Tesla-nyheder (Youtube og websites)

As electric vehicles continue to to increase in popularity amongst buyers, minerals such as nickel, lithium and cobalt will only become more and more important. Tesla and other automakers’ reliance on these minerals is crucial, and with a new long-term nickel contract and a recently shared list of mineral suppliers, the company is showing its hand for the first time. Above: Top-down view of mining operations (Photo: Shane McLendon / Unsplash) According to Reuters, Brazilian nickel miner Vale SA announced a long-term deal with Tesla earlier this month, set to come from the company’s Canadian mining operations. Tesla also shared a list of all of its direct suppliers for both nickel and cobalt, as reported by electrek, which both confirms the Vale announcement and offers some insight as to the automaker’s supply strategy for minerals essential to EV batteries. Vale will supply Tesla with an ongoing source of low-carbon Class 1 nickel from Canada’s Newfoundland and Labrador, in addition to six other companies producing nickel for the automaker in New Caledonia, Australia and China. “Congratulations to Vale on signing this significant deal with Tesla to supply the nickel the company needs to make batteries for electric vehicles,” Furey said. “Nickel from right here in Newfoundland and Labrador. Our province is certainly rich in resources the world needs today.” Above: Analyst discusses Tesla’s ability to navigate supply chain issues and rising raw materials costs for lithium and nickel (YouTube: CNBC Television) Cobalt and lithium also remain important minerals, and Tesla similarly gets these minerals from a handful of companies. Most of the automaker’s lithium comes from refineries in China, Argentina and the U.S., Tesla gets its cobalt from refineries in China and a mining site in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Tesla has set a new precedent for automakers and supply deals, as it’s one of the first to build EVs at such a scale and it’s the dominant EV brand available today. Still, growing demand for EVs is set to create massive mineral shortages as competition increases, and setting up a vertically-integrated supply chain with contracts in place will help Tesla in the long run. With increasing demand, consumers can expect increased EV battery prices, as depicted today with inflation hitting the cost of raw materials — and automakers raising the prices of EVs subsequently. Most of Tesla’s suppliers weren’t hidden from public view, but the automaker’s release of the supplier list does substantiate what was were only considered rumors prior. Tesla will likely continue to diversify its mineral sources as much as possible, in order to mitigate rising costs amidst skyrocketing demand. === Sources: Reuters / electrek / CNBC Television

The electric vehicle market in the U.S. is still fairly new, and Tesla has largely dominated that market since its inception. However, competition in the EV space is increasing as legacy automakers begin releasing their own zero-emission vehicles, and although Tesla still dominates the market, the automaker’s market share has gradually been decreasing over the past few years.  Above: Tesla models parked in a row (Source: EVANNEX) Tesla’s Model Y SUV and Model 3 sedan were the two top-selling vehicles in the U.S. in Q1 this year, according to a report from MarketWatch (via KBB). The news comes at a time when electric vehicles made up over 5 percent of total car sales for the first time ever, and as many legacy automakers are starting to see substantial sales of their first few EVs. Tesla sold 46,707 Model 3 units in the first quarter, and its sales of the Model 3 and Model Y combined made up an impressive 68 percent of the overall EV market share. By comparison, Tesla’s vehicles made up 70 percent of the market share in 2021, and they made up 75 percent of the EV market share in 2020. Still, the slight decline in Tesla’s market share is to be expected, and will continue so long as old wave automakers continue to release their EVs. Despite the increasing competition, traditional automakers have a long way to go before reaching the EV sales volume Tesla has achieved. Tesla’s Model 3 and Y sales were followed distantly by Ford’s electric Mustang Mach-E, which sold just 6,734 units. Tesla’s Model X followed the Mach-E, and the Model S was the quarter’s seventh most sold EV. Other vehicles on the top 10 best-selling list for Q1 include the Hyundai Ioniq 5, the Kia EV6, the Nissan Leaf, the Kia Niro and the Audi e-Tron. The news also comes as Ford, Rivian General Motors and others are releasing their first electric pickups — something Tesla currently doesn’t offer, with the highly-anticipated Cybertruck to begin production next year. The first 99 buyers received their GMC Hummer EV units in Q1, while 43 took delivery of the Amazon- and Ford-backed startup Rivian’s R1T. Ford is also just beginning delivery of the Ford F-150 Lightning. For Tesla, the completion of the new Gigafactory location in Austin, Texas will also play a crucial role in the coming years as U.S. EV competition continues to increase. With production set to increase, sales are likely to follow suit, and Tesla is uniquely positioned as a company to weather the oncoming EV revolution. === Sources: MarketWatch via KBB

Tesla’s Supercharger network may still be the gold standard of highway fast charging, but Electrify America is offering some mighty strong competition. The nationwide charging network reports that it provided 1.45 million customer charging sessions in 2021—a colossal increase from the 268,000 it recorded in 2020. Above: A Tesla charging at an Electrify America location in Florida (Source: PlugShare) The company dispensed 41 GWh of energy in 2021, and estimates that this represents more than 145 million EV miles driven, and 5.7 million gallons of gas saved. Electrify America currently has 800 EV charging stations and about 3,500 individual chargers, either open or ready to open. The network features DC fast chargers offering charging speeds of 150 and 350 kW, the fastest speeds available today. Above: An inside look at Electrify America (YouTube: Electrify America) EA expects to have more than 1,800 total charging stations with over 10,000 chargers in the US and Canada by 2026. “The combination of our rapidly expanding charging network, plus the growth and availability of all-new electric vehicles, is accelerating the transition to eMobility,” said Senior Director of Business Development & Marketing Robert Barrosa. “Electrify America is working with automotive manufacturers to smooth the transition from gas to electric by offering integrated access on the Electrify America network.  We are seeing this positively impact vehicle adoption, as first-quarter battery-electric vehicle sales reached a record 5.2% market share of new vehicle sales in the US.”   === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Electrify America

Legacy automakers like General Motors and Ford have dominated much of the auto industry for decades. However, with electric vehicles gaining traction, Tesla could be poised to overtake the companies in a few short years — if it can continue growing rapidly each year as it has been. Above: Tesla vehicles in a row (Source: EVANNEX) Tesla’s sales revenue numbers have been growing rapidly over the past several years, and while it pulled in $16.9 billion in auto sales in the first quarter of this year, the automaker is still a far cry from GM’s $36 billion and Ford’s $34.5 billion in the same period, according to The Motley Fool. Tesla’s growth is expected to slow down in the years to come, but to what extent is hotly debated. To be sure, Tesla’s first-quarter sales represented a growth of 87 percent year-over-year. By comparison, GM’s Q1 sales marked an 11 percent surge year-over-year, while Ford’s dropped around 11 percent. Just two years ago, in Q1 2020, Tesla only generated $5.1 billion in revenue, showing just how much the automaker has grown in the past few years. Roughly $35 billion in auto sales seems a safe level at which Tesla would likely surpass GM and Ford. To reach this level by 2025, Tesla’s sales would have to continue to increase by a rate of at least 27.5 percent per year. At Tesla’s earnings call for Q1 2022, CEO Elon Musk stated that he expects the automaker to grow at a rate of 50 percent per year in terms of vehicle production, which would see Tesla passing GM and Ford as soon as 2024. Still, Musk has been known to speak ambitiously about the automaker’s upcoming achievements, so only time will tell if this is realistic. If there’s any single factor likely to help Tesla reach the milestone, it’s the expansion of its Gigafactory system. With new Gigafactories in Germany and the U.S., Tesla is well-poised to continue to expand its production output capacity as it ramps up production. Above: A deep dive into how Detroit is working to compete with Tesla in the electric vehicle space (YouTube: Yahoo Finance) Additionally, it should only be a matter of time before Tesla doubles capacity from its current 1.05 million vehicles produced per year using the new production facilities, effectively putting the automaker above GM and Ford combined regarding production.  Still, Tesla will likely need more than just its current Gigafactories to surpass GM and Ford’s auto revenue, or to reach its own goals of 50 percent growth per year. So, even after production ramps up at Giga Berlin and Giga Texas, it will already have been time for the automaker to consider its next few facilities. While it’s an extremely ambitious target to think Tesla could surpass GM and Ford’s auto revenue by 2025, especially amidst surging EV battery prices across the industry, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility. More likely, perhaps, Tesla will surpass the two legacy automakers in time, though it’ll probably take a few more years than 2025. === Sources: The Motley Fool

