid by charging an EV, extra power is going to be needed, with a subsequent increase in emissions.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    Dan5
    My logic is that charging an EV is more efficient than pumping water and using that energy for later use.

    It becomes more apparent when there is a large discrepancy between EV charge efficiency and water generation/pumping efficiency


    Just making up numbers here to illustrate the point.

    The baseload has to run regardless, so the emission is the emissions, it doesn't matter of it's an EV, a light, or water pumping, or the electrity dumped into the ground.

    Let's say you send 50 kwhr to an EV, and the EV takes 40 kwhr (hypothetical other 10 kwhr lost to chargering, transmission, etc, etc).

    If I send that same 50 kwhr to water storage and then output it, and let's say you get 12.5 kwhr out when all is said and done.

    Now let's say the emissions is 50 kg of CO2.

    The 50 kwhr to charge an EV would have the same impact as 12.5 kwhr of emissions.

    The 12.5 kwhr would have been met by water, but it is now met by NG, coal, and other peak sources.

    So for that 50 kg of CO2, you either have 40 kwhr (EV charging) or 12.5 kwhr (water pumping) or 0 (electricity gets dumped)

    now switch to daytime, the EV used the 12.5 kwhr that would have been used for water pumping so you need to make it.

    coal->12.5 kwhr *1010 grams/kwhr= 12.6 kg
    NG -> 12.5 kwhr* 465 g/kwhr = 5.8 kg

    So instead of having 50 kg of CO2 to create the 12.5 kwhr, you have between 5.8-12.6 kg Co2.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Or the other way to think of it is I need to eventually have 40 kwhr of power.
    Which would give me the lowest emissions?

    40 kwhr @ 50 kg
    or
    12.5 kwhr @ 50 kg + 37.5 kwhr @ 21.6375 kg (grid average)

    In reality that 50 kg is a phantom value since it has to be there regardless if an EV is plugged in, running a pump, or if there was no demand
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    JRP3
    I see the problem, power is never "dumped into the ground", and it's not an either/or choice between pumping water and charging an EV. Coal plants are ramped down at night to meet the lower demand, so regardless if X amount of power is required for water pumping, any additional demand on top of that will require Y more power, and therefor more coal use. In other words they don't just pump water for the heck of it, they pump it to have reserve for daytime peaks, and they need that regardless if there is also an EV plugged in at night. There might be a slight efficiency gain by running a coal plant at a higher percentage of capacity, but not enough to make a real difference in emissions, as I understand it.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    JRP3 has the truth of it.

    Back in the 1970s many of the large pumped-hydro stations were built because of the huge number of nukes expected to come on line: in some area, like New England, the expected nuclear generation would markedly exceed regional load overnight. Ramping down nukes, while possible, is stupid, so system planners built these storage facilities to sink the excess nuclear power.

    If all had gone as planned, then the power from the pumped hydro would have 0 carbon attached to it.

    In fact, not all the nukes were built, and many of the nukes that were built have since been retired. Consequently, pumped storage facilities aren't nearly as useful as they were planned to be. In order to turn a profit, they have to be able to buy power overnight and then sell it at a significant premium during the day to cover the 30-40% losses (when you add in the transmission system losses). This kinda went sorta okay back when coal was cheap and natural gas was dear. But in many parts of the country (e.g. New England) natural gas is on the margin 24/7, and so there just aren't that many hours when the spread is sufficient to turn a profit at pumped storage plants.

    So what does this mean for carbon? If natural gas is on the margin in all hours, then pumped storage only operates when the marginal heat rate overnight is low and the marginal heat rate during the day is high. The PS displaces inefficient resources, and therefore still lowers the carbon footprint.

    You can work this through with a little example that has a 7000 Btu/kWh combined cycle, a 13,000 Btu/kWh peaker, and some amount of pumped storage. As long as overnight demand falls below the rated capacity of the combined-cycle plant, the PS plant lowers carbon emissions. Adding overnight load, e.g. EV charging, reduces the amount of cheap power available to go to the PS. Of course it's still better to charge overnight than during the day.

