Tesla-nyheder (Youtube og websites)

The transition to electric vehicles and renewable energy is already creating winners and losers. We write about the winners often in this space—they include just about anyone who invested in Tesla since the 2010 IPO, especially those who followed a buy-and-hold strategy, as well as those who bet on charging infrastructure companies before their recent surge following the passing of the infrastructure bill. Many fear that auto industry workers will be among the losers, and this is shaping up as an issue that could hold back the EV transition, specifically in auto-centric countries such as Germany and Japan, where the shift to manufacturing EVs could endanger substantial numbers of auto industry jobs. Above: A Tesla parked in front of oil wells (Image: Tesla Owner) Every major technological shift causes major economic disruption, and economists tend to agree that short-term economic losses will be far outweighed by the benefits of cleaner air, less environmental damage and more efficient transportation. However, the fossil fuel industries continue to invest vast sums in the development of new oil and gas resources and infrastructure, and a few years from now, there’s a real risk that they’ll be producing far more oil and gas than required for future demand. According to a new study, this stubborn refusal to prepare for the new energy economy could leave oil-producing nations with stranded assets worth more than $11 trillion by 2036—a staggering loss that could well trigger an economic crisis. “In a worst-case scenario, people will keep investing in fossil fuels until suddenly the demand they expected does not materialize and they realize that what they own is worthless. Then we could see a financial crisis on the scale of 2008,” the study’s lead author, Jean-Francois Mercure of the University of Exeter, told The Guardian. Oil capitals such as Houston and Calgary could end up looking like post-industrial Detroit. The new paper, published in the journal Nature Energy, explores how the coming drop in demand for oil and gas will affect the global economy. Fossil fuel reserves, as well as infrastructure such as refineries, machinery and pipelines, are sure to lose value, with baleful effects on local economies. The most vulnerable assets are those in remote regions and/or harsh environments, where oil and gas are comparatively expensive to extract. The most at risk are Canadian tar sands, US shale and the Russian Arctic. Deepwater wells in Brazil and elsewhere, as well as North Sea oil fields, are also relatively expensive oil-producing assets. On the other hand, fossil fuel importers such as the EU, Japan, India and South Korea stand to profit from the transition, as the shift to renewables delivers savings that can be invested in developing more renewables, creating new jobs and improving energy independence. For the world’s two biggest polluters—the US and China—the situation is more complex, as each has a diversified economy that includes both major fossil fuel assets and growing clean energy sectors. The study explored several different alternate futures. In a business-as-usual scenario, researchers estimate global fossil fuel assets—most held by the US, Russia and the OPEC nations—would be valued at over $25 trillion by 2036. However, thanks to the shrinking costs of renewables, they would be worth a fraction of this figure. As oil prices fall, the OPEC nations might decide to open up the taps and sell off fossil fuels quickly in order to bring in as much revenue as they could before the music stopped. In this “fire sale” scenario, more fossil fuel assets would be stranded elsewhere in the world. In the US, some 62% of assets would be stranded by 2036. In another, rosier scenario, OPEC accepts production quotas in order to orchestrate a more orderly phase-out and distribute the losses more evenly among oil-producing countries. Even in this more hopeful, cooperative future, trillions of dollars’ worth of global fossil fuel assets would end up stranded. The US, Russia and China would each take an economic hit of around $1 trillion by 2036. (This would be far outweighed by economic growth over the same time period.) The prescription to avoid economic pain is clear—the US and other advanced economies must reduce their economic dependence on fossil fuels, and quickly. According to the study authors, there’s little government policy can do to stave off the projected losses, because the root cause will be a global decline in demand for petroleum products. Much will depend on the policies of low-cost producers such as Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC nations. If they increase production and begin a fire-sale-style selloff, it could trigger a sudden collapse of the global oil industry, and some $11 trillion worth of assets—equal to half the current value of global fossil fuel assets—would be stranded. Such a race to the bottom must be avoided at all costs. “If Saudi Arabia plays one way and the US another way, then we will see economic, financial and political instability worldwide, banks going bust and changes in capital flows,” said Mercure. To prevent chaos, oil exporters should diversify their economies as quickly as possible. Even more importantly, net producers and consumers of oil must work together to spread the pain and the profit fairly. “This needs to be a story of international cooperation and not leaving people behind.” So, there’s no need to worry. All we need is for the countries of the world (and political parties within those countries) to agree on the urgent need for action, and to start cooperating for the good of all. === Written by: Charles Morris; Source: The Guardian

We’ve seen a lot of electric vehicle-related firms go public over the last few years, but this one really blasted off the launch pad. And by most accounts, the Rivian rocket has the fuel to remain aloft, unlike some of the high flyers that have recently soared into the stock-market stratosphere. Source: Rivian / Tesla The rapid rise of Rivian further affirms that Wall Street believes in an electric future. The young automaker raised nearly $12 billion in its IPO, giving the company a valuation of around $77 billion. After the IPO, RIVN stock levitated to a level that made the company one of the world’s most valuable automakers. Since then, it’s experienced some significant volatility. Post-IPO, Rivian was worth more than Daimler, GM or Ford, which owns a 12% stake in the startup. Another dubious distinction: Rivian became the most valuable US company with no revenue (Lucid previously held that coveted title). YouTube: CNBC Television The company has just begun producing its R1T electric pickup truck, and so far, it has delivered only a handful. However, it claims to have some 55,000 reservations for the pickup and the R1S SUV, and has big ambitions to produce 1 million vehicles by 2030. It’s an impressive start, but not unexpected. Ever since it stole the show at the 2018 LA Auto Show, Rivian has been considered the cream of the latest crop of startups. The support of Amazon, which owns a chunk of the company, and has ordered 100,000 electric delivery vans, is a huge asset. CEO R.J. Scaringe is by all accounts extremely well-qualified, and has thus far shown no tendency to alienate supporters with impulsive public statements, or to embroil his company in shady scandals, as a couple of newly-public EV-makers have done. The fact that Rivian chose to take the traditional IPO route, instead of the low-budget SPAC shortcut, only adds to the company’s air of seriousness and respectability.  I hope they’re able to achieve high production & breakeven cash flow. That is the true test. There have been hundreds of automotive startups, both electric & combustion, but Tesla is only American carmaker to reach high volume production & positive cash flow in past 100 years. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 11, 2021 Twitter: Elon Musk Rivian is off to an excellent start, but now, as Tesla did three times, it must navigate the Valley of Death—that is, it has to ramp up vehicle production enough to start bringing in revenue before investors lose patience and cut off the cash spigot. The ramp-up will consume billions of dollars over the next couple of years—Rivian said in a financial filing that it did not expect to fulfill the 55,000 orders for the truck and SUV until the end of 2023. The Amazon deal should help, providing a handy cash cushion that (for example) Tesla never had. Amazon hopes to have 10,000 of the Rivian e-vans on the road next year. Rivian’s target customers are wealthy and adventurous, and so are its investors. A successful Rivian is precisely what the EV industry needs at this moment—an all-electric rival for Tesla and an additional goad for the Dinosaurs of Detroit. Let’s hope Rivian can “keep the world adventurous forever.” === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Sources: Electrek, New York Times, Al Jazeera, CNBC

Waiting until the last minute for your holiday shopping can be frantic and unsettling. It’s like a last-minute fire drill. Sure, if you’re a Tesla owner, you’re probably ahead of the curve. A friendly reminder though — it might be worthwhile to start your holiday Tesla shopping today. It is, after all, Black Friday and Cyber Monday week. To that end, here’s some advice on what’s popular for Tesla owners during the holidays.   Above: As deliveries ramp up in the fourth quarter, Elon Musk and the Tesla team get ready for the holiday rush (Source: taure / Screen Rant) It turns out that Trevor Page, from Tesla Owners Online, took a look at a few Tesla-related goodies for Black Friday. Who is Trevor? He’s constantly busy running an active forum community, YouTube channel, Tesla podcast, and Twitter account.  Trevor’s favorite Tesla Model Y accessories available during the Black Friday / Cyber Monday time period are: the Model Y frunk cooler, all-weather floor mats, and the cheeky Elon and Starman sunshade — ummm, it’s already out of stock!  Above: Trevor Page’s top Black Friday items for Tesla Model Y owners (Youtube: Tesla Owners Online) Also, be sure to protect your Tesla this holiday season. Check out screen protectors to keep your Tesla touchscreen free from fingerprints, smudges, scratches and UV rays. Avoid scrapes, scuffs, and a bad case of “curb rash” with wheel bands. And, when parked outside, be sure your Tesla is well-protected against the elements with a Tesla car cover. Above: Protect your Tesla with a car cover (Source: EVANNEX) So now that you’ve (hopefully) digested your Thanksgiving feast, don’t forget that the holidays are fast-approaching. Be sure to check out the best Black Friday and Cyber Monday deals on Tesla accessories before the most popular products go, grrrr, out of stock.

