Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tesla announces first-quarter profitability

Original post made on Apr 1, 2013

Tesla Motors today announced March 31 that it will achieve profitability in the first quarter after selling more of its Model S sedans than it previously expected.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, April 1, 2013, 9:27 AM

Comments (15)

Posted by good job, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 1, 2013 at 9:42 am

Good job, Tesla. Low pollution vehicles that do not depend on foreign oil are surely the future of our country.


Posted by Electric-Vehicles-Not-Viable-Transportation, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2013 at 10:14 am

This technology is not viable. There is simply no way that the nation will provide electric outlets every five miles along every highway in the country.

Just this week, Fisker has announced it is considered a possible bankruptcy:

Web Link

NEW YORK/DETROIT - Fisker Automotive, the U.S.-backed maker of luxury plug-in hybrid sports cars, has hired law firm Kirkland & Ellis to advise it on a possible bankruptcy filing, a source said March 29, while executives continue their search for a strategic investor.
----

Continuing to develop these overly expensive vehicles is not in the national interest. The US taxpayers should never have become involved in these sorts of questionable enterprises.


Posted by JA3+, a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2013 at 10:32 am

"The US taxpayers should never have become involved in these sorts of questionable enterprises."

+1

These enterprises should be fully financed by the private sector.


Posted by good job, a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Apr 1, 2013 at 10:39 am

There are gas stations every how many miles along our highways? I bet they will be first in line to install electric car recharging systems.

Regarding subsidies, do you know how much the petroleum industry is subsidized in the USA? That is the real sin.


Posted by KP, a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2013 at 10:40 am

I am so happy for Tesla...especially with 100% gains on their stock!!
Keep up the good work. I love the Model S!


Posted by John, a resident of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2013 at 10:57 am

>Low pollution vehicles that do not depend on foreign oil are surely the future of our country.

If the electricity is produced by coal, as much of it is, then where is the reduction in pollution? If it is produced by hydro plants, then it contributes to the destruction of our wild streams and rivers. If it comes from wind turbines then it helps to destroy our wild ridges and birds of prey. If it comes from solar panels, then it contributes to the industrial coverage of our wild deserts.

Your statement reminds me about those urban kids who think milk comes from cartons.


Posted by Stu Berman, a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Apr 1, 2013 at 11:06 am

I'll copy "Good Job's" comment.

"Good job, Tesla. Low pollution vehicles that do not depend on foreign oil are surely the future of our country"

Ignore the Luddites posting here. I hope that they will at least keep to their feet bicycles and horses & buggies to keep down this country's dependence on pollution, and foreign oil. My Tesla is powered by photovoltaic panels on my roof and I ride or walk whenever I can.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2013 at 11:08 am

This is really good news.

Whether or not the US taxpayers should have become involved in these sorts of questionable enterprises is questionable itself ... what about the Internet?

Investing in these technologies, subsidizing them or researching leading to them is a numbers game, like all investment, but some pay off big with new technologies which we get into at the beginning - important these days, and also can pay off big with jobs and tax revenue from those jobs and the profits.

The real problem is the government not getting anything back when they do invest in a growing concern - and the CEOs talking about how much they did it themselves.

I have some real concerns about electric cars. Not that there will be no place to charge them, there will be eventually, but effect on the power infrastructure should they become popular. Our grid is not built for that heavy of a duty cycle.

Batteries are coming along nicely ... never quickly enough, but electricity is the universal currency of energy, once the infrastructure is built it is transported quickly and easily.

Still it is true that hybrids would make economic sense if priced reasonably, but not to much the electric cars yet.

One thing I like about the electric car idea is that it goes a long way towards cutting out a lot of service problems, and if there is one thing I am really sick of it is dealing with service people at auto dealerships, they are as bad as car salespeople.


Posted by CrescentParkAnon., a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2013 at 11:10 am

So, John, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, are you arguing for zero energy production ... that seems like a different topic?


Posted by Ethan Cohen , a resident of South of Midtown
on Apr 1, 2013 at 11:13 am

John:
Very little of California's electricity comes from coal anymore.
Hyrdo plants exist but are at capacity and there aren't many other places where they can be built.

Most of California's electricity is produced by natural gas which is a clean burning fuel. It does however create CO2.