    Where PS shines is in providing ancillary services to integrate renewables.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    JRP3
    From a CO2 perspective, in a coal and NG area, wouldn't you be better off charging during the day, when the additional load would come from an NG peaker rather than night time coal?
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    Usually, yes. The better coal units have lower CO2/MWh than some of the crap natural gas units.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    JRP3
    Do you happen to know the highest efficiency rating of the best coal plants? I've only seen the 33% average efficiency for coal, and 40-60% for NG.
    �
  • Oct 21, 2013
    CalDreamin
    "The average global efficiency of coal-fired plants is currently 28% compared to 45% for the most efficient plants (see graph). "
    IGCC, supercritical - World Coal Association
    �
  • Oct 22, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    The range of efficiency for natural-gas plants is very wide. The best plants are at 7.0 or lower (MMBtu/MWh), while many are double that and the worst are over 40 MMBtu/MWh. Here's what operates in California, e.g.: Heat Rates
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    JRP3
  • Nov 3, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    OK, I'm guessing that his negative view will essentially repeat his previous articles that said that Tesla only got cheap prices because Panasonic had spare capacity (I avoided the pagecount increment) and that the cells aren't going to get much cheaper because it's established technology.
    Never mind that Tesla's demand made them profitable, they're rapidly amortizing newer cell research, that Panasonic is fulfilling original plans and repeating line creation and that Tesla's demand is seeing renewed focus on cost reduction over density improvement.

    EDIT:
    Oh, and just doing some basic math, at 7,100 cells per car, and a $100k transaction with 25% gross margin, 1% of gross margin is $250. That's $0.035 (less including warranty replacement) reduction in cost per cell needed to raise gross margin by 1%. At this point small changes make a bg difference.
    Or maybe he wrote something else.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    JRP3
    For those who refuse to click out of principle:
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    MikeC
    He's getting worse. He used to twist actual facts and take them out of context to make his point. Now it seems like this article is just predicated on a guess from a journalist that has no factual basis at all.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Oh my god.

    Edit: maybe these quotes should be collected for entertainment at the next annual investor's meeting. Was the Reuters journo the one Elon Musk hung up on?
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    MikeC
    I believe that was Barrons.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    drinkerofkoolaid
    I strongly recommend that we delete this thread. Peterson only writes these articles because they get tons of attention. The main reason he keeps writing articles is because he is making $500-$1000 per article. This thread has been viewed 48,000 times, and likely gave him 400,000 page views ($4000) because of people sharing and commenting on his articles.


    Just Don't Look [Video]
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    Krugerrand
    Nah. He's not doing it for the money. He might be doing it for the attention it gets him, but mostly he just really believes what he writes.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    This doesn't even pass the common sense test. Why would Tesla be willing to pay 40-75% more for cells when they are actively negotiating with two other suppliers? If anything Tesla probably got an even better deal by pointing out that Panasonic is not the only supplier and that they should offer better prices if they want Tesla to keep a bulk of the cell orders at Panasonic.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    You don't even need that supposition. CapOp has given numbers that show that even if you took current prices and add the cost of manufacturing capacity without discounting for reuse of technology or inclusion of capacity costs in current prices you would still come up with a number below $3.50. CapOp could be wrong, of course, but he's presented his reasoning and it doesn't involve numbers made up by Reuters journalists.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    MikeC
    I like this thread, but I don't click on his articles anymore because of this reason. For every 12 clicks he gets, he's able to buy another share of AXPW...
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    sub
    Thanks for the laugh!
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    Zzzz...
    The fact is Tesla Model S orders helped to bring Panasonic battery division back to profitability. With signing even bigger contract, sure thing Tesla are getting discount from current price level.

    So whole point of JP article, that now Panasonic is selling cells at loss and will start to make money on next contract is plain wrong.

    EDIT: opps, grammar, spelling... ESL here.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    :D Not an uncommon error.
    �
  • Nov 3, 2013
    JRP3
    And ruin our fun? Almost everyone of his articles is accompanied by an increase in TSLA stock price.
    �
  • Nov 4, 2013
    ggr
    If we deleted this thread, more people would actually have to click on his (and others') links to get a laugh, and I don't want to pay them for that privilege. So I think we should keep it but maybe add "... and his Seeking Alpha friends" to the title.
    �
  • Nov 4, 2013
    derekt75
    Since October 15th, AXPW is up 12% while TSLA is down 8%. Clearly Petersen is right!