From our founder (and father) Roger Pressman: Happy Thanksgiving to our extended Tesla family… and yes, that means you! We’re thankful that this Thanksgiving our family will be together — all because of a Tesla…   The Tesla Model S is undoubtedly one of the best cars in the world, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim that it can bring an entire family together — until now. Back in 2010, we were the kind of American family that formed a geographic triangle. My wife and I lived and worked in South Florida. My older son, Matt, was a partner in an ad agency in New York City, and my younger son, Mike, was TV executive in Los Angeles. We collectively spent a lot of money buying plane tickets so that we could see one another on a regular basis, but thousands of miles and busy work schedules made that a challenge.  Above: The Tesla Model S that brought our family together (Source: EVANNEX) Although I didn’t realize it at the time, a Tesla would change all of that. I first saw the Model S alpha prototype parked in an office plaza in downtown Miami in early 2011, and it was love at first sight. Two days later, I plunked down my Signature deposit for the car. I immediately became active on the Tesla forums, obsessively reading everything I could about the car and pondering every rumor and opinion that was posted. Above: Our first product, the Center Console Insert (CCI), designed for the pre-refresh Tesla Model S (Source: EVANNEX) As more details about the car emerged and the beta prototype was announced, I noticed that there were some opportunities for a few interior products, especially a Center Console Insert, so I began sketching ideas and posting them on the forum. Other forum members offered (mostly) constructive criticism and my ideas began to solidify. Even though delivery of my Model S was still almost a year away, I decided that I’d build a “one-off” console for my new car. More criticism and suggestions from forum members, but something odd happened as well. Forum members contacted me privately with comments like, “If you’re going to build one for yourself, build another one for me. I’ll gladly pay you to do it.” Above: My granddaughter, Maya, goes gaga over the falcon wing doors on our Tesla Model X (Source: EVANNEX) And so … a tiny business was born. I told my son Matt about my Tesla adventure and he informed me that he’d been considering a move out of the city—he had a young wife and a baby on the way. “What if,” he asked, “I come down and join you in this new business?” The tiny business became a lot more real, and when the first Model S vehicles were introduced in the second half of 2012, Matt and I had a “laboratory” (my Model S Signature VIN#184) for the final push to produce accessories for the interior. We became the very first outside participant in the Tesla aftermarket accessories ecosystem. We launched our family business on the web in March 2013. Above: The original 2012 Tesla Model S Signature has been updated with a bunch of mods to give it the ‘batmobile’ look (Source: EVANNEX) We must have done something right, because the garage shop grew into a real business which we call EVANNEX (which stands for Electric Vehicle annex). As the business grew, we needed help and the skills that only a ‘producer’ could provide, and both Matt and I had just the right person for the job. After a lot of convincing, my younger son, Mike, decided to move cross country to head up company operations. No more long distance plane tix for family visits. Above: Roger (middle) and his two sons Mike and Matt (Image: EVANNEX) Today, our family houses still form a triangle, but this time, the distance from one to another is under six miles. My wife and I, our sons, their spouses, and our two granddaughters were brought together by a car — the Tesla Model S. And that’s something that we think is pretty cool. === Written by: Roger Pressman, Founder of EVANNEX

Savvy car buyers examine the efficiency figures listed on fueleconomy.gov, to see how much green they’re getting for their green. However, these stats don’t tell the whole story by any means. The greenness and the true cost of any vehicle—EV, PHEV, hybrid or dinosaur-burner—depend on many factors, including the efficiency of a particular model, the region in which it operates, and the type of driving it’s used for.  Above: Tesla Model 3 charging at night (Twitter: Tesla Greater China) The clever folks at MIT have devised the ingenious Carbon Counter, an online tool that allows you to compare the lifetime emissions and total cost of ownership of a selection of the most popular cars and light trucks sold in the US, and to plug in figures that reflect your personal situation.  Car models are plotted on a graph with emissions as the vertical axis and lifetime cost as the horizontal axis, so you can see just how much “green for the buck” a particular model offers (alternatively, you can choose other variables, such as horsepower). Click on the Customize tab to adjust for different gas prices, different electricity prices, different state and federal incentives, different driving styles, etc. Above: A look at the Carbon Counter dashboard (Source: Carbon Counter) The figures for greenhouse gas emissions account for the entire vehicle lifecycle, including vehicle production, battery production, supply chains and raw materials. The figures for cost include purchase price, fuel and maintenance. (The terms “cheap” or “expensive” as we use them in this article refer to these lifetime costs, without including any federal or state incentives.) The resulting chart shows a scatter plot representing each vehicle as a colored dot, each color corresponding to a particular powertrain type. Looking at the chart as a whole shows several broad trends, and clicking on an individual dot reveals details for a particular model. (By default, the chart omits vehicles with sticker prices over about $70,000, and it does not include every possible variant of every model, but you can add these models individually. Also note that much of the data is for 2020 models.) Some of the trends revealed are not surprising. Plug-in vehicles are generally greener than legacy fossil-only models, and pure EVs are always greener. Regardless of what you may read in the “EVs’ dirty little secret” articles that continue to appear on a daily basis, numerous studies done over the past decade have found that an EV produces lower lifetime emissions than a comparable fossil-burner, even if said EV is powered by dirty electricity. Even the biggest and brownest EVs are (at least slightly) cleaner than the smallest and greenest ICE models. The emissions of the dirtiest EV (the Porsche Taycan) are equivalent to those of the cleanest ICE vehicle (the Mitsubishi Mirage). Above: Inside the CarbonCounter app made by a group of MIT researchers in order to to look up emissions rates (YouTube: MIT)  A couple of trends, however, may be unexpected. The most efficient PHEVs are a little greener than the larger, less efficient pure EVs. When you take lifetime costs into account, you’ll find that, in general, the cleanest models are also the cheapest. (Of course, this has a lot to do with size—larger vehicles tend to be both browner and pricier.) Some of the large PHEVs and hybrids are no greener than the average gas-burner, and some of these are extremely expensive. One conclusion is apparent at a glance: efficiency, which is often overlooked in comparisons of different plug-in models, is of critical importance. Looking at individual models, we find some clear winners and losers. Big winners: Hyundai Ioniq Electric—This is the lowest-emission vehicle you can buy, and it’s one of the cheapest plug-ins on a TCO basis. Tesla Model 3 (Standard Range Plus)—This is the most efficient car on the road, with an MPGe rating of 140, and far from the most expensive. The prestigious Model 3 is the second-greenest EV out there. Tesla’s vehicles are very efficient in general, so even the high-priced variants deliver respectable emissions levels. Toyota Prius Prime—This is the greenest PHEV available, and the second-cheapest. Surprisingly, it will deliver lower emissions than some of the pure EVs, and at a lower price (however, you may want to consider Toyota’s egregious anti-EV lobbying, and the fact that it also sells the two worst gas-guzzlers on US roads [see below], before supporting the company with a purchase). Big losers: Toyota Mirai—This hydrogen fuel cell vehicle delivers low lifetime emissions, equivalent to an average battery-electric car, but it has a higher TCO than any BEV other than the Porsche Taycan and some of the higher-level Teslas. Considering the superior performance and greater convenience of a battery-electric model, it’s hard to see any reason to buy this one. Audi e-tron and Jaguar I-Pace—These are some of the most expensive and highest-emission plug-in models you can get. Only the Taycan and the Tesla Models S and X are pricier, and the Taycan is only slightly browner. The main reason to opt for one of these would seem to be an extreme aversion to Tesla (or to Elon Musk). Porsche Taycan—This is the most expensive (base model) plug-in vehicle currently on the market. It’s also the least efficient, and has the highest emissions (it sure is fun to drive, though). BMW X5 xDrive45e—This is the most expensive PHEV listed, and spews emissions equal to those of an average-size ICE vehicle. Giga-losers: Toyota Tundra and Sequoia—These two are tied for the second-highest emissions of any car or light truck sold in the US (the brown crown belongs to the $421,000, 10 mpg Lamborghini Aventador Coupe). These poison-spewing, planet-cooking pieces of crap are arguably the biggest losers since the horrible Hummer. If you must have a gas pickup, go for the cleaner and cheaper Ford F-150 (or better yet, wait a few months). Conclusion How wide is the gap between the greenest and the brownest vehicles? Driving a Hyundai Ioniq Electric will result in less than a quarter the emissions of driving a Toyota Sequoia, at half the cost. ===  This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Carbon Counter

Odd as it may seem now, there was a time not too long ago that Tesla was struggling in the German market. Sales in the land of the Autobahn were meager compared to other European countries, and Elon Musk was concerned. “I feel like if we can’t do well in Germany, then that’s not a good sign,” he said in 2013 during a visit to a German Tesla service center.  Above: Tesla’s Model 3 (Flickr: Mark Vletter) Three years later, things were looking up—Tesla sold more electric cars in Germany than any other automaker in 2015, and by 2016 the media was running stories with headlines like “German automakers who once laughed off Elon Musk are now starting to worry.” As 2022 approaches, that worry has evolved into something like panic—Volkswagen Group CEO Herbert Deiss has been warning his lieutenants that VW needs to transform its factories in order to catch up with Tesla, and he even took the unprecedented step of inviting Musk to address 200 Volkswagen executives via a video call (a move for which he has taken a lot of flak from inside his company and its associated union). This existential angst is not based on fears of the future—it’s based on what’s happening in the here and now. In September, Model 3 was the best-selling car in Europe, according to auto analyst JATO (via The Driven). This represents the first time that any EV, or any vehicle manufactured outside of Europe, has taken the top spot. Germany has become one of Tesla’s biggest European markets, accounting for around 25% of the company’s sales on the continent so far this year. Before we mourn the murder (or accidental suicide?) of the European auto industry, let’s remember that monthly sales figures don’t always indicate long-term trends. The entire auto industry is struggling with shortages of semiconductors and other components, and by all accounts Tesla has dealt with the dearth better than most competitors. The production problems are causing all sorts of weird distortions in the market. “Dealers continue to face issues with the availability of new cars due to the chip shortage. As a result, unwilling to wait more than a year for a new car, many consumers have turned to the used car market,” said JATO Global Analyst Felipe Munoz. The Driven also reports that some independent dealers have been buying up Teslas and offering six-month free trials, in a complex dodge to harvest Germany’s €6,000 ($9,418) tax incentive. So, September’s spectacular showing may not be repeated in the months to come. Then again, it might. It’s anybody’s guess exactly when the line at Tesla’s Berlin Gigafactory will crank up, but barring any last-minute snags, the production ramp should be well underway in early 2022. === Written by: Charles Morris; Source: The Driven