Car rental agencies have been talking about adding EVs to their fleets for years, and Teslas have been offered for rent in early-adopter markets such as Norway (and elsewhere on the freelance rental platform Turo). Now things are now starting to move more quickly. Rental giant Hertz gave the EV industry a boost with last year’s announcement that it would add up to 100,000 Teslas to its fleet. Source: Hertz Car rentals and EVs could be a powerful combination—a new report from the Electrification Coalition details the lessons learned from a test deployment of EVs in a large rental car fleet. The report shares key findings from the Drive Electric Orlando Rental Pilot, which incentivized travelers to rent EVs in Orlando, the largest rental car market in the US. The multi-year program was led by the Electrification Coalition in partnership with Enterprise Rent-A-Car, the City of Orlando, and several resorts and theme parks. Program partners incentivized participation by providing exclusive perks to Enterprise customers who rented EVs, including free parking, complimentary valet service and free charging. The results indicate that the rental car industry can play an important role in accelerating consumer adoption of EVs. “Rental car companies operate some of the largest light-duty vehicle fleets in the country, so the electrification of this industry will be critical in the shift to an electric transportation future,” said Ben Prochazka, Executive Director of the Electrification Coalition. “Drive Electric Orlando put the consumer behind the wheel of an EV during a vacation—a perfect opportunity to experience all the benefits of this technology. The program engaged consumers during the early stages of EV market growth, and it can now serve as a roadmap for the rental car industry to go electric.” Three key insights from the study: Two thirds of EV renters surveyed indicated that their experience made them more likely to purchase an EV as their next vehicle. Incentives were valuable tools to attract program participants. Perks such as VIP parking and free charging generated more consumer interest in renting an EV. As the rental car industry incorporates EVs into its fleets, it must be proactive in overcoming barriers to the transition. Companies need to plan for staff training, onsite charging at rental centers and customer education on EV operation and charging. “In many ways, we were blazing a new trail with each step of the DEO program,” the Electrification Coalition’s Prochazka said. “This pilot helped us dig into the challenges and identify ways for EVs to succeed as rental cars. As the number of EV models grows, and access to charging stations increases, it’s our hope that the rental car industry will use the lessons we learned to build a model that will successfully electrify rental fleets across the country.” According to Bobit Business Media, automakers sold 494,960 units to US rental fleets in the first quarter of 2020. The extraordinary scale and rapid turnover of these fleets offer unique opportunities to boost EV adoption. The rental car industry is a major source of used vehicles, supporting a market that is more accessible to middle- and lower-income consumers. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Electrification Coalition

COVID-19 forced many automakers and suppliers to shut down in China last month, and many of them are just beginning to ramp up production after the long break. That said, another production pause has taken place again. Nevertheless, amidst the surge in cases, Tesla was actually one of a handful of companies the city of Shanghai worked hard to help reopen — showing just how important to the city and to mainland China’s economy the automaker is. Above: Tesla CEO Elon Musk sits down with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Yang (Twitter: China Xinhua News) Officials in Shanghai helped Tesla cart over 6,000 employees and supplier employees to their jobs to help the automaker re-open the factory following COVID-19 lockdowns, according to a CNBC report detailing a letter Tesla sent to authorities. In the letter, Tesla broke down how the city helped the automaker establish its closed-loop production system, including extra disinfection work to help curb the virus’ spread. Tesla reopened its Gigafactory Shanghai on April 19, following a 22-day production halt due to the surging virus and China’s COVID-zero lockdown policies. The letter Tesla sent to Lingang officials, dated May 1, thanked them for arranging buses to transport the over 6,000 Tesla employees and those of suppliers to factories, and for hard work disinfecting to prevent any further spread of the virus. “They fought for three consecutive days, working round the clock and non-stop to guarantee our company’s workers could return to the factory,” Tesla wrote in the letter. Tesla was among the companies whitelisted to resume over 80 percent production by the city of Shanghai earlier this month, according to a report from Global Times earlier this month. Other important automakers and semiconductor manufacturers whitelisted to reopen included SAIC Motor and Hua Hong Semiconductor, though Tesla’s scope and status in a burgeoning electric vehicle industry speak for themselves. Last year, Tesla’s Gigafactory Shanghai delivered a total of 484,100 vehicles including those in China and exported units, and the automaker is thought to have missed out on producing more than 50,000 vehicles during the production halt. Tesla also plans to expand its Shanghai factory to include an additional production facility on a nearby plot of land, expected to add as many as 450,000 vehicles in annual production capacity. Despite the loss in production units, Shanghai’s move to get Tesla back up and running shows the automaker as a serious global contender in what is the world’s largest auto market. In addition, Tesla is uniquely positioned to capitalize on the coming EV boom, as more consumers than ever start to transition to zero-emission options.  None of this would even be possible without the impressive work ethic showcased by China’s workers according to recent praise from Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk. “There’s just a lot of super-talented, hardworking people in China who strongly believe in manufacturing,” Elon Musk explained in an interview with the Financial Times last week. “They won’t just be burning the midnight oil. They will be burning the 3 a.m. oil,” he continued. “They won’t even leave the factory type of thing, whereas in America people are trying to avoid going to work at all.” === Source: CNBC / Global Times / Financial Times