    (Why did I choose 10/15/13 as the reference date? same reason climate skeptics choose 2005 as the reference date: it's one of the only dates that support the hypothesis).
    �
  • Nov 7, 2013
    RobotGrease
    whoa, somebody take a picture:

    "These very are impressive results. While I was skeptical about management's claim that Tesla would approach a 25% gross margin in Q4, excluding ZEV credits but including other regulatory credits, I've become a believer, at least over the short term."

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1817952-teslas-painful-journey-into-the-valley-of-death?source=yahoo

    - - - Updated - - -

    oh, there's our guy:

    "While I'm impressed with Tesla's manufacturing accomplishments and its balance sheet, I continue to believe its reported non-GAAP earnings are a fairy tale;"
    �
  • Nov 7, 2013
    Citizen-T
    That was actually the least awful JP article I think I've ever read.
    �
  • Nov 7, 2013
    neroden
    The factual part of the most recent article is actually pretty good; the speculative part is terrible. Despite updating his statements to meet the new facts, John Petersen is still missing two key points:
    (1) Gen3 is probably going to be late and will probably use something other than lithium-ion batteries...
    (2) But so what? The *worldwide* market for Model S / Model X / Roadster 2 is sufficient to justify a pretty pricey stock without figuring in the speculative Gen3. He's still grossly undervaluing where the stock will "bottom out" at. My own pricing model is based on the assumption that Gen3 never gets out the door, and I can't see any way in hell the stock goes as cheap as $25 again. We now know how large the luxury electric car market is and it's *big*.
    �
  • Nov 7, 2013
    rolosrevenge
  • Nov 9, 2013
    smorgasbord
    It's not saying much, but this is probably Petersen's best anti-Tesla article ever.

    The part that's not unreasonable is that Tesla's stock price was inflated on very high expectations, and as people realize those expectations are either not going to happen, or not happen soon enough or not happen the way they expected, that Tesla's stock price will dive. And, of course, he's using the current price behavior to back up his argument. He's using future battery shortages as the reason why Tesla can't make something like 500K Gen-3's a year.

    So, the question is: was Tesla's stock priced too high? Remember, Elon himself said that the market was given Tesla credit for future performance they hadn't yet earned. We here mostly agree that Tesla will continue to dominate the EV world, and disrupt the ICE automotive world. But, if there's a safety recall because of battery fires, and if Tesla can't show that it can get the tens of billions of 18650s it need each year to produce Gen-3 in enough volume to matter, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect Tesla stock to hit double digits again.

    Consider that argument as if it didn't come from Petersen. I'm still holding fast, and even bought more recently, but I'm also willing to ride out the "trough of disillusionment." Many other investors won't be.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    But the supply issue is bogus. There is no supply issue other than delay in building manufacturing lines. We know that the cost no more than $4.50/cell/year (and likely to diminish) so unless you consider 18650 ephemeral that's $32k for the caabality of building 1 pack per year. 3,200 for 10 years, 1,600 for 20 years. For gen 3 expect density increase and fewer cells.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    kenliles
    Clearly the stock had moved far ahead of itself in time. Nobody in the company, outside the company or on this board ever came close to predicting a $190 share price by Sept, 2013. And yet Tesla has performed about on schedule of guidance in terms of cars produced, profitability, etc.
    So it really isn't credible to take the position the stock isn't over priced at those levels. No given the accomplishments and forward movement from here, coupled with the now $135 price, that's a different story in my mind. And the fact that JP is now back on the 'Valley of Death' board of appeals (he was recently actually bullish on the stock a short time ago) is the biggest sign we may be entering a new support level that now casts some realities into the mix. I'm in the camp suggested by smog's post here - the fires will be addressed (long term they are a just a marketing issue - for heaven sake the nearest competitors use gasoline and hydrogen!); and we have a CEO who is taking on the battery issue head-on and full tilt.

    It's interesting that the battery issue narrative finally fits with the basic claim JP has made from the beginning (albeit from multiple poorly thought angles - he made an early claim Li supplies would not hold up- then retracted that along the way for example)- namely battery technology/production can't meet a demand curve sufficient to convert the market from ICE to EV (or even enough of it for a startup to survive, much less flourish). We're about to enter the final phase of that argument over the next 2 years or so as Elon tackles the last remaining mega-hurdle with the mega-factory.