Videos and online articles are all very well, but some of us still like a good, solid book, paper or electronic, and it’s a little surprising that there aren’t more books about the 21st century’s most exciting and most widely-discussed company. When I first released my history of Tesla in 2014, I expected to have the field to myself for only a short time, before a “real” book—one with a hard cover and celebrity blurbs on the jacket—appeared in airport bookstores. As it turned out, my experience paralleled the history of Tesla. As Marc Tarpenning told me, “We believed (quite naively), that once the Roadster was out and people saw that you could make a compelling electric car, all the car companies would jump on this idea.” Fifteen years later, they still really haven’t.  Left: A new book about Tesla by Wall Street Journal’s Tim Higgins (Source: Random House); Right: Tesla CEO Elon Musk (Flickr: Steve Jurvetson) Yes, Ashlee Vance released a very good biography of Elon Musk in 2015, but this included only a fairly brief discussion of Tesla, and of course, it’s now six years old. Yes, a few hardbacks and paperbacks have appeared since then, but these have either focused on the vehicles themselves (for example, Getting Ready for Model 3 by EVANNEX’s Roger Pressman), or on their writers’ personal impressions of Tesla. As far as a comprehensive history of the company goes, I had the field to myself until now (it hasn’t made me rich—so much for the first-mover advantage). Now Tim Higgins, a longtime writer for the Wall Street Journal, has released Power Play: Tesla, Elon Musk, and the Bet of the Century (Random House, 2021, 362 pages). For true followers of the Tesla story, there’s a lot to like in this book. In fact, I would go so far as to call it a must-read, because there’s a wealth of material here that has never appeared publicly before. Higgins has enjoyed unprecedented access—he interviewed Tesla co-founders JB Straubel and the elusive Martin Eberhard, along with “hundreds” of former Tesla employees (many of whom spoke under condition of anonymity). He also somehow gained access to copies of emails exchanged by company execs—a treasure trove of firsthand information about the early days, and about several controversial episodes. There are a number of previously untold stories here, and new aspects of familiar stories. In several cases, Higgins’s findings reveal interesting new information about events that had been widely covered, but not fully elucidated. We already knew that, when the Tesla pioneers designed the Roadster’s battery pack, they were obsessive about safety. Higgins reveals that their caution was inspired by a couple of spectacular battery fires that occurred when the team first started fooling around with the then-new lithium-ion batteries. He also gives us some hitherto-unreported details about the interaction between Martin Eberhard and the AC Propulsion team. A lot of people are entranced by the reports that Tesla once considered a merger with Apple, or Google, or both (I don’t share the fascination—it didn’t happen, so who cares who discussed it and when?). In 2015, Ashlee Vance caused controversy when he wrote that, according to “two people with direct knowledge of the deal,” Elon Musk and Larry Page discussed a deal in which Google would acquire Tesla. Page called this a rumor, and Musk said that the deal never progressed beyond “very informal discussions.” This dubious anecdote generated far more media coverage than anything else in Mr. Vance’s book, a fact that apparently was not lost on Mr. Higgins. His book includes a similar headline-grabbing tale, attributed to “people who heard Musk’s version of events,” that Musk proposed an acquisition deal to Apple CEO Tim Cook, with the bizarre condition that Musk would become the CEO of Apple. Following the book’s publication, the two zillionaires stoked the rumor mill further with a pair of unconvincing denials. Musk said he “reached out to Tim Cook to discuss the possibility of Apple acquiring Tesla,” but that Cook refused a meeting. Cook claimed, implausibly, that he “has never spoken to Elon.” The speculation will continue—perhaps these unidentified “people with knowledge” are aliens…or Elvis? Above: Author Tim Higgins talks about Power Play and how the book evolved over the time he started writing it (YouTube: SAE International) There are a lot of other stories in this book that I find more interesting (and better documented). The role of Peter Rawlinson (now the CEO of Lucid) in the Tesla story appears to have been even more important than we thought. We knew that Rawlinson was one of the main designers of Model S. As Higgins tells it, he also played a large role in forming Tesla’s overall strategy. Rawlinson was hired when the development of Model S was in its early stages. A week into his new job, he had the balls to tell Elon Musk that he needed to scrap the existing Model S program and start over. Rawlinson insisted that Model S needed to be built “from the ground up” as an EV, not cobbled together from components of existing gas vehicles as the Roadster had been (Musk was coming around to the same view). Tesla was working with Daimler on a plan to build Model S on a platform used for the Mercedes E-Class. Rawlinson shot that proposal down, and Model S became his baby. The policy of designing the best vehicles possible, regardless of cost, and regardless of auto industry tradition, became one of the cornerstones of Tesla’s corporate ethos. Another revelation is that the road to the Tesla/Panasonic battery partnership was far longer and rockier than previously reported. It was JB Straubel’s job to line up a battery supplier for the Roadster, and it was wearing him out. The big companies (then, as now, all based in Asia) wanted nothing to do with EVs—in their view, the potential sales volume was tiny, and the risk of bad press from battery fires was huge. Panasonic exec Kurt Kelty, a Californian with deep roots in Japan, “was known for rejecting requests from startups like Tesla.” But somehow, Kelty caught the bug, quit Panasonic to work for Tesla, and became the company’s secret weapon in its struggle to secure a battery supply. The quest lasted many months, but Kelty finally prevailed, and the rest is history. It’s possible that, without Kelty’s connections, and deep understanding of Japanese business culture, Tesla might never have gotten off the ground. In 2018, when Elon Musk floated an ill-considered plan to take Tesla private, it wasn’t clear whether the “funding secured” that he had mentioned had ever existed, or if it represented a deal that fell apart. Higgins tells us that, a week before “the tweet heard round the internet,” Musk had met with representatives of Saudi Arabia’s sovereign investment fund, and that the Saudis, who were hoping for a Gigafactory to be built in their country, had made Musk a vague promise of support for a going-private deal. In addition to Rawlinson and Kelty, several other key figures in Tesla’s history get their due here: Tim Blankenship, who almost single-handedly devised the company’s sales strategy; Rik Avalos, a recruiter who hired some of Tesla’s brightest stars; Gilbert Passin, who helped to broker the sweetheart deal under which Tesla bought its Fremont factory from Toyota, and played a major role in setting up Tesla’s manufacturing operations. It’s good to read more about the contributions of these folks, who have generally gotten short shrift in media coverage of Tesla, most of which tends to focus squarely on you-know-who. Speaking of that volatile visionary, Mr. Musk doesn’t come off as a very likable guy in these pages. Former employees describe a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, complete with temper tantrums and summary firings. True, allegations by former employees (many of them less than gruntled) always need to be taken with a grain of lithium salt, but Musk’s erratic behavior has been reported by many over the years, and a variant thereof has often been on public display via his Twitter feed. Here’s what the man himself had to say about Higgins’s work: “Most, but not all, of what you read in this book is nonsense.” I do have one serious criticism of this book (I’m one of those teachers who simply don’t give As). Higgins writes in an extremely casual, conversational style, and more scholarly readers may find his cavalier treatment of the English language to be a distraction. Some parts of the book read like an Elon Musk tweet. Grammatical errors, bizarre sentence constructions, inconsistent style and dubious word choices abound. This is far from rare in published books, but I was surprised to see it in a work by such a venerable and decorated author as Higgins. To be fair, the ultimate responsibility for such shoddy workmanship rests with the publisher, not the writer. Perhaps the sales of this volume will allow Random House to engage the services of a skilled copy editor for the next edition. Like many of the animadversions so often levelled against Tesla (and EVs in general), Higgins’s stylistic stumbles and secrecy about sources represent room for improvement, not a reason not to buy. I have to hoist my hat high to Higgins, and recommend this book to any follower of the Tesla story. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris.

A few years ago, when electric vehicles were considered an R&D project, the fossil fuel interests had little to say about them. Now that Tesla has grown to become a trillion-dollar company (larger than any of the legacy automakers, and larger than most of the “oil giants”), the petroleum crowd has launched a full-court press in the media. Every day, my LinkedIn feed is clogged with oil company-sponsored posts about how much they’re doing to green up their acts and save the planet for our grandchildren (to say nothing of the endless horror stories about EVs that come from who-knows-where).  Above: Shell gas station (Flickr: Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine) I’ve seen some pretty laughable stuff, and I’m sure you have too, but this takes the cake. Ben van Beurden, Chief Executive of Royal Dutch Shell, told the BBC in a recent interview that his company wants to transition to net zero by 2050, but it will need the income from its oil and gas business to pay for it. “At this point in time [the cash] comes from our legacy business,” Mr. van Beurden told the BBC, speaking at the gigantic Pernis oil refinery near Rotterdam, which he says Shell plans to transform from producing filthy petrol and diesel to making slightly cleaner biofuels and hydrogen—over the course of a decade. “If we have to build a hydrogen plant from a wind farm that we build in the North Sea for a billion dollars, that is not going to be funded by a hydrogen business—it will be funded by the oil and gas business.” Even if we leave aside the question of whether hydrogen is anything other than a new market for oil and gas, this is the sort of argument that a philosophy textbook might use as an example of sophistry, circular reasoning, or any of various logical fallacies. It’s also the kind of argument that alcoholics and drug addicts use to justify one final binge. Climate scientists agree that, if mankind is to avoid catastrophic environmental damage, we have to end the consumption of fossil fuels very soon. Not slightly reduce it, not gradually phase it out over the next three decades—end it. Also highlighting the absurdity of the “we’ll quit tomorrow” argument is the fact that Shell and other oil majors have shown no intentions of winding down, or even freezing, what Mr. van Beurden calls their “legacy business”—au contraire, they want to expand it. Among other projects, Shell is currently working to develop a new oilfield called Cambo in the North Sea, which it hopes will produce 170 million barrels of oil. The company plans to spend four times as much on development of new oil and gas sources as on renewables next year. It is fighting several rulings by Dutch courts that would require it to reduce its emissions. Shu Ling Liauw, of the research firm Global Climate Insights, has analyzed the oil firm’s spending plans, and estimates that Shell will be producing more emissions by 2030 than it is now. “Even if you’re very generous, and assume they get all the amounts of carbon capture and storage and offsets that they need…they will be increasing emissions until 2030, and still be producing significant amounts of emissions in 2050,” she told the BBC. Oil companies have largely abandoned their attempts to argue that climate change is a myth, but now they’re pushing a variety of other arguments to justify the continued use of their products. Anyone who believes that these companies plan to make some sort of transition to renewable energy or EV charging, or that they’ll find a way to store, or remove, or hide, the pollution from burning fossil fuels, is smoking something, and it ain’t oil. Birds got to fly, fish got to swim, oil companies got to drill. That’s what they do, and they will continue to use every means at their disposal—PR campaigns, political contributions, investments in clean energy firms—to eliminate obstacles to doing so. And it’s no good blaming Shell or any other individual oil company for the situation. Oil is fungible, and if Shell doesn’t drill in the Arctic or the Gulf of Mexico or your neighbors’ backyard, some other company will. Nor can any government policies or regulations change this. “I think this energy transition can be done but it will require a lot of orchestration and a lot of faith of society that it can be done,” says Mr van Beurden. “If you want to destroy the faith by driving up energy prices, by creating shortages or market failures, I think politicians are going to lose societal acceptance that this is actually doable.” Here he does have a point. What he’s saying is that, if governments try to choke off the supply of oil, while the demand remains the same, consumers are going to say the heck with it, and elect more “drill, baby drill!” strongmen (of which the world has far too many already). Reducing consumption requires incentives on both the supply and demand sides—that’s why California has both a ZEV mandate (to force automakers to sell EVs) and purchase incentives (to encourage drivers to buy them). And of course, the most important demand-side incentive of all is the growing selection of new, compelling EVs from Tesla and others. There’s no doubt that oil companies have a part to play in the clean-energy transition. There are many things they can do to green up their acts that would be in their interest to do—for example plugging their millions of abandoned wells to stop methane leaks. And protecting the workers whose oily livelihoods are fading away must be a top priority. However, the non-negotiable bottom line is that the use of fossil fuels for transportation and energy generation must drop to near zero, a lot sooner than 2050, and this is something the Shells and Exxons of the world will never, ever accept willingly. If there were no Tesla, and no government-mandated emissions regulations and ICE bans, does anybody really believe that oil companies (or automakers) would consider doing anything other than business as usual? Take another puff. Big Oil doesn’t just want a seat at the table, it wants to own the table, and control the discussion. At the recent COP26 conference, there were 503 delegates from fossil fuel companies—more than the largest delegation from any country. They’re using the same arguments we’ve heard from cigarette companies and drug-makers, shifting the blame to the consumers who use their products (because they have no other choice), meanwhile mounting massive campaigns of greenwashing and gaslighting to convince consumers and policymakers that it’s okay to keep burning billions of barrels of oil and gas. Don’t fall for it. As Albert Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” ===  Written by: Charles Morris; Source/Video: BBC