Most of you, dear readers, are well aware that there’s a tremendous amount of anti-EV misinformation out there, and I’m confident that you can spot it a mile away. So, the point of this article, and the two earlier installments of the trilogy (Debunking common anti-EV myths, parts one and two) is not to convince you of the environmental efficacy of electric vehicles, but rather to provide you with a handy trove of facts and figures that you can deploy when your less-enlightened friends and acquaintances ask you for advice.  Above: Tesla Model 3 at a public charger (Flickr: Marco Verch) We EV owners are often asked—both in person and online—about EV ownership and the EV industry. Some of these questions are easy to answer: Yes, charging is easy, yes you’ll save money, yes, they’re more fun to drive, and no, charging in the rain is not a problem (oops…Zap!). Other questions and concerns require more detailed answers, with authoritative sources to back them up. Here’s a scenario many of us have encountered: A friend or acquaintance is concerned about climate change, and has been thinking of buying an EV. However, in the course of her online “research,” she’s run across a number of disturbing Facebook posts—it seems EVs have a “dirty little secret” (or several), they’re “not as clean” as “everyone” would have us believe, and “the media” have ignored these issues. Telling your friend “that’s not true,” or “that’s oil industry propaganda” accomplishes nothing—answering an unsupported assertion with another unsupported assertion is the equivalent of the “am not,” “are so” exchanges encountered on the kindergarten playground (and in crossword puzzles). You’ll need to provide your friend with facts and figures that disprove the claims of the haters. The previous two installments of this trilogy provided links to articles and studies that address some specific topics that are favorites of the anti-EV crowd, such as the Long Tailpipe, battery recycling, raw material issues and the diesel-powered charging station hoax. In this final episode, we’ll zoom out and look at some of the rhetorical techniques that oil cheerleaders (and peddlers of online disinformation in general) employ. Disinformation experts tell us that the trolls aren’t necessarily trying to convince us that their version of reality is true. Often, the goal is simply to confuse and sow distrust so people aren’t sure what to believe—in other words, to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD). That’s why so many of the pernicious posts begin with something like this: “Don’t get me wrong, I’m a great believer in EVs—but I’m a little concerned about…” Here on the EVannex blog, we’ve been writing about the flood of FUD for years. Until recently, Tesla tended to be the main target, and the automaker still attracts a large share of the online opprobrium. However, as the legacy automakers have begun to get serious about electrification, and as EV sales have soared, we’ve been seeing a wider variety of narratives that naysay anything that doesn’t run on dinosaur juice. The ultimate source of most of the FUD is of course the oil industry and its allies, and they’re following a popular playbook that’s been used to great effect by other interest groups, including the tobacco industry. “Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public,” wrote a tobacco-industry executive in a much-quoted memo. As a recent article from the Natural Resources Defense Council points out, some of the individuals who retweet or share this crafty content aren’t necessarily trying to mislead anyone—they may honestly be wondering whether EVs really are “as green as they claim.” As the mix of truth, half-truth and untruth gets batted around the internet, the distinction between disinformation and misinformation soon becomes blurred—and that’s exactly what fossil fuel interests want. One analysis found that 16 of the world’s biggest polluters were responsible for placing more than 1,700 anti-EV and anti-clean energy ads on Facebook alone in 2021. Social media platforms do take some half-hearted steps to tag some of the most egregious falsehoods, but quashing questionable content isn’t likely to be a priority at any for-profit company—according to Eco-Bot, those 1,700 ads delivered around 150 million impressions, and earned nearly $5 million for Facebook. So, to politely refute some of the most common anti-EV bugaboos, refer to part one and part two of this truth-seeking trilogy. Of, if you don’t care about being polite, feel free to employ some of my Snarky answers to stupid EV questions. To armor you against new canards that come up (there’ll always be more), or to help you deal with online misinformation in general, let’s consider some of the most obvious signs that a particular post or article is misleading or false: Lack of citations Ever wonder what those little blue numbers on Wikipedia and other information sites are? They’re citations—links to primary sources that back up what the writer is saying. Any assertion (beyond basic mathematics) that doesn’t have a citation attached can’t really be considered a fact—it’s the equivalent of something a drunk told you in a bar. Books (both paper and electronic) use footnotes to provide links to sources—my book about Tesla has over 600 of them. Yes, they’re tedious, and the trend is to find ways to reduce the number of footnotes while still including the necessary information. Tim Higgins’s Tesla book has comparatively few notes—each note may refer to several paragraphs, rather than to a single sentence—however, the notes are there, and if you want to, you can find the source of anything the author is asserting as a fact. Of course, a citation doesn’t prove that an assertion is true, but it does let the reader know who made it, and hopefully, what their credentials are. The bottom line: If it doesn’t have a link to a source, it isn’t non-fiction. As we all know, social media posts often make specific assertions without providing evidence of any kind—we’ve seen many a post that baldly claims that “EV batteries can’t be recycled,” with nary a link to a source in sight (in fact, they can be, and they are). Sadly, this also occurs in articles in reputable media. A recent article in The New Yorker (which was broadly pro-EV) stated, with no attribution, that EV batteries are “rated to last no more than eight to ten years.” “Rated?” How, and by whom? Batteries do degrade over time, but several studies, including one from the University of Eindhoven, along with much anecdotal evidence from operators of EV fleets, have indicated that a typical EV battery should last a lot longer than that. Spurious citations Posters know that online readers tend to skim headlines, and seldom click to read the actual articles, much less the footnotes. Sometimes, in order to make an article look legit, a wily writer will include a link to a scientific study—but if you actually read the study, you may find that it doesn’t support the writer’s claim in any way. Of course, there are also plenty of specious studies out there—many of them financed and published by oil industry-friendly groups. Academic studies tend to be long and densely-written, and most of us don’t have the time or expertise to assess what they really mean. That’s why I prefer to link to an article that summarizes a relevant study (and includes a link to the study itself). Spurious headlines Forget the footnotes—many people don’t even read the articles. It’s common to see headlines that don’t reflect the message of the underlying article at all. To give one example, a 2018 interview with Elon Musk was spun in opposite directions by different media—the headline in an EV-friendly mag quoted Elon saying, “the worst is over,” while the headline on an EV-bashing site quoted him saying, “the worst is yet to come.” (In fact, what he said was, “The worst is over from a Tesla operational standpoint…but from a personal pain standpoint, the worst is yet to come.”) Lack of context The greatest lies always contain a grain of truth, and one demonstrable fact, taken out of context, can be a more powerful disinformation tool than a hundred flagrant falsehoods. A common example of this technique: the constant stream of posts about EV fires. Yes, EVs do catch fire, yes, that’s a bad thing, and no, it isn’t wrong to report on such incidents. However, gas vehicles catch fire too, and by all accounts, they do so at a higher rate, so the implication that EVs are less safe is misleading, to say the least. According to the National Fire Protection Association, “an estimated 212,500 vehicle fires caused 560 civilian deaths 1,500 civilian injuries; and $1.9 billion in direct property damage in the US during 2018.” Statistically speaking, EVs have a far lower risk of fire than ICE vehicles. A recent study by AutoinsuranceEZ reported only 25 fires in electric vehicles per 100,000 sales, compared to 1,530 for gas vehicles and (strangely) 3,475 for hybrids. Cherry-picking This is a favorite technique of pontificators and pundits of all stripes, and it’s a standard feature of specious “studies.” For example, those “dirty little secret” narratives are often supported by calculations that include the environmental impacts of battery manufacturing, but not those of oil drilling and refining. In another example from the aforementioned New Yorker article (sorry to pick on you folks, I really do love your magazine), the author quoted a single scientist who said that it takes 25,000 miles of driving for an EV’s lower tailpipe emissions to cancel out the environmental footprint of battery manufacturing. The source is a distinguished battery expert, and his findings carry weight, but he is far from the only one who has researched this highly complex issue, and others (including the Argonne National Laboratory, the Eindhoven University of Technology and Tesla [in 2020 and 2021]) have reached more optimistic conclusions. What can you do? Getting back to your friend who’s legitimately curious about the anti-EV stuff she sees on Twitter, you might gently suggest some ways to separate the valuable from the vapid. Verify the source Twitter, Instagram and Facebook use blue check marks to indicate that a particular page or profile actually represents the person or organization that it claims to. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the information posted is correct, but it does indicate that the person posting it is who they claim to be. Impostor accounts are not uncommon—for years, scammers have posed as Elon Musk on Twitter in order to separate online fools from their money. Various red flags—cryptic user names, accounts that haven’t existed very long, excessive numbers of hash tags, etc—can indicate that a poster isn’t who they claim to be—or maybe not even a human. Consider the source’s credibility Sometimes a source’s own online description casts doubt on their credibility. For example, it’s quite common for employees of oil companies to post anti-EV information. And of course, employees of EV-related companies post pro-EV information, and so do EV industry journalists. Is any of this information credible? This gets complicated, doesn’t it? Go back to the primary source Where is a poster getting their information? Most don’t say, but sometimes you can find out by doing a Google search. For example, a spectacular video of a burning bus recently made the rounds of the internet, described as an EV fire. Those of us who took the time to track down the original article (in an Italian newspaper) learned that it was a natural gas-powered bus. Check the fact-checking sites Whenever I see a post that looks a little suspect, my first stop is Snopes, a site that specializes in debunking hoaxes, urban legends, doctored photos and other online shenanigans. A quick search on Snopes gives the lie to the “EV charging stations are powered by diesel generators” fantasy that regularly circulates. Or rather, to one of these fossil fuel fantasies—there are at least three other variations on this theme out there, definitively debunked by Reuters, the Austin American-Statesman and Agence France-Presse, respectively. Many news organizations have dedicated fact-checking sites, including Reuters, the Associated Press, the BBC and Agence France-Presse. The truth is out there. === Written by: Charles Morris

Public charging operators, including Tesla’s Supercharger network, charge customers in one of two ways: by the minute, or by the unit of energy (the kilowatt-hour, or kWh) consumed. Above: A look at an Electrify America charging location in Washington (Source: Electrify America)  Most agree that the per-kWh system is fairer, as it charges the customer for the energy that’s actually dispensed, and isn’t dependent on charging speed, over which the customer has no control. Per-minute pricing lives on in some areas, because of state laws that make it illegal for anyone other than a regulated utility to resell electricity, but the future trend toward kWh pricing is clear. Electrify America has been updating its pricing structure “to reflect the growing preference for kWh pricing,” and recently began charging by the kWh in Idaho, Indiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and South Carolina. EA now offers kWh pricing in 30 states and the District of Columbia. Above: A look at the 30 US states where Electrify America offers kWh pricing (Source: Electrify America) Complete pricing information is available at ElectrifyAmerica.com/pricing and on the Electrify America mobile app. “Electric vehicle owners like the transparency of kilowatt-hour pricing—letting them pay for the amount of energy used to charge their EVs,” said Robert Barrosa, Senior Director, Business Development & Marketing at Electrify America.  “We are continuing work to expand kilowatt-hour pricing to even more states.”   === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Electrify America

