Electric cars

Martyn1981

I just thought folk might be interested in this news article. The subject itself is interesting with California aiming to be carbon neutral by 2045 - not to be mistaken with low carbon leccy, this is all energy.

The bit I thought was interesting for this thread was the fact that 41% of their GHG emissions come from transport, the next nearest are 23% from industry and 16% from leccy generation, and half the industrial emissions relate to the petroleum industries.

So that goes to show just how important EV's are, in fact they are probably the single most important factor, especially now that leccy generation (their alternative power source) is now being de-carbonised quite quickly.

California plans to show the world how to meet the Paris climate target

Carbon-free electricity is just a start

SB 100 tackles the electricity sector, but because California has long been transitioning toward clean energy, electricity now only accounts for 16% of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation accounts for the biggest chunk at 41%. Brown has been pushing for a transition to electric cars, signing another executive order earlier this year setting a goal of 5m EVs on the road by 2030, and several bills last week to help expand their use.

While California has the most EVs on the road today (both total and per capita) of any state, they still only account for 5% of new car sales, with 380,000 sold so far. Accelerating that transition toward EVs is crucial for meeting the carbon neutrality goal, and it’s the main reason why California is fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to freeze fuel efficiency standards and take away the state’s ability to set its own.

Martyn1981

Some info, specs etc on the Audi E-tron for anyone interested.

Audi e-tron SUV Includes Enticing Specs & Features, Arrives in USA! (For Sale Next Year)

AdrianC

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Some info, specs etc on the Audi E-tron for anyone interested.

Audi e-tron SUV Includes Enticing Specs & Features, Arrives in USA! (For Sale Next Year)

No real news - it was confirmed for production a couple of years back.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-frankfurt-motor-show/audi-q6-e-tron-quattro-confirmed-production



Somewhere between Q5 and Q7 in size, so "mahoosive barge", and sat on the same MLB platform as just about everything medium-large from VAG, A4 up to the Bentley Bentaygo and Lamborghini Urus.


It just further proves that, when it really hits mainstream, electric is going to deliver more of what we're getting now, just with a different powertrain. If there's one BEV on that platform coming, you can bet there'll be a lot more behind it. There's already one BEV on the smaller MQB (Polo-to-Passat) in showrooms - the e-Golf - and another on the third mainstream platform, the Up/Mii/Citigo. All the building blocks are then firmly in place for BEV versions of every single one of VAG's mainstream cars. It's just a question of shoving them together in whatever order they think will sell... profitably.

Martyn1981

AdrianC wrote: »

No real news - it was confirmed for production a couple of years back.

But without my posting EV news, you wouldn't be able to immediately point out that you aren't interested.

So think of me as your EV angel, giving you umpteen opportunities to rapidly remind one and all of your disinterest. :think:

Car_54

Martyn1981 wrote: »

But without my posting EV news, you wouldn't be able to immediately point out that you aren't interested.

So think of me as your EV angel, giving you umpteen opportunities to rapidly remind one and all of your disinterest. :think:

I think you mean uninterest;).

AdrianC

Yesterday's news is today's chip wrappings.

almillar

So we were not talking about Q2. We were not talking about past reporting periods. You are lying. The discussion was specifically about Q3 and the possibility of profitability.

You were wrong. So please stop.

My whole point, all along, is that you're a bit defensive about them making a loss. That narrative has not changed, though it has been along a long and winding road! Now I stop.

Just like your lie that you hadn't repeated that Tesla have never made a profit (I see you've accidentally not responded to my showing you saying it more than once)

I think I apologised for saying it once, so I'll apologise again for saying it multiple times.

Whilst arguing they're in profit!

Nope, I've pointed out that they could be in profit. So please stop lying about what I've said, then going on to lie that you didn't say it!

You were arguing that they may/may not be in profit as there are no Q3 results yet. You refuse to use Q2 results. You have now made a bet that they are losing money! This word 'profitable' seems troublesome.

You can disagree all you like, but discussions in September are not in Q2. Pointing out that a profit may be made in Q3, can not be denied on the grounds that a profit was not shown in Q2.

I've never argued that.

As explained before, the discussion was about the possibility of Tesla currently being in profit (Q3)

'currently', 'Q3' are the bits I have a problem with. They made a loss in Q2 - the last quarter that we know as fact. Talking about Q3, right now, is pure speculation (you've had detailed, reasonable insights into what's happening in Q3). We've both acknowledged this. Done. I've made my point, and won't exercise this any more.

No, this is not true. You have lied again.

If I literally copy and paste your words, and you take exception that I haven't included your full response, that is 'being taken out of context' - not a 'lie'.

(AdrianC)
No real news - it was confirmed for production a couple of years back.

Yes it is - this was the 'launch'.

AdrianC

almillar wrote: »

Yes it is - this was the 'launch'.