Elon Musk is not known for being conservative with his predictions, and once or twice, he’s been a little over-optimistic about timelines (we’re still eagerly awaiting the driverless New York-Los Angeles journey). Sometimes however, events overtake even the rosiest projections. When it comes to Tesla’s rise to a trillion-dollar valuation, some of Mr. Musk’s earlier forecasts now look downright timid. Above: Elon Musk stands next to a Tesla Model S (Flickr: Maurizio Pesce) Remember the compensation plan that Tesla unveiled back in 2018? At the time, the New York Times called it “perhaps the most radical in corporate history.” It called for Mr. Musk to be paid only if the company’s market value reached “a series of jaw-dropping milestones,” an outcome that the Times’ “experts” called “laughably impossible,” the “latest publicity stunt” from “a modern-day P.T. Barnum.” Here at EVANNEX, we were a little more sanguine, but even we were somewhat skeptical that the company’s ambitious financial goals would be reached in the time specified. What was this insane, ludicrous, maximum plaid plan exactly? It set a dozen market cap targets, in $50 billion increments, over the following decade. If by 2028, Tesla was worth $650 billion, Elon would get a plump pay packet—$55 billion was the figure thrown around at the time. If Tesla failed to reach this valuation, he would get bupkes. What did that old sideshow huckster say about his chances of plucking the plum? “I actually see the potential for Tesla to become a trillion-dollar company within a 10-year period,” Musk told the Times. In January, 2018. Above: A deeper dive into the Hertz deal that helped catapult Tesla’s market value above the $1-trillion mark (YouTube: Good Morning America) Well folks, it’s now a little less than four years later. How’s Tesla doing? Pretty well—the company’s valuation recently cracked the $1-trillion mark, making it more valuable than the rest of the world’s automakers. Combined. So, in this particular case, the famous Fanciful Forecaster and denigrated Disregarder of Deadlines actually exceeded his stated 10-year goal by over 50%, in less than four years. A flash in the pan, you will say. A brief bubble, ripe for the bursting. I wouldn’t bet on it. We recently read that Germany, the capital of the European auto industry, has become Tesla’s largest European market, and that Model 3 was the best-selling car in all of Europe in September (according to JATO). But of course, Tesla will never be able to sustain such a level of sales, n’est-ce pas? And even if it does, Big Bad Auto is just about to steal Little Red Tesla’s market share with a new wave of affordable, compelling EVs, oder? Well…I wouldn’t put any chips on that one either. Tesla’s Berlin Gigafactory has not yet begun delivering vehicles, but it’s expected to do so soon. And for all the welcome announcements of EV investments coming out of Wolfsburg and Detroit, the legacy brands are still firmly focused on selling fossil vehicles, and that’s not likely to change for several years. If the future is electric, that future still belongs to Tesla (and hopefully also to newer contenders like Rivian and Lucid). As regular readers know, I have my issues with Mr. Elon Musk, but these mainly have to do with his ill-considered pronouncements on subjects that have nothing to do with Tesla. When it comes to running his car company, he seems to be doing a pretty good job. === Written by: Charles Morris

This week, President Biden gave GM, not Tesla, credit for “electrifying the entire auto industry.” Huh? He also said, “Detroit is leading the world in electric vehicles.” What? Well, it turns out things have been getting weird for a while. There’s more… let’s dive in. Above: American automaker, Tesla, seems to be getting the cold shoulder from the administration (Source: Tesla) In a bizarre move, Tesla will actually be penalized for being at the vanguard of the EV movement. They’ll miss out on a $4,500 EV tax credit because, according to the Wall Street Journal, Biden’s EV tax credit is “putting unions over the environment.” Furthermore, “Biden snubbed Tesla in an August White House meeting on electric vehicles with UAW officials and executives from Ford, GM and Stellantis, which count EVs as a fraction of their overall sales,” whereas Tesla counts EVs as (ahem) 100% of their overall sales. In response, Elon Musk said, “[The President] didn’t mention Tesla once, and praised GM and Ford for leading the EV revolution. Does this sound maybe a little biased or something?”  Above: A few months back, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg tries to explain why Tesla wasn’t invited to the EV event (YouTube: CNBC Television) Keep in mind — regardless of its EV credentials (which are stellar), Tesla also makes the most American-made car you can buy. In addition, it looks like Tesla is facing a hater at the NHTSA as Duke University’s Missy Cummings was appointed as the senior safety adviser by the Biden administration. Cummings has been a consistent critic of Tesla for years. “Objectively, her track record is extremely biased against Tesla,” the company’s CEO Elon Musk tweeted as he became aware of the situation. Above: Missy Cummings takes a shot at Tesla on Twitter (Source: Now-deleted Twitter account of Missy Cummings) Cummings actually deleted her Twitter account recently. Hmmm. In any event, it’s important to note that Tesla has historically scored 5-star safety ratings with the NHTSA. All Teslas earned top rankings for being the cars with the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle tested by the NHTSA — ever. Only time will tell how many headaches Missy Cummings will cause for Tesla — it’s already rumored she may appear in the “witness box” at an upcoming Autopilot-related trial. Regardless, if the US government really wants to support the future of the auto industry, it sure seems to make sense to show some support for Tesla. After all, the company is working, non-stop, for a clean, green, zero-emissions future and that’s something we can all get behind. === Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Revised update edited by EVANNEX. 

Once Tesla’s new Berlin Gigafactory starts cranking out battery packs, it’s going to require plenty of lithium, among other raw materials. We don’t know to what extent Tesla is working with German industrial planners, but we do know that European policymakers have a strategy to establish all the key elements of a local supply chain for the growing EV industry. So, it’s unlikely to be a coincidence that a lithium processing facility is planned for a location very near the Gigafactory. Above: A look at a Tesla Model 3 (Flickr: Todd Shoemake) Rock Tech Lithium, a company with offices in Canada and Germany, is planning to build a production plant for battery-grade lithium hydroxide in Guben, Brandenburg. The company has acquired a 12-hectare site in the Guben South industrial park, just a few miles away from the Gigafactory site in Grünheide. Rock Tech intends to locate all production steps of lithium refining in one plant at the Guben site, which it envisions as part of an “e-mobility cluster” taking shape in the Brandenburg region. The company plans to invest up to 470 million euros in the new plant, which is expected to employ some 160 technicians, engineers and production staff. Projected annual production is 24,000 metric tons of lithium hydroxide, enough to equip around 500,000 EVs. We are thrilled to announce the achievement of a major milestone in Rock Tech Lithium’s history today: We are planning Europe’s first lithium hydroxide converter in Guben, Germany. #Cleantech #Brandenburg pic.twitter.com/DpwJwOpOva — Rock Tech Lithium (@RockTechLithium) October 11, 2021 Twitter: Rock Tech Lithium The converter is scheduled to start operations in 2024. Locally sourced renewable energy is to be used for production. By 2030, the company plans to obtain around 50 percent of the raw materials it uses from recycling spent batteries. “We are becoming the lithium partner of the automotive industry, and are building our own, previously non-existent infrastructure for battery-grade lithium hydroxide in Europe,” said Rock Tech Lithium CEO Dirk Harbecke. “Our goal is to be the first company worldwide to create a closed loop for lithium. Guben seems to us to be the ideal location for this, with subsidies also playing a significant role.” “With Rock Tech Lithium, we are strengthening our position as the future center of European e-mobility,” said Jörg Steinbach, Minister for Economic Affairs, Labor and Energy of the State of Brandenburg. “Brandenburg will be home to the entire value chain in the future, from raw material processing to battery and cell production to e-car construction as well as battery recycling.” === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Rock Tech Lithium