Islands are perfect test markets for electrification for several reasons—driving distances tend to be short, and gas prices tend to be high. The Volkswagen Group is putting this principle into practice on the Greek island of Astypalea. Source: Volkswagen The Smart & Sustainable Island project, a joint initiative of the Volkswagen Group and the Hellenic Republic, aims to bring EVs and renewable energy to Astypalea. Since the project was announced in 2020, local government agencies have deployed EVs, including an ID.4, an e-up! and a Seat MÓ eScooter 125.  Thanos Papagiannis recently became the first private EV owner on the island—his new turquoise ID.3 replaced a VW Golf. “E-mobility is a perfect match for Astypalea,” he says. “The distances here are short, the power consumption is low, and the charging network is now very well developed. I really hope that Astypalea will inspire other regions to increase their efforts for climate protection [by] adopting e-mobility solutions.” YouTube: Reuters Volkswagen’s Greek importer, Kosmocar, has joined with Astypalea authorities to launch a recycling initiative aimed at ridding the island of scrap vehicles, which have traditionally been left lying around the island to rust. The junk vehicles will be collected by volunteers, brought by ship to Athens and professionally recycled. In the next phase of the Smart & Sustainable Island project, scheduled for this summer, Volkswagen will launch all-electric ride-sharing services together with local companies. “Astypalea is a laboratory for the mobility of the future,” said Maik Stephan, Head of Business Development of Volkswagen Group and Project Manager. “The island is experiencing the same change as any other region in Europe, only in a much shorter time. With the first private customers driving electric now, word will quickly get around how fascinating e-mobility is.”  === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Volkswagen via CarBuzz

For years, we’ve been told that the limited range of EVs is a big barrier to adoption—but is it really? Certainly, range is invariably the second thing (after charging) that the EV-curious ask about, and most of us have had conversations with skeptics who have exaggerated notions of how much range they need (a friend of mine once told me he needed to be prepared to drive from Tampa to Atlanta—about 500 miles—and back in a single day).  Above: Tesla Model 3 (Source: Bram Van Oost / Unsplash) In fact, various studies have found that the majority of real-world car trips are well within the range of a typical EV. A 2016 MIT study concluded that current EVs could meet the needs of about 90 percent of drivers, at a total cost no greater than that of ICE vehicles (and remember, this was in 2016, when few EVs could muster as much as 200 miles of range). A new study for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics adds some interesting data to the debate.  The Maryland Transportation Institute analyzed “an anonymized national panel of mobile device data from multiple sources,” and found that, in 2021, 52% of all trips in the US, using all modes of transportation, were for distances of less than three miles. Some 28% of trips were for less than one mile, and just 2% were for greater than 50 miles. A trip was defined as a movement that included a stay of longer than 10 minutes at a location away from home. The trips included driving, rail, transit and air travel. “A weighting procedure expands the sample of millions of mobile devices, so the results are representative of the entire population in a nation, state, or county,” the authors write. Obviously, drivers’ use cases vary—certainly there are some drivers who do make long trips on a regular basis. However, this study’s results indicate that this is a very small subset of US drivers, so current EVs should have plenty of range for the majority of car buyers. Furthermore, considering the still-high cost of batteries, automakers may want to consider offering models with less range and lower price tags. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Sources: Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Energy.gov

As the cost of important minerals for electric vehicle battery production increases, some Tesla investors are wondering if they should be worried. Some think that an upcoming supply crunch could make EV batteries skyrocket, and maybe even cause buyers to switch back to internal combustion engine vehicles instead.  Above: A look inside a Tesla (Photo: David von Diemar / Unsplash) Commodity prices for raw materials such as nickel and cobalt are on the rise, but ballooning EV battery prices shouldn’t make Tesla investors worried, according to an op-ed from Keithen Drury at The Motley Fool. Despite the increase in prices, demand for EVs remains strong, and the cost of production of batteries for EVs has dropped over the past decade. Currently, cobalt and nickel supplies are fettered by a lack of supply, amidst ever-increasing demand for EVs. While around 70 percent of cobalt came from the concerning Democratic Republic of Congo in 2019, human rights abuses in the region have made working with the country on cobalt supply less than ideal. Nickel production has stagnated, with the world’s nickel production having peaked in 2013 at 2.6 million tonnes. Pricing for both cobalt and nickel are likely to continue rising, unless new companies enter the mining space. Tesla has talked about mining its own lithium, and CEO Elon Musk said recently that the automaker could do so if prices don’t begin to improve. Above: Analyst Philippe Houchois says Tesla investors should pay attention to EV battery supply chain trends (YouTube: CNBC International TV) In the long-term, battery margins will likely stay in the same place unless the rise in commodity prices increases more quickly than production efficiency continues to increase. Although Tesla and other EV automakers have already begun raising prices to offset the commodity pricing of batteries. The Tesla Model 3 has risen to a starting price of $48,190 from $37,190 in just one year, and until automakers can supply the market with enough EVs, the price increases aren’t likely to stop coming. As competition increases, the problem could continue to worsen. Gas prices amidst the Russian invasion of Ukraine have increased demand even further, with many buyers looking to go electric to stave off high prices at the pump. This could play to Tesla’s benefit, but may further increase demand. Still, commodity pricing for raw materials is likely to affect consumers the most, and investors can feel safe knowing that new battery technologies are on the way, and that Tesla’s high demand isn’t going anywhere — one good mark for Tesla investors in the years to come, at the very least. === Source: The Motley Fool

The recent Formula E race in Monaco was the latest in a long series of auto races to take place in the Mediterranean city-state. Stoffel Vandoorne, driving for Mercedes-EQ, won that race, but it was a historic day for another reason. Formula E chose the Monaco E-Prix as the occasion to unveil its third-generation Formula E race car: the Gen3, which will make its racing debut in Season 9 of the ABB FIA Formula E World Championship. Source: Formula E Pre-season testing will take place this winter, and seven of the Formula E racing teams—DS, Jaguar, Mahindra, Maserati, NIO, Nissan and Porsche—will race the new Gen3 in Season 9. For decades, incremental improvements in motorsport have mostly been about aerodynamics. Now software engineering is the new battleground for innovation and competition. Performance upgrades to the Gen3 will be delivered as software updates directly to the car’s operating system. The Gen3 car features a number of design, engineering and production innovations. It’s the fastest Formula E car yet, with a top speed over 322 kph (200 mph), and the most efficient formula racing car ever built. Formula E says more than 40% of the energy used in a race will be produced by regenerative braking. The Gen3 sports two powertrains—250 kW in the front, and 350 kW at the rear. Its electric motors deliver power efficiency of 95%, compared to approximately 40% for an internal combustion engine. YouTube: FIA The Gen3 can be charged at 600 kW—almost double the power of the fastest passenger car chargers—for additional energy during a race. Sustainability is at the core of Formula E’s mission, and every aspect of Gen3 production has been redesigned with sustainable racing in mind. Formula E says the Gen3 batteries are made from sustainably-sourced minerals, and the cells will be reused and recycled at end of life. The bodywork will use recycled carbon fiber from retired Gen2 cars, reducing the carbon footprint of the body production by over 10%. Natural rubber and recycled fibers will make up 26% of new Gen3 tires and all tires will be fully recycled after racing. All Gen3 suppliers will operate in line with sustainability standards such as ISO 14001. “The Gen3 represents the ambitious third age of Formula E,” said Formula E founder and Chairman Alejandro Agag. “With every generation of race car we push the boundaries of possibility in EV technology further, and the Gen3 is our most ambitious project to date. We are proud to reveal a car that has been two years in the making in the historic home of motorsport.” “Monaco is the spiritual home of motorsport and there is nowhere more fitting to unveil our Gen3 race car,” said Formula E CEO Jamie Reigle. “The Gen3 disrupts and challenges the conventions of motorsport, setting the benchmark for performance, efficiency and sustainability without compromise.” Photo Gallery  === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Formula E