    My research indicates the pending convergence of technology, mineral production (yes including Cobalt), manufacturing efficiency, design, finance and meta drivers (like people dying from pollution and global warming) -
    mixing a historicaly-transformational stew-pot that only lacks one eye-of-newt catalyst ingredient -
    the relentless skills of a determined visionary, who doesn't know how to think small.
    By all means, double the current world production of Li-Ion batteries- we've doubled it several times for Apple Laptops-iPods-iPhones-iPads, is it not time to do it again for the humanity's current biggest problem?
    My guess is Elon is probably thinking something like, 'what is it you people are afraid of?' (given SpaceX and Mars; is a mega-factory really something more than a requirement on a check-list?)

    No, From my seat of facts here, I'll be long TSLA vision and Elon's ability to achieve it, if for nothing more than to include it in my ride through Life
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    JRP3
    If Petersen starts writing reasonable articles about Tesla what does that say? The end is near? I agree that was his most rational piece to date, and I agree that potential delays in capacity build out could cause short term problems for Tesla. Financing for the capacity build out is also a question. Will it be a joint venture, what would that partnership look like, will a separate company be created? Could one of Tesla's existing partners, Daimler or Toyota, be involved?

    Eh? I must have missed that moment, all I've heard from him is doom and gloom and "overvalued". I think his "buy" target was $5.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    sp4rk
    Prediction: John Peterson to be breakout session speaker on why to invest LONG TSLA at Teslive 2014.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    kenliles
    yeah- he actually thought the stock price would be going higher for a short while (albeit he didn't think it deserved it)
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    Chickenlittle
    Confirms what many have thought he really is a long and concerned about the slide
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    hcsharp
    That was the last quote I heard from him as well. It's interesting that he's now admitting it's worth 5x that!

    @kenliles, yes I can see that Elon spoke about the mega factory with clear confidence that they could do it, and do it in time for Gen III. The problem is that if Tesla has to build the factory because everyone else is too scared to do it, what will that do to their stock price? I can't see them raising enough cash to finance the factory without considerable dilution. They also have to raise a lot of cash to build out the factory for Gen III.

    Where JP is still quite wrong in this article is the nonsense about how EVs are less efficient and more polluting. That's now his fundamental argument for why Tesla will ultimately fail. He will die before you ever change his mind on that.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    JRP3
    Anther reason for him and the rest of the anti EV crowd to fear the Giga factory, Elon clearly stated that it would be a green facility, which would take away their "dirty cell construction" argument.
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    kenliles
    Yes, very valid points hc. And I would agree it will have a suppressing effect on the stock for a good long while. And appropriately so IMO. What I'm going to enjoy is the day they accomplish this making the advantages apparent to the market. These would include not only the vertical integration advantage but the competitive advantage to other manufacturers yielding higher P/E justification. And I didn't even think of the green battery production advantage the JRP3 just noted. I didn't think of that one, excellent thought

    I'm looking forward to a more moderate but sustained stock performance due to this effect... Who knows maybe that what Elon had in mind. Good thoughts. Thanks guys
    �
  • Nov 9, 2013
    vfx
    I'll do it!
    �
  • Nov 13, 2013
    Dan5
    Another Petersen article out today with LCA stuff.

    The LCA that he cited was decent, but then he goes and bastardizes it to meet his needs.

    (I don't like the soft science of including economics in with hard science though in the LCA- that shouldn't be in there)

    Why does he insist on writing and trying to extrapolate LCAs and doing so incorrectly. I published by response in his article. Some people just do not learn.

    The study did the LCA on a weight basis, used a 300 kg battery, if you extrapolate, according to him, you get a much larger impact, BUT the battery would weigh 2400 lbs.

    Can't do that. It needs to be the same chemistry to do that, and even if it's different chemistry, you have to account for different impacts related to different types.
    �
  • Nov 13, 2013
    Julian Cox
  • Nov 15, 2013
    PeterJA
  • Nov 15, 2013
    JRP3
    Good article, except for the opening lines:

    :scared: :confused:
    �
  • Nov 16, 2013
    Dan5
    Johnny boy poked his head into the second rebuttal article and tried to defend his work.

    Bring a stick to a gun fight.

    I like how he tried to say based on the energy usage, the tax payers are on the hook for over $2 per gallon, and that it's only saving 3,000 gallons over 180,000 miles.

    Honestly, if you are going to do something like that;

    Do you use the mileage/EPA rating of a comparable car OR

    Battery energy costs extrapolated/energy in a gallon of gas?
    �
  • Nov 17, 2013
    JRP3
  • Nov 17, 2013
    Dan5
    I called him out again.