As the legacy automakers increase their commitment to electric vehicles, just about all the auto industry analysts expect that Tesla’s currently dominating market share will erode. However, this is a generalization that glosses over a certain amount of disagreement, and a whole lot of uncertainty. Above: A look at some of the vehicles in Tesla’s growing fleet (Source: Tesla) How quickly will the Old Guard be able to ramp up their EV sales? What factors will influence their relative success? And which brands will mount the strongest challenges to the young king? A new chart from Visual Capitalist, based on market projections by EV Volumes, adds some (hypothetical) details to the generic “Tesla loses market share” narrative. Many of the legacy brands have been producing EVs for years, but these are best described as R&D projects and test marketing programs—“compliance cars” is the term used in the trade. It will take some years for them to build the supply chains and sales-and-service networks required to make the transition to mass-market EV sales. Between now and 2025, EV Volumes expects Tesla to remain king of the hill, dropping from a 23% to a 21% market share. One thing every EV industry observer agrees on (and something that Tesla understood very early in the game) is the critical importance of the battery supply chain. Any automaker that would sell EVs in volume must first establish manufacturing facilities for battery packs, secure a supply of cells, and make sure that sufficient raw materials will be available. If you want to know which automakers are serious about going electric, look into what they’re doing to put the pieces of this supply chain together. Volkswagen is expanding production of battery systems at its Braunschweig plant, has established a pilot battery recycling plant, and has established a battery engineering lab at the Chattanooga site where it builds EVs for the North American market. The German giant plans to build six battery factories in Europe by 2030. EV Volumes expects VW to be the second-largest EV maker by 2025, with a 12% share of the market. Above: A look at 2020 and 2025 forecasted EV sales and corresponding market cap in the auto industry (Source: EV Volumes, Visual Capitalist) Other automakers are also well aware that batteries are the big banana. Ford has formed a joint venture with SK Innovation to build three huge new battery factories in Kentucky and Tennessee. GM recently announced plans to build a new battery development facility in Michigan. EV Volumes expects GM, together with its Chinese joint-venture partners Wuling and SAIC, to be the third-biggest EV-seller in 2025, with an 8% market share, followed by Hyundai-Kia, with a 6% share. It predicts that the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi alliance, and BYD, both of which currently own respectable portions of the EV market, will lose share, and be surpassed by Stellantis. Interestingly, it expects today’s two biggest EV nay-sayers, BMW and Toyota, to surge forward and claim a small-but-respectable 3% share apiece by 2025. Charts like this make interesting conversation-starters, but the predictions need to be taken with a large dose of lithium salt. Many things can go wrong on the electric road—launches of key new models, and new factories, can be delayed, sending forecasters back to the drawing board. History has shown that automakers can abandon ambitious announced EV plans in response to management changes or shifts in political winds. (On the other hand, things can also go right—for example, Ford’s upcoming F-150 Lightning could turn out to be a runaway hit, and the company might just decide to run with it.) It’s also worth pointing out that Tesla has one of the world’s most powerful brands, and is a fast-moving target that announces new innovations on a regular basis. It may not accept a major loss of market share as tamely as the pundits of the world seem to assume it will. Infographic === Written by: Charles Morris; Sources / Infographic: EV Volumes, Visual Capitalist

Auto dealers are not too popular with electric vehicle advocates (or with car buyers in general, for that matter). Most dealerships outside of EV hotspots like California make little or no effort to sell EVs, and many shoppers have reported that salespeople try to steer them to gas-burners. Several studies have found dealerships to be a bottleneck for EV sales. Above: One of Chargeway’s kiosks at a car dealership (Source: Chargeway) However, before painting dealers as a bunch of gas-loving Luddites, let’s consider their side of the story. EVs are unfamiliar to most consumers, and it takes valuable time to explain them to shoppers. Most salespeople don’t have the needed product knowledge, and EV sales are such a small part of the market that there’s little incentive for them to learn. Charging can be a confusing topic, but it’s invariably the first thing a potential EV buyer asks about, and most probably don’t get the answers they need at a dealership. As John Voelcker wrote in a recent issue of Charged, a pilot program in Oregon demonstrated that educating both salespeople and shoppers about charging boosts sales of EVs. A startup called Chargeway has introduced several products and services to educate both shoppers and sales staff, including a set of standardized symbols for EV charging, kiosks to showcase EV charging options, and a charging education platform for dealers’ web sites. Above: A look at the services provided by Chargeway (YouTube: Chargeway) Now Voelcker reports in Car and Driver that the National Auto Dealers Association (NADA) will work with Chargeway to teach EV sales techniques to its member dealers, and to help them get up to speed on charging, available incentives for EV purchases, and other important topics. Dealers won’t have the option of ignoring EVs for much longer. Every automaker in the US market will be offering at least one EV within the next few years, and their lineups of fossil-burners are expected to dwindle between now and 2035—the year that California, and possibly several other states, are expected to end the sale of new ICE vehicles. “We looked at a number of different training tools and consumer apps,” NADA CEO Mike Stanton told Car and Driver. “[We] found Chargeway best answered the questions our dealers were asking about EV charging: how long it takes, how home charging works, what incentives are available, and even how temperature and speed affect an EV road trip.” === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Car and Driver

Of the plethora of pundits who publish predictions, prognostications and polemics about Tesla every day, some “get it” and some don’t. Many will simply never be able to understand how a company that supplies less than one percent of the global auto market could grow to a market value of more than a trillion dollars—more than the value of the legacy automakers combined.  Above: Elon Musk showcasing his 360-degree approach to clean energy at Tesla with solar, battery storage, and electric cars (Source: Tesla) What many of these scribblers fail to grasp is that Tesla has a mission beyond that of making money for its shareholders (although it has certainly done a fine job of that as well). Yes, every company has a “mission” statement and a “vision” statement, but most of these are not to be taken seriously. Those who tear their hair out over Tesla’s (to them) inexplicable stock-market performance assume that the company’s mission is like all the rest—meaningless marketing fluff. “Save the polar bears, make a better world for our grandchildren, yeah, yeah, sure,” says the grizzled, world-weary Wall Street analyst. “Talk about that stuff all you want, as long as you maximize profits.” I submit that many of Tesla’s customers, investors and fans do not see things in this cynical light. Could it be that part of the reason for the company’s unprecedented success is that millions of people really do have hope for a future with cleaner air? That they understand that today’s oil-fueled transportation system is driving us towards disaster, and that making the switch to electric vehicles is a necessary step to avert climate catastrophe? Obviously, this is only part of the picture. Many Tesla buyers have zero interest in the polar bear thing—they’re attracted by the head-snapping acceleration, the fun high-tech features, or the chance to show off their wealth and coolness to their neighbors. In fact, the Tesla founders’ firm grasp of this fact of life was one of the company’s ace cards from the beginning. Musk, Eberhard, Tarpenning, Wright and Straubel were motivated by greenness, but they understood very well that most car buyers were not. Trying to sell an electric car on its environmental bona fides was (and still is) a losing proposition, so they set out to build “not the best electric cars, but the best cars.” And the rest is history. Now, some may say that Tesla has strayed from its mission. The idea of building an EV for the masses seems to have been abandoned, as the company regularly raises its prices. Snubbing environmental leader California and embracing insurrectionist, climate change-denying Texas has certainly rubbed some of Tesla’s long-time supporters the wrong way. But despite these missteps, I believe that the mission remains, and that Tesla is still a positive force in the quest to decarbonize. Above: Inside Tesla’s journey to a trillion dollar valuation (YouTube: Billster) The green wheels are finally starting to turn at legacy automakers such as VW and GM, and make no mistake about it—this would not be happening if Tesla weren’t breaking stock-market records. Government regulation (specifically, California’s ZEV mandate and Europe’s tightening emissions standards) has played a positive role, but political winds are variable, and they’re starting to shift. Governments were keen to support EVs when they were a promising young technology, but now that electromobility is plainly the future, we’re already seeing signs that government efforts will be redirected to protecting oil industry profits (excuse me, I meant jobs). For better or for worse, money moves markets, and economic forces shape history. Tesla has proven that there’s big money to be made selling electric vehicles, and the profit proposition grows clearer every day. That’s why the legacy automakers are following trendsetter Tesla down the electric road, and it must continue to lead them until they pass the point of no return. Tesla has said from the beginning that it wants everyone to drive an EV, whatever brand it may be, and recent actions such as the opening up of the Supercharger network and Elon Musk’s controversial pep talk for VW execs indicate that this is still the case. Like so many things in life, the EV revolution is not unfolding exactly the way many of us would like. It’s unfortunate that industry workers and management are squaring off for a fight over impending job losses; that EVs remain out of reach for lower-income drivers; and that Tesla’s CEO continues to alienate his natural allies with a steady stream of divisive public statements. Be that as it may, the show must go on. Sometimes people do the right things for the wrong reasons; we can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good; it is what it is. Pick your platitude, but keep the faith, and remember, our common enemy is pollution, and we strike a blow against it with every EV that hits the road. === Written by: Charles Morris