Electric vehicles are quickly becoming the norm for automakers, with Tesla leading the pack for the burgeoning industry. And while the company’s EVs have made it what it is today, Elon Musk’s artificial intelligence and autonomous mobility plans may make it what it is tomorrow — which is why many investors consider Tesla the top electric vehicle stock worth owning.  Above: Tesla CEO Elon Musk (Flickr: Steve Jurvetson) Beyond Elon Musk’s leadership in the EV market, Tesla may also be worth betting on because of its exciting future, according to The Motley Fool. Tesla’s current operating margin is also more impressive than the rest of the auto industry, which positions the automaker well to leverage its position in the fast-growing EV sector. According to the International Energy Agency, EV sales made up around 9 percent of all car sales in 2021, a figure that has more than tripled since 2019. A recent report from Grand View Research expects the company’s sales to grow at about 38 percent per year through 2027, due to expected production cost dropoffs and improved battery ranges. Tesla’s 19.2-percent operating margin this year is up from the automaker’s 14.7-percent operating margin held in Q4 2021. Compared to close competitors, Tesla pays around 10 percent less on battery packs, spending around a whopping 24 percent less than the industry average, as detailed in a report from Cairn ERA. Part of Tesla’s efficiency comes from its already highly automated factories, which has allowed the company to increase vehicle production at facilities around the world. In the last year, efficiency has also led to increasing revenue, where Tesla saw revenue increase by 73 percent over the last year to $62.2 billion. Additionally, free cash flow increased by about 188 percent in the past year to around $6.9 billion. Logistically speaking, Tesla’s recent opening of both Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg and Gigafactory Austin, Texas offer the automaker another unique advantage. Tesla’s EV business can look forward to launching the Cybertruck in 2023 and its next-generation 4680 batteries throughout this year, as it currently looks to ramp up Model Y production at both plants. Above: CNBC analysts discuss the outlook for Tesla (YouTube: CNBC Television) Beyond the car business, Tesla CEO Elon Musk expects an autonomous robotaxi to hit the streets with volume production by 2024. Ark Invest, as one example of a firm that’s bullish on Tesla, expects the company’s robotaxi business to generate around $2 trillion in annual profits by 2030, piggybacking on the automaker’s Full Self-Driving which is already available. The humanoid Tesla robot “Optimus” is also expected to bolster the company’s revenue. In a statement at Tesla’s Q1 earnings call, Musk said, “Optimus ultimately will be worth more than the car business, worth more than FSD.” Whether on future endeavors or on valuation alone, Tesla remains an important stock to watch. Tesla is currently worth more than the next 14 automakers combined with a price-to-sales ratio of 19 — more similar to the valuation of a software company rather than an auto company. Where some investors consider Tesla overvalued, others see the potential for the automaker to continue to expand its dominant position in the EV race. It’s worth noting that Apple was considered overvalued before releasing the iPhone, and some doubted Amazon prior to it reaching its current $1.4 trillion valuation. === Source: The Motley Fool / CNBC Television

This week, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX (and soon-to-be owner of Twitter), Mr. Elon Reeve Musk, enjoyed an evening at the Met Gala with his supermodel mother Maye Musk. There’s no doubt, as we celebrate this Mother’s Day, that the richest man on Planet Earth loves his mom more than anything in the universe.   Source: Entertainment Tonight When asked by Entertainment Tonight how he found time to visit such a fabulous event on a work day (no less), Elon explained, “My mom wanted to come so I brought my mom, that’s the reason”. The journalist seemed impressed (and surprised) but it serves as a good reminder this Mother’s Day — be sure to send your mom some love! After all, Elon Musk, a man who is clearly busier than you are, with drama happening all across his multi-billion dollar empires, still spends quality time (in quite a high-profile way) with his mother.  “My Mom wanted to come, so I brought my Mom” — @elonmusk✨ 💛✨attending the #MetGala2022 🎥: @etnow pic.twitter.com/87pnZDfb9W — •K10•♥️🕊🇺🇦 🦊 (@Kristennetten) May 3, 2022 Twitter: Kristen Netten via Entertainment Tonight It turns out that this interview was posted, courtesy of Entertainment Tonight (ET), on the eve of the Met Gala earlier this week. ET also asked Elon Musk why he didn’t invest his money in philanthropy instead of Twitter. “Well I do a lot of things philanthropically, and my companies are intended to do good for the future of humanity,” Musk replied. “With Tesla trying to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport and energy and SpaceX [via Starlink] is providing internet to the least served people around the world,” he further added to his reply. The #Texas #GigaFactory opening was fantastic 🎉🎉 Congrats @Tesla team. @kimbal @ToscaMusk and I are so proud of you @elonmusk 🤗🤗 https://t.co/hGHi5DAh15 pic.twitter.com/oZinhmE5A4 — Maye Musk (@mayemusk) April 8, 2022 Twitter: Maye Musk Looking closely, Elon’s mother Maye Musk looked very proud (and happy) to be with her son at this gala event. Recently, she also made the trek to Austin to attend the Giga Texas opening party, Cyber Rodeo, in order to spend some quality time with her son as well. ===== Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Source: Entertainment Tonight. Revised update edited by EVANNEX.

The creators of the endless flood of anti-EV misinformation often claim to be great environmentalists—“Don’t get me wrong…” is a common beginning to their disingenuous articles and posts. In an ironic sense, there may be some truth to this, because they’re certainly believers in recycling. These anti-EV and anti-renewable energy rants rely on a standard repertoire of myths, most of which have been recirculated since modern EVs began to appear a decade ago—and most have been thoroughly debunked and/or made irrelevant by technological and business developments. Above: Tesla Model 3 (Photo by Charlie Deets on Unsplash) In a previous article, we provided links to scientific studies that have invalidated some of the most common anti-EV myths, including the idea that EVs pollute more than gas cars if their electricity comes from non-renewable sources (The Long Tailpipe), the dismissal of battery recycling, the fantasy that EV tires and brakes cause more particulate pollution, and the hoax about diesel-powered charging stations. However, there are plenty more anti-EV bugaboos out there, and they are continually recycled and reframed—we could probably write ten more articles like this one. We’ll spare you that excruciating experience, dear readers, but this week we’re going to cover one more common canard—the environmental and social problems associated with sourcing raw materials for batteries. Anti-EV diatribes (and diatribes in general) often rely on logical fallacies that are familiar to any student of journalism—strawman arguments, cherry-picking of facts, etc. One go-to fallacy for skeptics of any new technology is static thinking—the assumption that the drawbacks of a new technology are permanent. This is about as logical as arguing that you shouldn’t save money to send your toddler to college because toddlers can’t read. We saw a lot of this in the early days of the internet. For example, naysayers claimed that things like online audio and video would never work because download speeds were too slow—ignoring the fact that telecom providers were building out new bandwidth as fast as they could. Likewise, EV-haters harped on the limited range and long recharging times of early EVs (sometimes invoking these temporary limitations to hype hydrogen fuel cells). Now that 250-mile ranges and 30-minute highway charging are the norm, these arguments have become moot (but that doesn’t stop the boo-birds from posting them on a daily basis). Other objections such as insufficient public charging, higher costs, etc, will similarly be dealt with as the technology and markets mature. When it comes to battery raw materials, some of the claims of the anti-EV brigade are nonsense (lithium isn’t a fuel, and it isn’t going to become “the new oil”), but some are built around grains of truth. Extracting minerals from the earth always has impacts on local environments and communities. The big bête noire of batteries is cobalt, much of which comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a war-torn land in which child labor is common. The problems with cobalt are real, but the idea that automakers are oblivious to it is not. Fiat Chrysler (now Stellantis), BMW, Tesla and other automakers have taken steps to make sure their cobalt and other minerals come from ethical, sustainable sources. Battery suppliers are developing new sources of cobalt in Canada and Australia. Industry-wide initiatives to enforce ethical sourcing of minerals are in development, including a blockchain-based tracing system and in Europe, a “battery passport” that traces the content and carbon footprint of every battery. A European Commission proposal would require all companies to disclose the sources of their raw materials, and to use minimum shares of recycled cobalt, lithium, nickel and lead. As for the idea that the media is ignoring problems with battery supply chains (a common thread in “now it can be told” anti-EV stories), a search for “cobalt” in Charged turns up almost 200 articles dating as far back as 2012, many of them dealing with efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle Co and other problematic minerals. Also worth mentioning: cobalt is by no means a necessary component of EV batteries. On the contrary, global automakers are increasingly turning to batteries based on a lithium iron phosphate (LFP) chemistry, which uses no nickel or cobalt. There are several reasons for the shift, but the problematic provenance of these elements (China and Russia supply significant amounts of the world’s nickel) is a factor. Also worth mentioning, though the “EVs bad” crowd never does: the environmental and human damages from extracting fossil fuels are orders of magnitude greater than anything caused by the extraction of battery materials to date. The oil companies’ depredations in Nigeria, Venezuela, and many other countries are well-documented, long-standing and ongoing. It’s true that the ethical challenges of securing battery materials will grow as the EV market expands, but there’s one little difference between batteries and petroleum: sustainability is EVs’ raison d’etre, and those who design EVs and their batteries tend to be concerned about it. Many of those who profit from petroleum have amply demonstrated that they are not. === Written by: Charles Morris