    His response was that Musk should release an LCA so he doesn't have to make up stuff from other LCAs.

    My point is that if you are a professor, and someone gives you a completely wrong answer, and then says, well, if person XYZ had done his work, and I had copied it, i wouldn't have gotten it wrong.

    Sometimes you just have to man up, say you messed up, and you don't know what you are talking about with the subject, OR consult experts. If experts tell you what you are doing is wrong, and show you how to fix it, and you still make the mistake, completely neglecting their advice. Well, that just shows a level of ignorance and arrogance that can not be ignored.

    So instead of doing a real LCA he would rather have an LCA presented OR have one already made up and try to extrapolated based on it.
    �
  • Nov 18, 2013
    neroden
    John Petersen has another article out, making a half-apology for his last pack of lies and then coming up with another pack of lies.

    This John Petersen article was particularly gross. He copies a decent life-cycle analysis, which show that the Leaf is cleaner than the Prius, and then wilfully misreads it in order to claim that a Prius is cleaner than a Leaf. Sure, if you throw your car away every year, a Prius is cleaner than a Leaf, but if you keep it for ten years, a Leaf is cleaner than a Prius, and he goes out of his way to not admit that.
    �
  • Nov 22, 2013
    JRP3
    Super FUD attack from Petersen, way over the top, even for him: http://seekingalpha.com/article/1856711-understanding-teslas-life-threatening-battery-decisions

    He's trying to push his spontaneous failure events nonsense when not a single one has ever happened! Grrrrr :cursing:
    �
  • Nov 22, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    He also says this:
    This is the same thing that hides a base assumption, which is the assumption that large format cells have the same failure risk as 18650s (this is similar to the assumption that the Model S has the same collision risk as other vehicles). That's not necessarily a good assumption to make given the high yield of 18650 and the industry proven reliability.

    The other thing is because the cells are large format, they cause more damage and are a bigger fire risk overall if one fails. He also makes the assumption that the failure of one cell means "catastrophic failure" of the whole pack. And as you point out, by his numbers (which he pulled out of nowhere), in his "best case" we should have seen about 3 spontaneous fires by now and about 17 in his "worst case". The fact we have seen zero probably says something about how valid this article is.
    �
  • Nov 22, 2013
    Grendal
    I posted this yesterday:

    And JP pulls his nonsense today and uses this very argument.
    �
  • Nov 22, 2013
    Dan5
    Except Tesla has that goo that protects if there is a failure in one battery. I likened it more to sickness and the immune system. a healthy person recovers from the flu, but throw in more and more diseases, it makes the immune system overload. Pulverizing batteries is like giving Krusty O's to someone who is deathly sick.
    http://www.allposters.com/-sp/The-Simpsons-Frosted-Krusty-O-s-TV-Poster-Posters_i8759284_.htm

    Actually thinking about it more, the goo acts more like your blood and platelets does for a cut. You cut yourself shaving, the blood thickens and prevents you from bleeding out.

    Now, you get a deep cut, you may need to put pressure on it, but you let it bleed, it will eventually thicken up and stop.

    If you get a really deep cut; ie, use a straight razor and drag it across your neck, or slip and pull and Van Gogh, the pooling effects of blood can't redress such a traumatic event.
    �
  • Nov 22, 2013
    slavi
    That's not even the biggest point! The large format cells in the Leaf are also made of hundreds of small cells, i.e. the individual cathode and anode sheets within them. Except in that case, they're permanently welded together and don't have individual fuses like the 18650's do in the Tesla battery packs.

    I don't think he's intellectually dishonest, because I can see how he really believes what he writes. He is however, undoubtedly, intellectually lazy. If this was chess, he would only think half a move ahead.
    �
  • Nov 23, 2013
    JRP3
    Though using that argument the 18650 is also layers of cathode and anode wound up together, so, not much of an argument. The real point is that assuming a number of smaller cells is inherently less safe than a single larger cell only because of the cell count is false. Put another way, are 4 single gallon containers of gasoline less safe than a single 4 gallon container? Obviously not, in fact they may be safer.
    �
  • Nov 23, 2013
    Dan5
    I think it may be a little of both. For instance, I corrected him and showed him how to do a LCA, did he use it, did he even state in his paper that his stuff could be wrong? Nope.