Toyota didn’t rise to the pinnacle of the global auto industry by chance. Throughout its history, it’s been an extremely innovative, forward-looking company. Books have been written, and college courses taught, about its engineering excellence. That’s why the company’s vaunted revamp of its Mirai fuel cell-powered sedan has so many auto industry observers scratching their heads. Why does such an advanced company continue to insist that fuel cells are a viable technology for passenger cars, an application that most other automakers have abandoned?  Above: A look at an earlier version of the Toyota Mirai powered by hydrogen fuel cells at a Shell gas station (Source: Bexim / Wikipedia Commons) Michael Barnard, writing in Medium, calls Toyota’s obsession with fuel cell-powered cars “bizarre,” but he explains that what most of us now see as the company’s bad bet on the hydrogen-powered Mirai sedan is a more nuanced issue than it might appear from today’s perspective. When Toyota first began investing in hydrogen in 1992, it was actually a forward-thinking move. At the time, few would have guessed that lithium-ion batteries would evolve as quickly as they have. The Tesla Roadster was 16 years in the future. “Betting on hydrogen drive trains in 1992 was incredibly reasonable,” Barnard writes, and notes that Toyota was also exploring battery-electric vehicles at the time—it delivered its first electric car in 1993. Experimenting with both these varieties of EV was an innovation of the kind Toyota was known for. Even into the 2000s, it was possible to look at hydrogen and battery-electric powertrains and believe that the former would eventually win the race. However, “it became clear by 2010, and crystal clear by 2013, that the fuel cell category was a serious dead end,” Barnard writes. He cites the work of an engineer named Emile Nijssen (posted under the nom de écran “mux”), who did extensive work with fuel cells, and wrote an extremely detailed explanation of why fuel cell cars weren’t practical in 2015. Be that as it may, Toyota introduced the Mirai in 2014, and has waged an uphill battle to generate interest in it ever since. The Prius hybrid, launched in 1997, has been a spectacular success—to date, Toyota’s hybrids have sold over 10 million units. Meanwhile, the Mirai remains a sort of perpetual R&D project. In a way, the Mirai is like the “compliance cars” that Toyota and other major automakers produced in the 2010s—it’s sold in low volume in a couple of limited markets, and its maker has never made any serious effort to market it. The difference is that the automakers killed their battery-electric compliance cars after a few years, but Toyota has not only kept the Mirai alive, but recently released a new and (somewhat) improved model. OK #energytwitter – here’s an updated version of One Hydrogen Chart To Rule Them All (concept HT @AdrianHiel and @energycities), incorporating your great tips and feedback. Feel free to download and use (credited, obvs). And keep the feedback coming! https://t.co/GRdgh7eaPp pic.twitter.com/XYYpMyUz4t — Michael Liebreich (@MLiebreich) May 9, 2021 Twitter: Michael Liebreich “The original bet on hydrogen wasn’t a mistake, but continuing the pursuit past 2010 certainly was,” Barnard writes. “And the Toyota Mirai was a mistake from the beginning until its inevitable end. It’s on life support now, and…eventually, Toyota will pull the plug.” Barnard believes that the Mirai is being kept alive mainly to save face for an older generation of Toyota execs and Japanese government officials. A look at the present and future hydrogen industry in The Economist delivers a similar conclusion. This article is a well-written and detailed description of the various applications of hydrogen, and it’s a must-read for any who would don their armor and sally forth to do battle in the hydrogen-vs-battery wars. The Economist points out that hydrogen is vital for certain industrial processes, notably the production of ammonia, the main ingredient in artificial fertilizers, and that the hydrogen used for these purposes needs to come from renewable sources (green hydrogen) rather than from fossil fuels (grey, black, blue and other hues) that are mostly used today. When it comes to aviation and shipping, reasonable minds disagree about the role of hydrogen. Several companies, including Eviation, Heart Aerospace, Bye Aerospace and Rolls-Royce, are developing battery-electric aircraft, and at least one, ZeroAvia, has placed its bets on fuel cells. Electric Ferries are starting to go into service in Scandinavia and elsewhere—some battery-electric, and some powered by fuel cells. The Economist refers to BloombergNEF founder Michael Liebreich’s “hydrogen ladder,” which ranks potential uses of hydrogen from indispensable to possibly useful to unviable. Near the bottom of Mr Liebreich’s ladder are fuel cell passenger vehicles. As Mr Liebreich and many others point out, fuel cells add price and complexity, and are far less efficient, and their only real advantages (other than keeping the fossil fuel industry alive) are longer range and faster fueling, which are rapidly becoming non-issues as battery technology improves. So why is Toyota stubbornly sticking with the light gas? Mr. Barnard isn’t the only one who thinks the answer has to do with saving face. The Economist quotes “a veteran Japanese utility executive,” who whispers, “Millions of fuel-cell cars won’t happen. Even Honda gave up. Pride is why Toyota is sticking with it.” === Written by: Charles Morris; Sources: Medium, The Economist

The road has been long and contentious, but the US House has finally passed its infrastructure bill, which authorizes $550 billion of new investment over several years, including $7.5 billion for EV charging infrastructure and several other EV- and clean energy-related items. Above: Tesla Model S using a public charger (Flickr: Robert Couse-Baker) The total price tag for the package comes to over $1.2 trillion when routine funding for highways is included, making it the largest public works bill since President Eisenhower created the Interstate Highway System. The vote in the House was 228-206—13 Republicans supported the bill and 6 Democrats voted against it. The Senate passed the infrastructure plan in August with a bipartisan 69-30 vote. I think we can assume that President Joe Biden will quickly sign the bill into law. Above: Inside the electric vehicle charging infrastructure plan being proposed in the US (YouTube: Tech Space) In addition to the 7.5 big ones for public charging infrastructure, the bill includes: around $110 billion in new investment for roads and bridges; $65 billion for power grid upgrades; $66 billion for Amtrak and other rail; $39 billion for public transit; $5 billion for new school buses, half of which can be spent on diesel or CNG buses; $17 billion for port infrastructure; and $25 billion for airport repairs and measures to reduce congestion and emissions. The latter two items could include some funding for transport electrification (airport ground equipment, port drayage vehicles). After passing the infrastructure bill, the House adopted a procedural rule establishing floor debate parameters for the Democrats’ next project: the $1.75-trillion Build Back Better Act, which includes several e-mobility-related measures. One of these is a reboot of the federal EV tax credit, including a controversial bonus for union-built EVs. The battle over this next bill could stretch into December, but for now, Democrats are taking a hard-earned victory lap. “Generations from now, people will look back and know this is when America won the economic competition for the 21st century,” said President Biden.  === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Sources: Automotive News, NPR, The Hill, New York Times

In a long-awaited move that’s expected to be a big boost for the EV market, Tesla has launched a “Non-Tesla Supercharger pilot” at 10 locations in the Netherlands. We’ve known this was coming since July, when the company announced that it would open its famous Supercharger network to drivers of other companies’ EVs. Above: Tesla Supercharger station (Flickr: Open Grid Scheduler / Grid Engine) The 10 stations are now accessible to Dutch non-Tesla EV drivers via the Tesla app. Tesla is starting with a small number of sites so that it can “review the experience, monitor congestion and assess feedback before expanding. Future sites will only be opened to non-Tesla vehicles if there is available capacity.” EV drivers of all persuasions have a lot of questions, and Tesla has answered most of them on its site. Will non-Tesla drivers will pay a higher price to charge? Yes, they will—the premium “reflects additional costs incurred to support charging a broad range of vehicles and adjustments to our sites to accommodate these vehicles.” Will Supercharger cables reach all EVs? Probably not—different EVs have their charging ports in different locations, and Tesla concedes that “certain Supercharger site layouts may not be suitable for some cars.” Presumably, one of the things Tesla will be trying to figure out during the pilot is whether it needs to install longer cables and/or change the layout of some charging stalls. Above: At Tesla’s Breukelen Supercharger location, a Volkswagen ID.3 tests out the ability to charge (YouTube: AutoRAI International) Non-EV drivers may well ask, Why is this such a big deal? Well, it is, for several reasons. The Supercharger is the gold standard of charging. Tesla currently has some 25,000 Superchargers around the world, and by most accounts they offer a superior charging experience. Some may fear that the company is voluntarily giving away one of its greatest competitive advantages, but in fact, the move has several benefits for Tesla. First of all, how many companies are able to get their competitors’ customers to download their app? Tesla is going to gain valuable info about drivers who haven’t bought its products, and a good platform to convince them to do so. Making the network accessible to all will also unlock government subsidies that wouldn’t be available to a proprietary network. Most importantly, this is a big step towards fulfilling Tesla’s mission of putting every driver in an EV. Interoperability is a critical factor in speeding the adoption of a new technology, as the history of personal computers (and cell phones and hundreds of other products) illustrates. PCs and Macs talk to each other pretty well these days, and that’s good news for users of Windows and Apple alike. When we talk about increasing EV adoption, infrastructure tends to be topic #1. It’s invariably the first thing an EV-curious driver asks about. The more confident people are that charging is easily available, convenient and seamless, the more likely they’ll be to take the electric plunge—and the more pressure there’ll be on the legacy automakers to finally get serious about electrifying. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Tesla

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out this stunning “Special Ops” project from Tesla in conjunction with SS Customs. They’ve created an eye-catching camouflage Tesla that announces the company’s U.S. Veterans Program across the side of the vehicle.  Source: SS Customs At EVANNEX, we’re also proud to be part of Tesla’s “Special Ops” project with SS Customs. To that end, we’ve donated aftermarket accessories (including our Wheel Bands) and were super-honored to have our logo included on the vehicle.  Source: SS Customs In the past, Tesla has teamed up with SS Customs on other high-profile projects. This particular “Special Ops” project features a blue/grey/black/white camo color combination. On the rear bumper, it states: “Home of the free because of the brave.” The wrap also includes American flag artwork on the car’s panoramic roof.  Youtube: Automoto Network. via Tesla It’s worth noting that Tesla has been cited as the most American-made car of any automaker. Tesla also has a long history of supporting those who’ve served in our military. To learn more, check out the URL proudly marked on the side of the vehicle: tesla.com/vets. We, at EVANNEX, also want to extend our heartfelt thanks to all those who’ve served and risked their lives to protect our country.

As media pundits (including myself) never tire of telling us, Tesla and Apple have a number of things in common—both grew very quickly on the strength of a revolutionary invention, and each has created an ecosystem of products and services, some of which consumers never knew they needed, until they did. Above: A look at two tech titans (Source: Apple / Tesla) Ironically, the companies’ respective markets would seem to have very little in common. Cell phones (and computers, for that matter) are commodity-style pieces of hardware—one looks much like another, and it’s the software and associated services that differentiates them. Cars, on the other hand, come in every form factor imaginable, from the smart car to the Hummer, and drivers today give little thought to the underlying software, as long as it works. There are good reasons to believe that this is going to change. Software is rapidly becoming central to the driving experience, and some believe that, in the self-driving future, the cars themselves will eventually start to look the same. We’re not so sure about that, but it’s plain that automakers fear a future in which they become assemblers of commodity, low-margin products, and they’re keen to establish new revenue opportunities in software and services. When you look at the auto industry in this way, it seems more accurate to say that it’s the Tesla of the future that resembles Apple. Andrew Dickson, writing in Marketwatch, suggests that Tesla’s situation today resembles Apple’s situation in the early 2000s. In those days, the value chain for phones (and PDAs—remember those?) was dominated by a handful of companies that included Nokia, Blackberry, Ericsson and Motorola. In 2007, industry leader Nokia boasted a 40% market share and a $230 billion valuation. When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone (which, as fate would have it, was just a few months after Tesla first demonstrated the Roadster), he set in motion a wave of disruption that swept these companies away, and totally transformed the mobile phone industry. Among other changes, the variety of phone form factors dwindled—today, pretty much every phone you can buy looks like an iPhone, and the “ecosystem” of software and services is where the action is. Above: Pierre Ferragu, New Street research analyst, discusses similarities between Apple and Tesla (YouTube: CNBC Television) Could something like this happen with cars? A decade from now, will we all be riding in identical robotaxis made by Foxconn, as a handful of “mobility providers” vie to catch up with Tesla’s superior software? Mr. Dickson looks at this hypothetical future from a financial standpoint, and does some ludicrous-level number-crunching. The mathematically inclined will want to read his entire article, but to sum up his findings, he believes that the numbers may just work out for Tesla to pull off an Applesque coup over the next few years, but that there are a number of things that could go wrong. Leaving the financials aside, there are indeed several reasons to be skeptical of the scenario in which cars morph into phones. For one thing, the only connection a phone has to the physical world is its user interface—the fingers, ears, eyes and voices of humans. Beyond that, pretty much everything we ask our phones to do occurs in the virtual realm. Different people use their phones for very different things, but the same phone serves for all. Vehicles need to perform physical work, and their different physical forms reflect the different needs of their users. Some folks just need to get downtown, some need to drive across the country. Some need to haul a large family, some need to haul bulky guitar amps and drum kits. One size and shape is never going to fit all. Another big difference between phones and cars is that the latter are fashion products, like clothing. A phone is a little box that sits in your pocket most of the time—your neighbors seldom see it, so its value as a fashion accessory is limited. A car is something you drive or ride in, and your peers see you in it often. We use cars to signal our wealth, our tastes and our membership in societal groups. Some believe that, once we cease to be drivers and become passive riders in robotaxis, this behavior will fade away (no one cares what a bus or a subway car looks like). We’re not so sure about that. Another thing we’re not sure about is the idea that car ownership will go out of style. There are both practical and psychological reasons that people want to have their own personal rides. Many of us need an array of physical objects to get our daily tasks done, and we leave those objects in our cars. That’s why urban dwellers, who get around using public transport, tend to carry backpacks or large purses with them. Not everyone wants to do that. Furthermore, the need to own things is the central concept of our consumer society—it’s an unhealthy need that’s likely to end up destroying our civilization, but it’s a fact of modern life. So, will Tesla match Apple’s success, becoming the dominant player in its industry? Quite possibly. Will Ford, GM et al go the way of Blackberry and Ericsson? Stranger things have happened. Will the auto market come to resemble the smartphone market? Maybe a little. Will cars turn into phones, or phones into cars? No. ===  Written by: Charles Morris; Source: Marketwatch