But not in the "Oooh, I can pop into my local dealer and have a poke" sense. It won't be in showrooms or on the road until some point next year.

zeupater

Hi

So it looks like consensus is that Tesla made a loss in Q1&Q2(/H1) whilst M3 production was ramping up from pretty negligible levels towards planned production volumes and the current situation is that at current production volumes each individual vehicle made may currently being sold at a price which not only covers prime costs, but also more than the appropriate fixed costs /overhead apportionment and could therefore be truly profitable!

Whether this reflects in the overall corporate profitability really depends on the company's next planning stage ... if they've already started to invest in development of future product lines (such as the Model-Y, /Truck & Pick-up) & associated plant & equipment requirements then whatever the quarterly results update looks like won't reflect a stable condition, which has been the case in each phase of the planned growth so far so why expect any different? ... as Model-3 moves into profit, focus redirects to newer programs.

The issue here is that prior to the M3 each model has seen an incremental development in Tesla's ability to expand as a niche market operator, however, in putting the M3 into production the company made a step-change timed to coincide with the anticipated global growth of the EV sector ... having taken the step from the niche sector into mainstream volume production future expansion will return to being more incremental, but on a completely different scale and with less effect on overall profitability given the available cash-flow from existing product sales.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

almillar wrote: »

I think I apologised for saying it once, so I'll apologise again for saying it multiple times.

Again, a lie. You admitted you were wrong to say it, however, you stated twice, in the same post, that you had only said it once, challenging my claim that you had repeated it:-

almillar wrote: »

This is the only time I made that claim. I wasn't aware they had made a profit 2 quarters in the past. Not a repeated claim. The repeated claim is 'they're not currently in profit' and we're arguing about the meaning of 'current'.

(AdrianC)

No, apologies to both AdrianC and Martyn. I admit I've caused confusion here. I said, once, long into the conversation, that Tesla had NEVER been in profit, you corrected me, and Martyn thinks I've repeatedly claimed this - not the case.

When I produced evidence that you'd repeated it ......... you mysteriously didn't respond. Now you are even trying to change the narrative about what you lied about, by lying about it!

almillar wrote: »

arguing that they may/may not be in profit as there are no Q3 results yet. You refuse to use Q2 results. You have now made a bet that they are losing money! This word 'profitable' seems troublesome.

This is a lie. There is no dispute about Q2 results, there never has been, you have simply tried to change the narrative from Q3 to Q2.

Here is the original statement:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

You have been suggesting that my comments about Tesla and profits aren't clear that they are not currently making a profit (assuming they aren't, we'll have to see Q end results).

And my original follow up when you decided to 'go off on one' about that statement:

Martyn1981 wrote: »

This was not a dig, it was a desperate attempt (clearly failed) to prevent you or anyone else saying I'd said something untrue or misleading.

I had to include the disclaimer because we are in Q3, Elon said that they might be profitable in Q3 (I have no idea personally), and so if I say they are not now profitable, it might be untrue when the Q3 results come out some time in October - I have no crystal ball.

So the issue was clearly about Q3. It was only about Q3. It had nothing to do with Q2.

You have lied that this issue has something, anything to do with Q2, or our discussions and acceptance about Q2 results.

almillar wrote: »

I've never argued that.

Yet another lie. All of your attempts to challenge my fair, honest and simple statement have involved you trying to twist matters into a Q2 discussion or disagreement.

almillar wrote: »

'currently', 'Q3' are the bits I have a problem with. They made a loss in Q2 - the last quarter that we know as fact. Talking about Q3, right now, is pure speculation (you've had detailed, reasonable insights into what's happening in Q3). We've both acknowledged this. Done. I've made my point, and won't exercise this any more.

What you call speculation, and wish to make an issue of, is my statement that they may currently be in profit. The key word there being 'may'. I'm extremely confident to state, not speculate, that Tesla in Q3 may, or may not be in profit. Your attempts to argue against this position are irrational to the extreme.

almillar wrote: »

If I literally copy and paste your words, and you take exception that I haven't included your full response, that is 'being taken out of context' - not a 'lie'.

As I explained, you didn't quote my reply to your comment, you quoted the sixth paragraph later, not the first, not the second, not the third, not the fourth, not the fifth, but the sixth, and tried to pass that off as my 'response'. That was a blatant lie. let's see how you like it if I do the same from your last post:

almillar wrote: »

So we were not talking about Q2.

Yes it is - this was the 'launch'.

Now, I think I've made it clear that all of my comments stand up to your poor quality interrogation. What is equally clear is how far from the truth you needed to go on this your most recent crusade against me (is it the 3rd or 4th such time you've done this now?).

It's very sad that I've had to resort to using the lie word, and use it so many times, but your responses have not been true. You've even tried to use the excuse that you can't be expected to remember what was said, or haven't read it all - then don't make 'stuff' up about me, as I will remember the discussion, and I will reference it to show that you are lying.

So, again, I ask, please stop this now.