    Presenting something as fact, when you extrapolate, and fail to follow the ISO standards is dishonest.

    That is intellectually dishonest, when someone corrects you and you refuse to acknowledge the correct way of doing things.
    �
  • Nov 23, 2013
    brianman
    It's either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. Those are the only two choices I see based on the evidence (his posts/articles).
    �
  • Nov 23, 2013
    Krugerrand
    Pfft! There's a third choice, it just isn't permitted to be said.
    �
  • Nov 24, 2013
    brianman
    I would put that in the dishonest category, not a new category.
    �
  • Nov 29, 2013
    Dutchie
  • Nov 29, 2013
    JRP3
    Oh no, not even close. So many errors I'm not even sure where to start, my head's about to explode.
    �
  • Nov 30, 2013
    Dan5
    Yep, I just checked, I can get the cells for 2.5 a pop online, not $4.

    He also thinks the battery costs 24 K to make and that the Gen III will have the same capacity has a Model S.
    not even close.

    Plus he forgets this little thing called capitalism. Markets will step up to the plate if there is profit to be made. That's essentially a one sentence explanation of capitalism.
    �
  • Nov 30, 2013
    JRP3
    To be fair the $4 per cell is not in regards to purchase cost but rather what capital expenditure would be on a per cell basis to build the giga factory.
    �
  • Nov 30, 2013
    Dan5
    Well that capital expenditure is a one time cost.

    Spread out over a long period of time the capital expenditure per cell decreases.

    Kind of like saying that building a new refinery cost so many billions, and produces so many gallons, then only counting one years production.
    �
  • Nov 30, 2013
    JRP3
    Right but it's just being used as a way to calculate the cost of a fab that can produce X amount of cells in a year. So if Tesla wants a factory that can produce 2.5 billion cells per year it would cost 10 billion dollars. I don't know if it's accurate but I have seen it used before.
    �
  • Dec 3, 2013
    JRP3
    This is fun, someone claiming to be the author of the study that Petersen misquoted just showed up in the comment section to lay the smackdown on Mr. P :biggrin:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1856711-understanding-teslas-life-threatening-battery-decisions#comment-26546821

    In case SA tries to censor it for some reason, here it is:

    �
  • Dec 3, 2013
    Grendal
    Nice find, JRP3! Peterson's argument is completely flawed to begin with but it's really cool that this guy gives it to him for misquoting him.
    �
  • Dec 3, 2013
    aronth5
    Just checked and glad to se SA did not censor this. As expected JP uses his typical spin control to insist is interpretation of the report was accurate. What a surprise!
    �
  • Dec 4, 2013
    CapitalistOppressor
    Peterson is just glomming on to the "field failure" meme about Tesla's batteries that cropped up in some right wing blogs. My sense is that Peterson wouldn't know what a field failure was if it jumped up and bit him in the keister. I was arguing with the blogger somewhere (Red State?) who first started pushing this issue a month ago because it was stupid then, and in this case JP just layered his own stupidity on top of that. JP = Stupid Squared.
    �
  • Dec 4, 2013
    JRP3
  • Dec 5, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    That's exactly the guy he links. There is no research in the field that shows thermite reactions occur in lithium ion cells and it's been noted even if small ones occur it's such a small part of the overall reaction that it doesn't make a discernible difference.
    I pointed people to look here:
    http://books.google.com/books?id=sRcdxgTXn4UC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=thermite+reaction+thermal+runaway&source=bl&ots=CkHzZKpm0a&sig=ZGs3VjpJenXJu37v1LkcUBZc9aU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zI6eUpfbH-btigKIvIGoBw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=thermite%20reaction%20thermal%20runaway&f=false

    I usually ignore Petersen, but decided to respond this time, and had a small back and forth with him. It's pretty clear he's not the type of guy to admit being wrong (did his best to brush off some big errors). The part I took issue with him is his basic assumption that the NREL numbers apply to both 18650s and large format cells (which the author said was not the case).