Tesla’s next-generation battery cell is steadily moving closer to production. The company showed off its new 4680 cell—a tabless battery cell with a new chemistry that promises to boost efficiency and reduce costs—at 2020’s Battery Day event. Since then, several of Tesla’s battery suppliers have reportedly been working on production versions of the 4680 cell. Above: Years ago, Tesla was showcased front-and-center at a Panasonic’s CES trade show booth (Source: Business Wire)  Now Panasonic has unveiled its version of the Tesla 4680 cell. The Japanese giant, Tesla’s oldest battery partner, says it has solved several technology challenges presented by the larger cell, and plans to deploy a prototype production line. Above: How Panasonic’s batteries have evolved (Source: Panasonic) Kazuo Tadanobu, the head of Panasonic’s battery division, said the new cell has five times the capacity of the cells Tesla currently uses. He added that Panasonic plans to start test production of the new cells at a plant in Japan in March 2022. Above: Panasonic’s Shoichiro Watanabe reviews the company’s evolution of battery tech and manufacturing (YouTube: Channel Panasonic – Official) Panasonic’s new CEO, Yuki Kusumi, has said his company is prepared to make “a large investment” in producing the new cells if the results of test production are good. Above: A look at Panasonic’s new, larger 4680 battery cell (Source: Panasonic) Tesla says it plans to deliver the first vehicles with the new 4680 battery cells sometime in 2022. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Wall Street Journal via Electrek

Tesla CEO Elon Musk recently split up with his love interest, music star and avant garde artist Grimes. But that doesn’t mean he’s all alone. It’s clear Elon has fallen in love with a Shiba Inu dog named Floki (Loki is his favorite character from the Marvel Cinematic Universe). Above: Elon Musk and his favorite furry friend which happens to also double as the face of a cryptocurrency (Twitter: Shibetoshi Nakamoto) Elon shared Floki’s first photo (see below) when he arrived at his new place. It’s likely the photo of his new puppy was probably taken at Musk’s new $50k starter home in Texas. Of course, this adorable pic of Floki spread like wildfire on social media. Above: Elon Musk’s Shiba Inu pet Floki taking a nap (Twitter: Elon Musk) In the same Twitter thread where Musk shared this photo, the Twitter user ‘Earl of FrunkPuppy’ asked Elon to put Floki in the frunk (front trunk) of a Tesla. “Will do!,” Musk replied. The ‘Earl of FrunkPuppy’ (@28delayslater / Twitter) happens to be a Tesla enthusiast account famous for sharing pictures of dogs and small puppies in the frunk of Teslas. Will do! — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 12, 2021 Above: Elon accepts the request for a ‘frunk puppy’ pic! (Twitter: Elon Musk) After about two weeks, Musk fulfilled his promise and posted the following pic of Floki enjoying his leisure time exploring the frunk of a Tesla. As soon as Elon shared this photo with the world, the price of Dogecoin started to rise.  Above: The adorable Floki (Twitter: Elon Musk) Earlier in February this year, Elon Musk said that he had bought some Dogecoin for his (and Grimes’) youngest son X Æ A-Xii.  This past week Musk even joked that he’s nominating Floki for the role of faux CEO of Dogecoin! Above: Elon’s other (albeit less famous) puppy whom he affectionately calls Marvin the Martian (Twitter: Elon Musk) Nevertheless, just because Dogecoin has an association with the ultra-cute Shiba Inu dog doesn’t mean it’s Elon’s only canine pal. It turns out Musk has another dog too. Although he admits the relationship is different, “My dog Marvin is [a] Havanese too, although I’m *his* emotional support human.” === Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Revised update edited by EVANNEX.

All five of the official Tesla co-founders brought their unique talents to the table, and the result was—ahem—electrifying. However, I think my favorite will always be JB Straubel, who combines a cool demeanor with true engineering genius. Back around the turn of the century, long before EVs were trendy, he converted a Porsche to electric drive and built a solar-powered racer. Later, during the early days of Tesla, he personally went through and redesigned almost every component of the Roadster in a race against time to improve efficiency and reduce cost enough to make the revolutionary EV financially viable. During his 15 years as Tesla’s Chief Technology Officer, he somehow managed to avoid the infighting and drama that burned out several of the company’s other execs. Now, true to Tesla’s original mission, his company, Redwood Materials, is tackling the critical task of building a global circular battery supply chain. Above: Tesla alum JB Straubel is now working on battery recycling at his new company Redwood Materials (Flickr: International Transport Forum) In a new video interview, courtesy of This Week in Startups, Straubel covers several interesting topics: he takes us back to the early history of Tesla, delivering some pithy quips about the adventures of those freewheeling days; gives us a detailed explanation of Redwood’s battery recycling proposition; delivers a timely warning to automakers about the critical importance of building an EV supply chain; and winds up with a compelling explanation of why lithium-metal batteries hold so much promise. Electrification is a critical part of our efforts to address climate change, and Tesla forced the auto industry to confront it. Interviewer Jason Calacanis asks what the state of EVs would be today if Tesla had failed. “I think the technology is so compelling that it was going to happen at some point, no matter what,” Straubel replies. “I think it would have taken much longer…and that really matters. We can’t go fast enough in terms of decarbonizing the world. It’s terrifying to realize how screwed up we are, and how far we still have to go.” Straubel founded Redwood Materials to deal with an unglamorous but absolutely essential aspect of electrification, one that few were paying attention to at the time. If we’re going to build millions of batteries, we’re going to have to deal with the raw materials that go into them in a sustainable way. Once all cars are electrified, “all the materials that make up those cars are going to be in a closed-loop ecosystem,” says Straubel. “That combined industry is bigger than all of the mining that feeds it, it’s bigger than the parts industries that supply it, and it doesn’t exist today. So, seeing this massive industry that is going to be created—it’s a certainty—and seeing nothing happening yet, that was part of the really compelling reason to jump into Redwood.” A sustainable circular supply chain includes not only recycling batteries at the end of their lives, but also managing waste during manufacturing. Straubel explains that, of all the material that goes into the production process, as much as 10% doesn’t end up being part of the car. The existing system for recycling scrap is extremely inefficient, often involving shipping materials back and forth between continents on carbon-belching ships. Building an EV does have a significant emissions footprint, and localizing the recycling of scrap might reduce that footprint by as much as half. Legacy automakers have been making bold pronouncements of late about ramping up production of EVs, and a couple of the more forward-looking ones are moving to build the battery plants that will be needed. Looking further upstream reveals that securing supplies of raw materials will be a colossal challenge. Contrary to the scare stories promulgated by the press and the purveyors of petroleum, neither lithium nor any of the other critical materials used by EVs are particularly scarce—the problem is the time required to scale up mining operations (there are also environmental and social justice issues). “The whole industry…from searching for it to developing it to refining it, needs to scale, and it takes too long,” says Straubel. “Some of these mines take 8 years to go from exploration to production. It’s a very slow process. Maybe we can cut that in half, or do some dramatic things, but as you do that, you start to cut environmental corners, and you’re pushing into more sensitive areas, so there’s no free lunch there.” Above: At 22.08 in the video JB Straubel discusses his early days at Tesla and the EV supply chain (YouTube: This Week in Startups) Of course, that’s where Redwood Materials comes in. “This is one reason that I’m so excited about going after every little bit of recycled material we possibly can, because it is the lowest-hanging fruit. It’s the lowest cost, the lowest emissions, and has the least disruption to everything else going on. Every atom of that should be recycled.” Straubel tells us that 90% of the batteries in consumer devices don’t get recycled. As he has said before, the most cost-effective source of lithium today would not be new mines, but Americans’ junk drawers. Would you believe that a few hundred iPhones can provide enough cobalt to supply an entire new Tesla battery pack? Jason and JB agree that we need a global “call to arms” to start getting that junk shipped to recyclers like Redwood. JB also has some encouraging comments about the emerging technology of solid-state batteries. He sits on the board of QuantumScape, a California developer of solid-state lithium-metal batteries that has attracted major investments from Volkswagen, Chinese automaker SAIC, Tier 1 auto supplier Continental, and others. (Charged recently presented an online conference with QuantumScape’s Vice President of Product, Will Hudson.) “Fundamentally, these are still lithium-ion batteries—the chemistry…is very similar,” Straubel explains. “The big difference is in the anode material and the separator. In the anode, instead of having something like graphite or silicon where you have to store the lithium inside of a matrix of carbon or silicon oxide, you can instead store it as metallic lithium—literally a sheet or a film of lithium. To do that usually requires some really interesting changes to the separator and the electrolyte, whether it’s a ceramic or whether it has different characteristics that allow that lithium to be a metal. So that’s really the main structural change that’s happening.” Will it work? “I think it will work. The performance, from QuantumScape in particular, that I’ve seen is really, really good. The science of it is robust, the performance is amazing. Manufacturing of it is really difficult, so…the whole set of technologies has to get scaled, it has to be made robust, and made at the right price point. I’d rather bet on that than [on a new chemistry]. I do think this is an important part of the future of batteries.” Solid-state batteries could deliver higher energy density (both in terms of mass and volume), and much faster charging times. “The lithium doesn’t have to find its way into that matrix of graphite—that’s kind of a traffic jam for it, and you avoid that. What’s possible and demonstrated at small scale is incredible. You’re basically back to a couple minutes charge times.” How soon will we see this technology in vehicles? “I think it’s a few years away—this is not going to be the 2023 models or something like that. It has to mature and it has to get scaled to gigawatt-hours per year. But it’s so compelling. This paints a road map out several decades where it’s already sort of a no-brainer that everything will be electric, and then when you overlay technology getting much better and cheaper, then it’s absolutely assured.” === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: This Week in Startups