Tesla has continued taking pre-orders for its next-generation Roadster, a fully electric supercar reboot of its first-ever EV. The automaker had closed the reservations for Founders Series versions in December 2021. Above: Next-gen Tesla Roadster (Source: Tesla) An interesting tidbit about the new pre-orders is that Tesla’s online reservation page only shows the amount a customer has to pay instantly ($5,000) and the remaining $45,000 in the next 10 days. The total price of a Tesla Roadster isn’t communicated anymore on Tesla’s site. Originally, the price of a Tesla Roadster was $200,000, and for a Founders Series Signature version, it was $250,000. With inflation and a worldwide chip shortage, Tesla might not want to bind themselves to a price that does not match the cost of a car being produced next year. The Founders Series in Tesla terminology refers to the cars that have a low VIN — these are the first-produced priority deliveries. They also tend to have a Founders Series badge showcased on the rear of the vehicle. Above: Next-gen Tesla Roadster prototype on display at Giga Texas during Cyber Rodeo (Source: @StargazerPlaid / Twitter / posted with permission) The latest reservations page setup by Tesla does not offer a Founders Series Tesla Roadster. This might be due to the fact that there are already enough reservations for this particular version — it’s likely “sold out” at this stage. At the recent Cyber Rodeo party, Elon Musk mentioned that Tesla will be starting next-gen Tesla Roadster production next year as well. It’s likely that Roadster production starts a little later in 2023 (following the Cybertruck) at Giga Texas. Tesla unveiled the next-gen Roadster on November 16, 2017, at the Tesla Semi unveil event. Elon Musk had promised that the Tesla Roadster will be the fastest production car ever made with a 0-60 time of 1.9 seconds. But with the launch of the Tesla Model S Plaid, this milestone has almost been achieved with a 0-60 mph time of 1.99 seconds. Above: A close-up look at the Tesla Roadster recently showcased during the Cyber Rodeo event at Giga Texas (YouTube: Cyber Owners)  So, with current technology and battery advancements, the base variant of the Tesla Roadster should be able to do even better than 1.9 seconds. However, a Tesla Roadster will also be upgradable to a 1.1-second car with the SpaceX rocket thrusters package. Without a doubt, this will likely redefine what it means to be a “supercar” forever. ===== Written by: Iqtidar Ali. An earlier version of this article was originally published by Tesla Oracle. Revised update edited by EVANNEX.

Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, a provider of data and market information on the lithium industry, predicts that global lithium-ion battery production capacity could reach over 6,000 gigawatt-hours (6 terawatt-hours) by 2030.  Above: A look at the battery pack in the floorpan of a Tesla (Source: Tesla) Automakers and battery suppliers are rushing to establish new battery manufacturing facilities around the world (thanks to Tesla, these are now invariably referred to as “gigafactories”). Total lithium-ion capacity (existing or under construction) has doubled since the beginning of 2021, following announcements of new plants by Chinese and Korean battery producers. Automakers are looking to secure local supply chains to lower costs and reduce geopolitical risks. While China still dominates global battery production, announcements of new North American and European battery cell plants are accelerating, says Benchmark. North America’s share of global battery capacity is poised to grow from the current 6% to 10% by 2026, while Europe’s capacity is on track to increase from 7% to 12%. A few of the gigafactories in the works on the three automaking continents: LG Energy Solutions plans to invest $1.4 billion to build a 11 GWh cell plant in Arizona, and Mercedes-Benz, in partnership with Envision AESC, plans to set up a 30 GWh plant in Kentucky. China’s EVE Energy has announced plans to establish its first European battery plant, with an estimated capacity of 30 GWh, in Debrecen, Hungary. EV-maker BYD plans two new cell plants in the Chinese provinces of Zhejiang and Guangxi, with combined capacity of 67 GWh. The forecast 6 TWh of annual battery capacity translates to around 109 million EVs—but that’s assuming that all the planned plants will make it to full production. Benchmark Chief Executive Simon Moores injects a dose of reality, predicting that only some 70% of the gigafactories in the current pipeline will come into production, with an average capacity utilization of 70%. Another bottleneck looms: battery capacity is currently growing at twice the speed of lithium supply. That 6 TWh of batteries would require around 5 million tons of lithium, according to Benchmark, and last year’s production amounted to around 480,000 tons of lithium carbonate equivalent. Above: All-time-high lithium prices amidst the surge in global EV sales as demand is far out-stripping supply (YouTube: Benchmark Mineral Intelligence) Tesla Senior VP for Powertrain and Energy Engineering Drew Baglino recently challenged the industry to raise its lithium game: “We need everybody to do more in the lithium space than they currently are.” === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Source: Benchmark Minerals

After entering the S&P 500 in 2020, Tesla has continued to rapidly grow. And a new report shows that the automaker could be poised to dominate the rest of the index by the end of the decade, especially with the company’s position amidst a burgeoning EV and autonomous driving industry.  Above: Mobile phone displaying the ongoing upward trajectory in Tesla’s stock price (Photo: Aidan Hancock / Unsplash) Tesla may be severely undervalued, even with shares floating around $1,000 per share, according to a report written by Worm Capital researcher Cameron Tierney and partner Eric Markowitz recently reported by Fast Company. In the report, Tierney and Markowitz posit that Tesla’s competitive edge coming from advances in artificial intelligence make it a serious contender and likely to dominate the S&P 500 by 2030. The report encapsulates a multi-year study conducted by the firm of Tesla’s various business sectors, including its cars, EV batteries, trucking, AI and more — all of which have been built up as a result of the ever-expanding EV automaker. What it found was that Tesla has uniquely sought to control its own destiny, building and reinventing its own components, tools and factories for its needs. The result has sparked a movement towards EVs by the auto industry at large, as the International Energy Agency reported EV sales more than doubling in 2021 to a total of 6.6 million worldwide. Now, the agency reports that EVs represent nearly 9 percent of the global car market, tripling in its market share from just a few years earlier. By 2030, the Edison Electric Institute predicts the U.S. will see around 22 million EVs on the road, as another example of the growing field. Above: Eric Markowitz, Worm Capital director of research, joins CNBC to discuss the company’s projections for Tesla (YouTube: CNBC Television) With Tesla so uniquely positioned amidst the industry’s infancy, Tierney and Markowitz note that the automaker is far ahead of smaller EV makers and traditional automakers alike in its technology, vertical integration of its supply chain, and its access to software and AI, as a result. “With a concurrent expanding margin profile to accompany revenue growth, we expect net income and free cash flow growth to accelerate in the coming years,” wrote the researchers in the report. Tierney and Markowitz expect Tesla’s growth to help the automaker achieve a compound annual growth rate of 50 percent by 2030, a position far beyond what other equities analysts holding Tesla predict. “Conventional Wall Street analysis consistently undervalues Tesla’s multiple business lines, its massive scale, its expanding margin profile, its leading revolution in complex manufacturing, its approach to real-world AI, its vertical integration, its software stack, and much more.” To be sure, the company’s growth has been anything but conventional, with Tesla’s unique sales model, its advanced position in EVs and AI and the continued growth of the zero-emission vehicle industry all provide a good framework for the company to succeed in years to come. === Source: Fast Company / Worm Capital / CNBC Television

As Tesla prepares for another stock split, analysts are pondering what to expect from retail investors. At the same time, many retail investors are also wondering if it’s worth upping their portion of the automaker’s shares before the stock split. Above: Tesla key card (Photo: Manny Becerra via Unsplash) Tesla’s impressive first-quarter earnings and overall valuation could trigger another surge in retail investors ahead of an upcoming stock split, according to The Motley Fool. Tesla’s growth compared to auto industry standards has the automaker valued at around 4.4 times the market capitalizations of General Motors, Ford and Volkswagen combined — and it’s growing still. In its first-quarter earnings results, Tesla posted $16.86 billion in revenue, representing an 87-percent increase year-over-year. Net operations cash flow surged by 143 percent to almost $4 billion, and the automaker produced 305,407 vehicles and delivered 310,048 total, with these figures jumping by around 69- and 68-percent, respectively. Last month, Tesla shared a question forum for investors to ask and vote on questions prior to the Q1 earnings call using the platform Say Technologies, and the top question was regarding the stock split with 6,900 upvotes. It isn’t yet clear at what ratio a stock split would occur, though it was one of many questions left unanswered on the forum. Tesla filed an 8-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission in late March, and it said it would likely seek shareholder approval to increase the authorized share capital to make room for an upcoming stock split, as reported by Benzinga ahead of the company’s Q1 earnings call. Above: Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives joins ‘Squawk Box’ to discuss Tesla’s upcoming stock split (YouTube: CNBC Television) The last time Tesla conducted a stock split was in August 2020, and the company split the shares at a ratio of five-for-one. Between the split’s announcement and the day it was completed, Tesla’s shares jumped 80 percent. Individual retail investors considering Tesla’s stock may also want to consider their own appetite for risk, because there’s no denying it’s a fairly high-risk stock. Still, while volatility for the stock may be high, many analysts are banking on big-buck benefits down the road with Tesla’s upcoming plans for Robotaxis, the Tesla robot, and the establishment of its new Gigafactories in Austin, Texas and Grünheide, Germany. Some analysts, like Ark Invest’s Cathie Wood, have staked high price targets on Tesla’s claims that it would have a functional business model surrounding the Robotaxi alone. Wood has a bullish price target of $4,600 by 2026 for Tesla, expecting around 60 percent of the company’s expected value to come from its Robotaxi business. In response to a question about the Robotaxi, Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the automaker would aim for volume production in 2024. In the response, Musk wrote, “So, I think we want to hold up on — we don’t want to jump the gun on an exciting product announcement too much. So, I think, we’ll aim to — we do a product event for robotaxi next year and get into more detail, but we are aiming for volume production in 2024.” === Sources: The Motley Fool / Say Technologies / Benzinga / CNBC Television