    First he tried to claim he didn't make such an assumption (two times), and I had to put a direct quote where he clearly did. In the end, he was still trying to brush it off by saying that it didn't matter to the overall conclusion (when it clearly does as the core assumption that he must make for his whole article to matter is that 18650 field failure rates are comparable to those of large format cells).
    �
  • Dec 5, 2013
    JRP3
    I was glad to see you jump in since there aren't enough people challenging him on the technical inaccuracies of his claims about lithium cells.
    �
  • Dec 5, 2013
    aronth5
    One of my favorites from JP

    "Calling Tesla an automaker is like calling France's tr�s chic Louis Vuitton, M�et Hennesy Group (OTC:LVMHF) a beverage company...

    The bottom line is that EVs are only economical when you buy no more battery than you need and you use the battery pack heavily.
    That leads to a life and death struggle between range anxiety and affordability. When you factor in the other uncertainties, I believe plans to electrify passenger cars are doomed until gas prices increase substantially or battery costs fall substantially.
    While I think both are virtual certainties over the next decade, I don't believe either is likely in time to make Tesla a business success"
    �
  • Dec 6, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    This is one of the most apt statements JP has ever made. LVMHF has a clearly focused business model in the premium beverages category, with premium brands Belvedere, Chateau d'Yquem, Dom Perignon, Hennessy, Glenmorangie, Krug, Mercier, Moet & Chandon, and Veuve Clicquot, to name a few. LVMHF has a net profit above 12%. It's up 3x from early 2009. Does LVMHF sell the volume that Anheuser-Busch move? No. Will Tesla match Toyota's volumes? No. Do I care? No.
    �
  • Dec 7, 2013
    JRP3
    Except Tesla does plan to move down market with the Gen3 car, and maybe a Gen4 someday.
    �
  • Dec 7, 2013
    jerry33
    I think everyone wants GenIV to be a pickup :)
    �
  • Dec 7, 2013
    JRP3
    I'd think a pickup would be built off the S/X platform, though I'd like a smaller sized pickup similar to the S10 and Ranger.
    �
  • Dec 8, 2013
    Dan5
    Not to tip my hand, but I'm currently analyzing the analysts to determine which analysts make the right call regarding Tesla stock.

    So I took articles from 2 years ago until today:
    Predefined setpoints, 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 yr, and 2 yrs.

    Then i took the price the article was published, if it was negative or positive, and determined if the author was correct.

    I also gave a 10% threshold, since the stock is volatile and gave points.

    So far, i'm into JP's articles, about halfway in, man, he's been wrong in each and every time. It takes a special kind of pundit to be wrong that often. Seriously, coin flipping is a better predictor.
    �
  • Dec 8, 2013
    kenliles
    50% better in fact. You couldn't be that wrong with that much fervor about anything. I came to this conclusion long ago. It isn't about being right or wrong, it's about leveraging and unending opinion for personal gain or satisfaction. Despite everyone knowing his stock TSLA conclusions have been massively wrong for years now, there nevertheless is a large following and an active dedicate thread in his honor, even on TMC.... His mission continues to be accomplished, albeit slowly diminishing into forgetfulness of time
    �
  • Dec 9, 2013
    ggr
    Awareness of Tesla is still in the early growth phase, certainly nowhere near saturation, and so it is approximating exponential growth. One interesting thing about exponential growth is that the proportion of "newbies" remains constant! That is, if it is doubling every six months (for example), half the people following Tesla have been following it for 6 months or less! So the Petersens of the world have not only a constant proportion, but an increasing number, of suckers who don't know enough yet to be skeptical. Scary.
    �
  • Dec 10, 2013
    hockeythug
    So this guy is invested in some battery company called Axion?

    �
  • Dec 10, 2013
    Robert.Boston
    Big time. He is or was a director of Axion. Axion depends on the success of hybrid systems, so JP spends a lot of time and energy running down EV alternatives.
    �
  • Dec 10, 2013
    stopcrazypp
    Yes, which is why he's a huge EV naysayer. His main argument is EVs wastes batteries and micro-hybrids are the best use of batteries (a space that Axion was targeting). Axion has since moved away from micro-hybrid cars (the market just didn't materialize) and focuses more on 18-wheelers, but Petersen's anti-EV talk continues.
    �
  • Dec 10, 2013
    hockeythug
    Thanks. Was having fun reading the comments on the latest story this morning.
    �
  • Dec 10, 2013
    neroden
    Hey -- don't underestimate the predictive value of someone who's wrong all the time. Just believe the opposite of what they say, and you have a *great* predictor!
    �
  • Dec 11, 2013
    Dan5
    He is so blinded by his hatred of EVs he can't make a logical decision.