Now that that is out of the way...
Electric vehicles are good for a few reasons:
1. Power plants are far more efficient than internal combustion engines.
2. Petroleum is a very dirty fuel, even compared to natural gas.
3. As electrical production increasingly moves towards clean, renewable sources such as solar and wind electric cars will be able to take advantage of these advances in a way that gas powered cars simply cannot.


Posted by John Stimpson, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Apr 1, 2013 at 11:59 am

I think we will find the Model S is the first of a long series of 100% electri vehicles with increasing cost/performance.

Further, my hope is that we will move to nuclear power to eliminate co2 emission and all of the issues associated with burning any fossil fuel. While solar and wind are attractive, I see no way those can fill more than 20% of the 24/7 demand in the foressable future.


Posted by Electric-Vehicles-Not-Viable-Transportation, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2013 at 12:13 pm

> Whether or not the US taxpayers should have become involved in
> these sorts of questionable enterprises is questionable itself
> ... what about the Internet?

What about the Internet? The Interet was originally developed by in the mid-1960s for purposes of allowing the military to reconstruct a network after a nuclear bombing of the US. After a decade of so, it became clear that the Internet was not sufficient to handle US Defense needs, and the network was transferred to the public domain.

No doubt the US has dump untold dollars into nuturing the Internet--but just like our modern Interstate highway system which began as the Defense Highway System--the purpose of the original Federal involvment was to bolster our nation's defense capabilities. However, the Internet has clearly been a great success--which we all can be proud of. Supporting failed Obama "green" enterprises is hardly something that anyone can be proud of.



Posted by John is Right, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2013 at 2:24 pm

The electricity most of us plug into is usually produced by coal, which is not green energy, it is even less green than oil.

The cost of a long range battery is outrageous. The smaller batteries are fairly useless.
It takes too long to charge the battery, and the battery in itself has two big problems: it is a hazardous material, and as such, when it wears out, disposal is a major problem. Replacement is excessively expensive ( I have a friend who sold his Tesla rather than replace the battery at that price). But also, the raw materials for making the ele tric batteries are in very limited supply, part of which makes them expensive, but that supply is likely to run out soon. Google those materials and see....if everyone drove an electric car that has a gas fueled car, those rare elements would be depleted from the earth. They are needed for other things, too, such as medical uses.

To really make a difference, batteries have to be made from something on plentiful supply, there must be cheap recharging everywhere ( when it is 't subsidized, and it will not be forever, it runs $5/ hr to charge an electric car), and the cars must be available to everyone, not just high income folks.

My husband tried to buy a Model S a couple of months ago, and the price he was quoted was not a mid-range price ($101,000, tax and lic included, 50% down and 50% upon delivery). Low-range buyers would need electric cars too.

Somehow, they must come up with an electric car that uses a clean source of electricity at a really low rate of recharging for them, they must be more reliable ( see TOPGEAR's testing of them), and they must be affordable by lower income levels, and they must have a longer range. Forty miles is ridiculous, even 200 miles is not really sufficient; the range should be comparable to what you get with a tankful of gas.

They need a lot more R and D before they are ready for the real world.


Posted by Chloro Fill, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm

Not sure what all the naysayers and skeptics are about here. Our family has pretty typical needs in terms of transportation. We have a Nissan Leaf that meets our daily commute requirement quite nicely. It actually has several advantages that we didn't even think of before we bought it:
- vastly lower maintenance cost
- warm up or cool down the car before driving using a smartphone
- timers to charge and warm up/cool down the car at pre-determined times
- very low per mile cost

It did take getting used to a little bit because you have to *think* about range (vs. just jumping in and driving off, filling up whenever, wherever). But not much.

It's the future. Just deal.


Posted by John is Right, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 1, 2013 at 4:58 pm

We both drove a Nissan Leaf. it handled like an an old truck. It would make the commute even worse. No Thanx!





If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Scottís Seafood Mountain View to close, reopen as new concept
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 3,522 views

Who Says Kids Donít Eat Vegetables?
By Laura Stec | 9 comments | 1,794 views

Breastfeeding Tips
By Jessica T | 11 comments | 1,615 views

How Bad Policy Happens
By Douglas Moran | 19 comments | 1,103 views

The life of Zarf
By Sally Torbey | 6 comments | 681 views