Her 1969 best-seller "the Peter principle" student named Caesare quoted in Laurence Peter and Raymond hull Latin American Innocente, the defendant, "Professor Peter, I am afraid that what I want to know by my studies will be answered." "I do not know if the world is run, by intelligent men who say Americans like you put us on, or from idiots who really mean it." After just the events of recent weeks, think I agree with most of my regular readers that the idiots are steering clear of the ship.
In March of this year, I went at the Geneva Motor Show press day, a chance gave me that up to see cars up close and personal without a struggle of the masses. While I'm generally skeptical when it comes to electric cars, I left Geneva convinced, that which was Fisker karma of the most beautiful car I had ever seen. I promised even my inner geek, I secretly one would for a test drive once that began production. The last remaining mid-October was granted hurdle to the EPO its official fuel economy rating 52 MPGe for the electric field of 32 miles and 20 MPG for gas travels with the 2.0 litre onboard generator powered by.
I was crushed. How could such terrible fuel industry something so gloriously and green review?
The answer, it seems is that when the Karma on a scale it a few hundred pounds more than a Hummer H3 and a few hundred pounds less than a Cadillac Escalade weighs. That's right folks: it's a 5,300 pounds-behemoth, developed ATVM loan guarantees in California with $ 169 million from the Department of energy. While most of the long-term economic benefits from the production of this shocking green monstrosities outsourcing to Finland, at least, that the batteries in the United States from A123 systems (AONE) the car is a $ 23 million investment in Fisker to establish a strategic partnership and the battery supply contract.
If journalists and political experts questioned the appropriateness of the loan guarantee Fisker in question, the DOE says:
"The Fisker loan consists of two parts." In the first part to the Fisker 169 million to support the Fisker Karma developed the tools, equipment and production processes for Fiskers first vehicle, the engineers. The work took place Fisker of U.S. equipment, headquartered in Irvine, California, employs 700 employees and plans to continue setting. While the vehicles even in the Fisker overseas form workshop are mounted, the funding of the Department was used only for the US operations. The money may not be, and was not spent business. "The karma is also an extensive network of hundreds of suppliers in more than a dozen States."
To use to fund specific project jobs in California, while in the long term, jobs in production in Finland is of course create the sophistry taxpayer money. The problematic questions in my mind are:
How many $100,000 Karma must sell Fisker enough profit to 169 million in DOE loan pay back to earn?
A123 must as many battery packs Fisker to sell to, if it wants to recover his 23 million US dollar investment?
Gets just as sexy and expensive the lackluster sales and margins, Motors (TSLA) has carried out from his Roadster Tesla either result even in the remotest possible?
This was clearly a range of offerings from idiots who really mean it negotiated. The most outrageous defense of the penultimate paragraph of that says was part of the DOE:
"Keep in mind that plasma TVs, mobile phones, PCs, and many other common products were fabulously expensive luxury, but quickly became a staple for middle class Americans." "These price declines would be commercial marketing as premium products not have been possible without the scale of the first."
MUMPITZ! I expect that this type of Bafflegab of EVangelicals but not from government officials.
There is no way the electric vehicles always types of cost reductions that we deliver in the information and technology revolution to experience, since the basic scientific completely different. There are to move a 2.65-ton van on the road no Moore's law of physics. There is no Moore's law for electrochemistry. It is no good fairy world production of non-ferrous metals or increase control commodity prices. But discussing science, supply chains and energy instead of rational, reasonable questions we have with the DOE's path-folding mirror
A little over three years ago I started cautioning readers that Ener1 (HEVV.PK) was a disaster in the making. My cautions got more strident when Ener1 made a substantial venture capital investment in Th!nk Motors to strengthen their strategic relationship and retain a battery supply contract that was jeopardized by Th!nk's insolvency. While some readers took my words of caution to heart, many did not. This week they learned that analyzing battery and electric vehicle companies through rose colored glasses is a great way to end up with a stock that's listed on the Pink Sheets. While I generally like to be right, I hate being this right.
I wonder how the DOE feels about that $118.5 million ARRA Battery Manufacturing Grant they gave Ener1 in August of 2009.
My graph for this week is courtesy of Lux Research and appeared in their recent report "Using Partnerships to Stay Afloat in the Electric Vehicle Storm." The graph is particularly instructive because it overlays their forecasts for the electric vehicle and lithium-ion battery markets in a single graph.
The yellow lines represent total demand for lithium-ion batteries in automotive applications through 2020 using three different oil price scenarios. The blue shaded area represents the total planned production capacity of the global lithium-ion battery industry for the same period. The inescapable conclusions are that (1) without $200 oil, growth in electric vehicle sales will be tepid at best and certainly not robust enough to justify nosebleed market capitalizations for companies like Tesla, and (2) the glut of lithium-ion battery manufacturing capacity will be a crushing burden for all but the most efficient and financially sound battery manufacturers.
While Pike Research recently reported that demonstration projects have deployed 538 MW of lithium-ion based storage on the grid, all of the facilities I've read about report power based on a 15 minute discharge. That means the demonstration projects have used about 135 MWh of batteries to date, or less than 1% of the expected annual capacity glut. While grid-based storage may have significant long-term potential, it's not a big enough short-term opportunity to make a difference.
The takeaway for investors who are willing to remove their rose colored glasses is that the industry leaders in the electric vehicle and lithium-ion battery sectors are run by imbeciles who really mean it and their companies are doomed to underperform the market for years. Molly Ringwald was Pretty in Pink, but it's an ugly color for stock listings
Little more than three years began I warns readers that Ener1 (HEVV.)(PK) was a disaster in the making. More have my notes strident, if Ener1 is a significant venture capital investments in th! NK engines to strengthen their strategic partnership and keep a battery supply contract, which was endangered by th! NK insolvency. While some readers my words of caution to heart began, many do not. They learned this week that the analysis of the battery and electric vehicle is through rose colored glasses a great way to end up with a stock that is listed in the pink sheets. While I generally may be true, I hate this right.
I wonder how the DOE on this $ 118.5 million feels ARRA battery manufacturing grant she gave Ener1 in August 2009.
My chart for this week is courtesy of Lux Research, and appeared in their recent report "using partnerships stay afloat in the electric vehicle storm." The diagram is particularly instructive because it overshadowed their predictions for the electric vehicle and lithium battery markets in a single chart.
The yellow lines represent the demand for lithium-ion batteries in automotive applications by 2020 with three different oil price scenarios. Blue shaded part represents the planned production capacity of industry of global lithium ion battery for the same period. The inevitable conclusions are (1) excluding $200 oil, electric vehicle sales are lukewarm at best and certainly not robust enough, to nosebleed market capitalization for companies like Tesla, and (2) the tide of lithium-ion battery, the production capacity is a heavy burden for all but the most efficient and to justify financially sound manufacturer battery.
During Pike research recently reported that demonstration projects, 538 have deployed MW lithium ion-based storage on the grid, all the facilities I, the report on the basis of 15 minutes discharge read about the power. This means that the demonstration projects about 135 MWh batteries to date, or less than 1% of the expected annual capacity used glut have. Grid based storage have long-term potential, is not a large enough short-term way to make a difference.
The food for investors who are ready to remove their rose-coloured glasses is that the industry leader in the electric vehicle and lithium-ion battery run by idiots who really mean it and are their businesses to damn, exceed the market for years. Molly Ringwald was pretty in pink, but it's an ugly color for has offers
0 коммент.:
Post a Comment