In Tesla’s recent software update, the company released a new security feature that enables Tesla owners to remotely view what’s happening around their vehicles in real-time using their mobile phones. This feature is called Sentry Mode Live Camera Access (read release notes and requirements). And it may also allow you to use the ‘dark side’ of the force. We’ll explain.  Above: No, Tesla’s software update won’t literally transform you into Darth Vader (Twitter: RJDM Studios) Aside from being able to watch around the car from a remote location, there’s an especially cool feature Tesla implemented as well. While you’ve opened the live camera view of your parked Tesla, you can also speak to those in close proximity to your vehicle. And you can turn your voice ominous if desired. How? Well, this Tesla feature will allow you to lower and amplify your voice via an external speaker installed under the car. Teslas built after January 2019 have a special speaker installed as part of the pedestrian warning system, a requirement by the NHTSA. A Tesla Model X owner recently demonstrated the talkback feature (via mobile phone) in a short Twitter video. Here is an example of the new @Tesla sentry mode app feature. It changes your voice too. I can’t wait to talk to people as they walk by! Thank you @elonmusk! pic.twitter.com/lexqyjweAk — 🇺🇸Dezmond Oliver🇺🇸 (@dezmondOliver) October 29, 2021 Twitter: Dezmond Oliver Tesla owners will now be able to warn potential vandals by issuing verbal warnings from a remote location. This should help to decrease cases of Tesla vandalism that have, unfortunately, intermittently occurred in the past. Social media first helped spread awareness of Tesla’s Sentry Mode and eventually sparked widespread coverage of random vandalism cases across the mainstream media. Thankfully, knowing that a Tesla is recording any potential act of vandalism via multiple cameras has lowered the number of cases. One of these instances was a well-known Bay Area case where two vandals keyed a Tesla Model 3 multiple times not knowing the car was recording them. Later on, these guys turned themselves in to the police as the videos went viral and aired on national television.  Above: Sentry Mode talkback feature in action (YouTube: TLOBB) In any event, check out the video (see above) as a Tesla owner demonstrates the whole process on his phone using the talkback function on his Tesla Model 3. Ummm, just don’t start abusing this new feature by trying to sound like you’re the Dark Lord about to break some bad news to Luke Skywalker. === Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Revised update edited by EVANNEX.

Journalists are fond of speculating about events that may or may not happen, and Tesla has always been one of the prime topics for this sort of “what if?” writing. Over the years, we’ve read many an article about all sorts of hypothetical events, from reasonable surmises to wild fantasy. Flickr: Werner Bayer Now that Tesla has become one of the world’s largest companies, many of these narratives have been turned on their heads—the company that was seen as the scrappy but vulnerable young startup is now seen as the benign elder statesman, or as the overbearing bully, depending on your viewpoint. It’s amusing to see how some of the fantasy-football scenarios that have been a staple of the chattering class have been overtaken by events. Prey becomes predator In the early days, many a pundit (and even some company insiders) predicted that one of the auto majors would acquire Tesla. Now Tesla could easily acquire one or more of them. It won’t, because none of them has anything Tesla would want. Many of the things the legacy automakers have traditionally considered their crown jewels are now increasingly seen as stranded assets. All those hundreds of auto brands—Buick, Pontiac, Opel, Vauxhall, et al? They’re a useless waste of resources that carmakers have kept alive for decades because silly auto buyers are “loyal” to a particular brand, and the companies that own them fear losing market share. Dealership networks? They’re a vestige of the 20th century—car buyers hate them, and Tesla has never wanted anything to do with them. Existing factories? They’re already obsolete. To incorporate the latest production advances and maximize efficiency, Tesla builds new factories from the ground up. It has zero interest in refurbishing any old auto plants. Perps become vics A few years ago, a wave of new EVs from the legacy brands were touted as “Tesla-killers.” However, there was no murder—more like a botched assault attempt. Nothing to see here, folks. To continue the cop-show metaphor, this looks like one of those cases in which the intended victim grabbed the perp’s gun and turned the tables. Tesla’s vehicles have been outselling gas-burners in their respective classes for years, and of late it’s become downright embarrassing for the German luxury brands. As for the prime murder suspects, they’re innocent: the Jaguar I-Pace sold 16,457 units in 2020; the Audi e-tron sold 47,324; Tesla doesn’t break down sales by individual models, but it delivered 499,550 vehicles in 2020. Freeloader becomes Uncle Moneybags Tesla-haters have long harped on the fact that the US government bailed out the young company with a $456-million-dollar loan (they seldom mention the fact that Tesla repaid the loan nine years early, with interest). Now the UN is asking Elon Moneybags to pony up a few billion to help address global hunger (he should). Source: UNTV News and Rescue Buy ‘em up and shut ‘em down! Ever since there were oil companies, greenies have accused them of plotting to buy up clean-tech companies in order to shut them down. We know of one case in which this may have actually happened. In 2001, erstwhile oil giant Texaco purchased GM Ovonics, the company that made the batteries used in the last generation of GM’s ill-fated EV1, and allegedly used its patents to impede the advance of nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. (Toyota and others later developed NiMH battery packs without using Ovonics’ technology.) Today, some suspect that Shell and bp, which are busily buying up EV charging companies, have something other than encouraging EV adoption in mind. Their sinister plan, according to this hypothetical narrative, is to make sure the price of public charging stays high enough that it offers no savings over driving a gas (or hydrogen) vehicle. If the oily oligarchs do have something like this in mind, they had better tread carefully, for Tesla might just get the idea of playing a similar dirty trick on them. When we think of the oil industry, we tend to think of giant corporations like ExxonMobil and Chevron, but in fact, a lot of the oil and gas that’s sitting in the ground (mineral rights) is owned by thousands of small and medium-size companies and individuals. For a measly few billion bucks, Tesla could buy up substantial amounts of petroleum reserves and turn off the pumps. On the face of it, this actually sounds like a pretty good idea—buy it and leave it in the ground. However, that old law of unintended consequences is a bitch. In the oil biz, less supply leads to higher prices, which leads to more exploration and drilling. Contrary to popular belief, higher gas prices are unlikely to have much effect on EV sales, but they could encourage companies to invest in new drilling projects, in ever-more environmentally sensitive areas. And, as we’re already seeing, high gas prices make politicians very nervous. When voters start complaining about prices at the pump, even left-leaning pols start cozying up to the oil companies and ask them to open up the taps. So, on second thought, let’s scratch the “buy it and leave it in the ground” idea. In fact, why don’t we scratch all the fantasizing about things that might happen, and focus on what we can actually make happen in the real world? === Written by: Charles Morris

A Tesla Model Y owner was surprised to see a GMC Hummer EV parked beside his car when he came out of a Starbucks coffee shop in Detroit, Michigan. Although a Model Y electric SUV is larger than a Model 3, it still looks pretty small compared to the Hummer EV. Above: Tesla Model Y (left) and a Hummer EV production-ready prototype (right) parked side-by-side outside Starbucks (Source: u/VicBurgundy / Reddit, posted with written permission) Actually, the Hummer EV will be a direct competitor with Tesla’s Cybertruck both in vehicle size and market segment. And according to GM CEO Mary Barra, the Hummer is one of many new electric vehicles that will help the Detroit automaker take down Tesla by 2025. The photos captured here showcase two different angles which demonstrate how massive the Hummer EV is in contrast to the Model Y. However, if we compare the length of the Tesla Cybertruck and the Hummer EV, the Cybertruck is 40.3 inches (1,024 mm) longer than the Hummer EV (237.1 in vs. 196.8 in respectively). To that end, when we finally get a chance to see the GM and Tesla electric trucks side-by-side at some point in the future, the stainless steel Cybertruck will probably look much larger than the almighty Hummer EV. “Finally got to see the Hummer EV up close today at our local Starbucks. The size of this vehicle next to our Model Y is crazy. Also saw the 4-wheel steering in action when they pulled out of the parking lot. Very cool, love seeing more varieties of EVs on the street,” the Model Y owner posted on Reddit.  Above: Tesla Model Y and Hummer EV parked side-by-side outside Starbucks in Detroit, Michigan (Source: u/VicBurgundy / Reddit, posted with written permission) The Hummer EV has some impressive features including a 4-wheel steer-ability “Crab Mode”. That said, Tesla is working on a similar 4-wheel steering capability for the Cybertruck. “We’re adding rear-wheel steering, so it can do tight turns & maneuver with high agility,” Elon Musk said in a tweet while giving an update related to Cybertruck development earlier this year. General Motors has set up a dedicated EV assembly plant in Detroit-Hamtramck, MI and named it Factory Zero (referencing zero-emission cars manufactured at the facility). Factory Zero is expected to start production of the Hummer EV Pickup late this year and the Hummer EV SUV in 2024. It’s likely that the Hummer EVs that are mostly seen in Michigan these days are production-ready prototype vehicles driven by GM employees for testing and calibration. Before the Hummer EV goes into production, Rivian has (already) begun rolling its R1T electric pickup trucks off the production line and Giga Texas is also getting prepped for Cybertruck production spinning up sometime in 2022. === Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Revised update edited by EVANNEX.