There are many unconventional elements of Elon Musk’s company management that have made him and Tesla what they are today. While he can sometimes be polarizing, it’s hard to deny the numbers Tesla has posted under his leadership, especially compared to the next several largest publicly-traded companies.  Above: Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk (Flickr: Steve Jurvetson) As the Twitter takeover looms, there have been questions about Musk’s ability to successfully manage a difficult-to-manage business. Looking back, Musk’s SpaceX entered the rocket industry an underdog and went on to dominate. And what about Elon’s bet on electric cars, Tesla? When compared with the next 10 largest publicly-traded companies, Tesla ranks first in growth over the past decade and over the past year, in addition to being number one in share performance over both five and 10 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Tesla’s revenue has increased 260-fold in the past decade to $53.8 billion, with sales in the past year alone increasing 71 percent. In both five and 10-year share performance, Tesla ranked first with the automaker’s stock appreciating 15- and 146-fold, respectively, to its recent stature floating around $1,000. Additionally, Tesla ranks first of the largest publicly-traded companies in employment increases, with its staff increasing five-fold since 2016. Other notable companies in the lineup include Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft and Apple — all of which have been dwarfed by Tesla, despite being old-guard tech companies that all helped usher in the digital age. The impressive sales can be attributed to a handful of factors, including Musk’s engineering focus, his strict deadlines and sales targets, and an emphasis on controlling Tesla’s supply chain in its entirety. But Ark Invest Founder and CEO Cathie Wood, notable for being right about Tesla’s stock as far back as 2014, predicted a $1 trillion valuation for the automaker before others even considered adding them to their portfolios. Now, Wood is sitting on a platform of success, largely based on Tesla, and she’s still bullish on the stock. Wood points out how Musk has implemented Tesla’s system of vertical integration, and that the company’s constant research and development efforts have let the automaker tweak its technology on an ongoing basis through software — a brand new concept for the auto industry as a whole. “Tesla’s vertical integration strategy has been critical,” said Wood. “Tesla is in control of its cars [and] can tweak and change,” unlike most automakers, where “specs are put to bed, you know, three to four years or five years prior. And they’re not going to change.” Sure, Musk and Tesla’s incremental change model has proven itself, but it’s not the only thing they’ve earned bragging rights over either. Wood also notes Tesla’s data-collecting practices through its vehicles, which she says gives the company a technological advantage compared to other automakers. “More than a million and a half cars on the road are effectively data collectors for Elon Musk,” Wood said. “No other auto manufacturer has cars equipped to send back this real-world driving data. In order to compete with Tesla, at let’s say a like-for-like price, they’ll either have to skimp on range or performance and rely on their brand, otherwise they’ll just lose money if they want to keep up with Tesla at the same price.” === Source: Bloomberg

As the world gradually shifts to electric vehicles, the auto industry is also beginning to witness the decline of the decades-old dealership model. For buyers and automakers both, companies like Tesla and Carvana are disrupting the industry’s traditional dealership approach, and there’s probably little the old guard of auto cronies can do to stand in their way. Above: Tesla Model S at a service center (Photo: Tesla Fans Schweiz / Unsplash) Tesla’s direct-to-consumer model changes the game for buyers, eliminating the long days of haggling prices at a dealership, according to an opinion piece from MarketWatch. Additionally, it removes the need for dealerships to stock 900 cars at a time on the lot, when buyers themselves prefer to buy online. Where manufacturers used to believe they relied on dealerships, the COVID-19 pandemic has also proven that to be false. As the pandemic brought on a major chip shortage, manufacturers slowed production and saw 900-car lots drop to just 50, despite the fact that sales remained strong — consumers were proving more satisfied with just a test drive before buying vehicles online. State laws in some states still prevent these direct-sales models. However, in states like Texas, Tesla must use legal loopholes to sell direct to local buyers. Other examples include Oklahoma, where Tesla has requested help opposing legislative attempts to ban direct sales, and New Mexico, where the automaker must use Native American reservation land to bypass laws against direct sales. Meanwhile, used car sales are seeing a surge across the board since dealership protection laws don’t apply to many of them. Above: Toni Sacconaghi, Bernstein senior research analyst, sees dealerships as a disadvantage for Big Auto (YouTube: CNBC Television) Still, it’s only a matter of time before the auto industry’s pre-internet dealership dreams come crashing down, with some traditional automakers already shifting to a model more like Tesla’s with the advent of EVs. For instance, Volkswagen recently launched its online sales program for its upcoming EV models ID.4 and ID.5 as detailed in a press release, and Volvo also announced plans to go online-only with sales by 2030. While the shift will be a win for the average consumer’s buying experience in eliminating dealerships, it may not necessarily be a win for the buyer’s budget — especially not at first, as the onset of EVs remains expensive prior to mass adoption. Kelley Blue Blook reports that the average price of a vehicle now tops $47,000, and with inflation at 8 percent, consumers can expect to spend a little more for vehicles for a little while before EV prices come down. Despite pricing, Tesla’s unconventional sales model is mostly positive for buyers. And the shift, however gradual it may be, will almost certainly spell the end for dealerships as we know them. === Source: MarketWatch / Tesla / Volkswagen / CNBC Television

These days, everyone we know seems to be asking us about electric vehicles. Our advice is (of course) to buy one tout de suite. Unfortunately, when we follow up with these folks, many say that the EV they wanted was unavailable, or that a look at the prices convinced them to hang onto their gas-guzzlers for now. Above: Electric vehicle sales from companies like Austin-based automaker Tesla are growing quickly (Source: EVANNEX) Is this the frustrating new reality? Now that automakers are finally getting serious about EVs, and buyers are clamoring for them, are supply chain snafus throttling the newborn EV boom in its cradle? Well, no. As is so often the case, personal anecdotes are contradicted by statistics. According to estimates from EV-volumes.com, global EV sales soared by nearly 120% in the first quarter of this year. Tesla delivered a record 310,000 EVs in the first quarter, despite the fact that the company implemented several price increases in 2021, and another in March 2022. As always, much of the action is in China—Reuters reports that Chinese automakers Nio, Xpeng and Li Auto all sold record numbers of EVs in March. Things are hot in Europe too. A recent InsideEVs headline delivered the disturbing headline that sales of plug-in vehicles in Germany were down. Oh, no! But when we clicked, we learned that plug-in vehicle registrations (pure electrics and plug-in hybrids) did indeed fall in March by 6% year-over-year, but overall new car sales dropped by 17.5%. Furthermore, it was only sales of PHEVs that fizzled—sales of battery-electric vehicles actually rose by 15%. (The top-selling EVs in Germany year-to-date are Tesla’s Model 3 and Model Y.) Above: Even with battery costs rising, electric cars are becoming increasingly attractive to car buyers (YouTube: Reuters) Other European markets posted similar gains in March. Recent world events have swept the most expert market forecasts aside like chessmen. For years, conventional wisdom has been that EV sales would take off only once battery costs reached the “magic number” of $100 per kilowatt-hour (at the pack level)—a price that would allow EVs to reach price parity with dinosaur-burners. Thanks to supply chain problems, this now seems unlikely to happen any time soon—in fact, after years of steady declines in battery costs, most experts expect them to rise this year for the first time ever. Reuters reports that the average cost at the cell level rose from $105 last year to $160 in the first quarter of 2022. Of course, as much as battery costs have ballooned, gas prices have grown more, thanks to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and that’s surely the main reason that EV sales growth is still strong. Will the party keep rolling? The answer depends on several factors. Margins in the battery industry are slim, so rising costs will be passed on to automakers, and thence to consumers. According to Reuters, the batteries used in China’s best-selling EV, the tiny Hongguang Mini, may cost as much as $1,500 more than they did last year—30% of the car’s sticker price. Higher EV prices are in the pipeline, and they could put a damper on car buyers’ electric enthusiasm. Fortunately, many industry observers expect battery costs to resume their downward march in a year or two, once the current wave of investment in raw materials, battery cell production and recycling begins to bear fruit. As for the future of petroleum prices, that depends on so many unpredictable economic and geopolitical developments, including the behavior of various powerful but irrational individuals, that we shall not even hazard a guess, educated or otherwise. === Written by: Charles Morris; Source: Reuters