    At least some people have rescinded, even Fox news supports Tesla now, even after the big Palin/Romney flap.
    �
  • Jan 8, 2014
    JRP3
  • Jan 8, 2014
    jeff_adams
  • Jan 9, 2014
    hcsharp
    What has Fox News done that would qualify as supporting Tesla? I'm not denying your assertion. I'm just not aware of anything different from them. The fires weren't exactly reported without bias, but that was true with almost all news sources. If Fox News is coming around, that pretty much leaves John Petersen and Rush Limbaugh as the biggest losers. Well, OK, there's still Sarah, Mitt, and a few others.
    �
  • Jan 9, 2014
    Reykjavik
    Using Edison's analysis to discredit lithium ion batteries as storage for wind and solar power is absurd. When Edison wrote that article in 1883, solar cells had an efficiency of about 1%, wind turbines were just starting to be built, and lithium-ion batteries didn't exist.

    Edison also opposed alternating current, and we all know how that turned out.
    �
  • Jan 9, 2014
    kenliles
    perhaps indicative of the paleolithic assumptive and conclusions.
    Some are moving forward, others still intrigued with how flat the earth really is.
    Interesting to witness evolution and species differ-cation within a lifetime... :)
    �
  • Jan 13, 2014
    ItsNotAboutTheMoney
    Of course (must... not... read...). The economics of battery storage are pretty questionable, unless you, say, consider grid storage like a hybrid battery, where it helps you replace inefficiencies in the system with better inefficiencies. But JP keeps insisting that batteries can't get much cheaper, despite the fact that it's a research-intensive industry with relative low volume. Got demand charges?
    �
  • Jan 13, 2014
    JRP3
    Actually he does mention a couple of battery technologies that might be appropriate. One of them is ZBB, can you guess the other? :wink:
    �
  • Jan 13, 2014
    Dan5

    There was something a few weeks after Tesla paid off the loan where Fox was touting them as a success, new auto company, then left out they got they loan.

    It was truly funny to see the "reporter" back track... He said the company made it without taking any government money then one of the other pundits pointed out that it was loaned money during the ATVM program, and paid it back, the fox anchor looked surprised.
    �
  • Feb 26, 2014
    aronth5
    it will be interesting to see if we hear JP's take on today's megafactory announcement based on his comments below from a Nov/2013 article when he was very negative about Tesla's ability to build a battery factory.
    Of course since he has publically stated he has never been wrong about Tesla we'll be anxious to see what he has to say.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1869051-understanding-teslas-giga-scale-battery-challenges

    "Since Tesla can't build a giga-factory without $1 to $2.5 billion in additional financing and I don't see how a strategic partner could provide the required funds without defeating the basic goal of Tesla's planned vertical integration into the battery business, I think the market price may continue to deteriorate until the stock price represents a reasonable risk-reward balance that will allow Tesla to raise essential capital on terms that will be attractive to new investors. I'm underwhelmed with Tesla's long-term investment potential and plan to continue watching from the sidelines and commenting when the story is diametrically opposed to the facts."
    �
  • Feb 26, 2014
    gg_got_a_tesla
    He's one person on the planet whose shoes I don't want to be in these days :)

    JP, please put out another entertaining article; we'll gladly click and send some moolah your way.
    �
  • Feb 26, 2014
    JRP3
    He's been quiet for a while now, we're due for some fun :biggrin:
    �
  • Feb 26, 2014
    Zythryn
    I believe it was about 15-18 months ago when TSLA was about 150% of AXPW.
    JP was very confident that AXPW would surpass TSLA fairly easily.
    Today TSLA is just over 2500 times the stock price of AXPW.

    Not too surprised he has been quiet.
    �
  • Feb 26, 2014
    qwk
    Buying AXPW, and shorting TSLA, was about two of the worst trades that one could have made a couple of years ago. That's like skydiving without a parachute, only with your money.
    �
  • Feb 27, 2014
    JRP3
    Anyone want to take their TSLA profits, buy out Axion Power, and turn it into a lithium cell manufacturing facility for Tesla? :biggrin:
    �
  • Feb 27, 2014
    Joel
    Difference being: there is a bottom when you skydive, there is no bottom when you take a short position.
    �
    • Người đăng: vào lúc

    Không có nhận xét nào:

    Đăng nhận xét

    Đăng ký: Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)