As electric vehicles take hold of the larger auto market, Tesla trails vehicle sales across Europe by a somewhat narrow margin. However, the U.S. automaker’s new Gigafactory Berlin-Brandenburg could be set to change that, some say. Above: Tesla vehicles (Source: EVANNEX) Tesla could take back EV market share in Europe overall with its new Gigafactory Berlin, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. For now, it’s still just getting started, but once it ramps up production at the Grünheide, Germany facility, many believe it could give Tesla an unfair advantage in the European auto market. EVs are gaining traction across Europe, with new EV sales accounting for around one in six light vehicles sold in Europe in Q4 2021. Tesla led EV sales in Europe as early as 2019, though it has largely trailed Volkswagen and Stellantis ever since, save for a few individual countries. In 2021, Tesla held a 14-percent share of EV market sales in Europe, behind Volkswagen and Stellantis at 25- and 14.4-percent, respectively. But the recent opening of Gigafactory Berlin marks a major shift for Tesla. Where it was once shipping cars from its Gigafactory Shanghai to customers in Europe, it can now ship German-made cars directly to customers across the continent. The effect will not only increase the pressure put on other automakers in Europe (such as Volkswagen and Stellantis), but it will also increase the number of cars Tesla can deliver throughout the continent — while simultaneously freeing up Shanghai to increase output to China and neighboring countries. Prior to establishing Giga Berlin, Tesla already became the most-sold auto brand overall in Norway last year as detailed by Reuters, with overall EV sales jumping to 65 percent in the country to make them more commonly sold than gas cars. Beyond individual countries, Tesla’s Berlin facility may help the automaker reclaim the EV market in Europe, especially as other countries begin to surpass the same milestone. Volkswagen could be one of the most affected automakers in the years to come, and Chief Executive Herbert Diess has been vocal about Tesla’s growing dominance over the past few years. Diess recently noted the U.S. automaker’s significance amidst the U.S. automaker’s establishment of Giga Berlin. “Tesla for sure will be our most important competitor,” said Diess. Still, other automakers are starting to take steps to shift more quickly to an EV focus, like Volkswagen who announced plans in March to invest $2.2 billion (2 billion euros) in an EV plant in Wolfsburg, Germany, as reported by Bloomberg. Volkswagen Brand Chief Ralf Brandstaetter said the German automaker is “strengthening and sustaining the competitiveness of the main plant and giving the workforce a robust long-term perspective.” Dubbed “Trinity” by the automaker, the Wolfsburg plant is shooting for a production time of just 10 hours per vehicle, in an attempt to become more efficient like Tesla. === Sources: The Wall Street Journal / Reuters / Bloomberg

A slew of studies have found that electric vehicles produce much less pollution over their lifetimes than fossil-powered vehicles (no matter how many oil-financed social media posts claim the opposite).  Above: A look at a Model 3 at a Tesla Supercharger (Flickr: Marco Verch) However, generating the electricity to charge EVs is not emission-free, and as millions more get hooked up to the grid, smart charging to maximize efficiency will be an important part of the picture. A recent report from two environmental nonprofits, the Rocky Mountain Institute and WattTime, examined how scheduling charging for times of low emissions on the electrical grid can minimize EV emissions. According to the report, in the US today, EVs deliver about 60-68% lower emissions than ICE vehicles, on average. When those EVs are optimized with smart charging to align with the lowest emissions rates on the electricity grid, they can reduce emissions by an additional 2-8%, and even become a grid resource. Increasingly accurate real-time models of activity on the grid are facilitating interaction between electric utilities and EV owners, including commercial fleets. The researchers point out that, as more accurate models provide dynamic signals about the costs and emissions of power generation in real time, there is a significant opportunity for utilities and drivers to control EV charging according to emissions signals. This can not only reduce costs and emissions, but facilitate the transition to renewable energy. The report found two key factors that are critical to maximizing CO2 reduction: The local grid mix: The more zero-emissions generation available on a given grid, the greater the opportunity to reduce CO2 The highest possible savings found in the study were on grids with high levels of renewable generation. However, even relatively brown grids can benefit from emissions-optimized charging. Charging behavior: The report finds that EV drivers should charge using faster charging rates but over longer dwell times. The researchers listed several recommendations for utilities: When appropriate, prioritize Level 2 charging with longer dwell times. Incorporate transportation electrification into integrated resource planning, considering how EVs can be used as a flexible asset. Align electrification programs with the grid generation mix. Complement investment in new transmission lines with technology that optimizes charging around the marginal emissions rate to avoid curtailment of renewable energy generation. Continually re-evaluate time-of-use tariffs as real-time grid data becomes readily available. For example, rather than just considering rates that reflect peak and off-peak loads, adjust rates to incentivize EV charging when there is likely to be curtailment. === This article originally appeared in Charged. Author: Charles Morris. Sources: Rocky Mountain Institute, WattTime

BMW’s i3, a compact electric vehicle, was an early-mover in the battery-electric vehicle market. However, a BMW spokesperson confirmed last month that the i3 would cease production in July 2022, after an impressive nine years in world markets and over 200,000 units sold by October 2020, as reported by Hot Cars.  Above: A Tesla Model X and BMW i8 charging (Source: EVgo) The i3 was a significant success story for the early adoption of EVs, and the compact EV is set to be replaced by the BMW iX1 and a full lineup of BEVs. However, despite the success, BMW CEO Oliver Zipse warned last month of switching away from internal combustion engines too quickly, emphasizing that the market wouldn’t be going anywhere anytime soon, according to Observer.   “Combustion engine is the largest [automobile] market segment in absolute terms by far in Germany, also in Europe and worldwide. Before you simply switch off something like this within eight or ten years, you have to know what you are doing,” said Zipse in a meeting with Germany’s federal parliament, The Bundestag.  “If you try to ban this technology in Germany and Europe, but the world market is not even that far, you will lose this technology in the world market as well. That’s why we also warn against doing this too early and not giving the transformation a chance to develop with the markets. It would be harmful to simply give up a technology in which you have a global market position without need. I don’t think that would help the climate or anyone else,” Zipse added. Despite Zipse’s concerns, the move away from fossil fuel burning can’t come fast enough for the sake of the climate. Comparatively, Tesla and other BEV-only automakers such as Lucid Motors, Rivian and Polestar are helping clean up the air we all breathe. Young investors recognize these differences and are tending to favor radically different auto companies with social and environmental goals in their stock choices, especially with Tesla. Above: A look at the BMW i3 (Flickr: Jakob Harter) And yet, similar stories aren’t unheard of from legacy automakers around the industry. For example, a report last year from The New York Times exposed plugin Toyota’s quiet lobbying against EV policies in Washington D.C., in favor of its long-held hydrogen-powered vehicle dreams. The automaker’s plugin pioneering Prius wasn’t enough to stop them from opposing stricter emissions agreements worldwide, even suing some countries over fuel efficiency rules and making significant donations to U.S. Republicans in Congress who have opposed the passage of EV policies. However, when questioned on its position, Toyota emphasizes that it isn’t opposing EV adoption, despite slowing the process down, at the least. In a statement, Toyota spokesperson Eric Booth said, “We agree and embrace the fact that all-electric vehicles are the future.” Booth continued, emphasizing that Toyota thinks “too little attention is being paid to what happens between today, when 98 percent of the cars and trucks sold are powered at least in part by gasoline, and that fully electrified future.” Still, Toyota has announced plans for a wide range of upcoming EVs and is at least working to deliver them to consumers in the years to come, like many in the industry trying to support a sustainable shift to an electric market. Either way, automakers like BMW, Toyota and others have much work to do if they hope to catch up with Tesla as EVs overtake the auto industry. === Sources: Hot Cars / Observer / The New York Times