Connect with us

Published

3 years ago

on

Byron, UNITED STATES: The Exelon Byron Nuclear Generating Stations running at full capacity 14 May, 2007 in Byron, Illinois, is one of 17 nuclear reactors at 10 sites in three US states, is the nation’s largest operator of commercial nuclear power plants and third largest in the world. In the US, nuclear operators have focused on improving safety and efficiency at existing plants. There have been no notable US accidents since 1979 at Three Mile Island and the US reactor fleet has produced at about 90 percent of licensed capacity since 2001, up from efficiency figures of the early 1980s. Nuclear plants today produce about 20 percent of the electricity used in the US. Dozens of electrical company?s are seeking licenses for as many as 31 new nuclear power reactors in the US. AFP PHOTO/JEFF HAYNES (Photo credit should read JEFF HAYNES/AFP via Getty Images)
JEFF HAYNES | AFP | Getty Images

In September, Illinois lawmakers agreed to spend up to $694 million of taxpayer money over the next five years to keep several money-losing nuclear power plants open.

Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gas emissions, meaning it can contribute to lowering carbon emissions. But today’s nuclear plants often can’t compete on price against cheaper existing sources of energy, particularly natural gas and government-subsidized renewables.

The negotiations in Illinois are a microcosm of a larger debate taking place across the country about the role existing nuclear power plants should play in the clean energy future.

For two of the nuclear plants at stake, the operator, Exelon, had already filed paperwork with federal regulators to shut them down for financial reasons. Lawmakers agreed to pay to keep the nuclear plants open so that Illinois could meet its clean energy goals, and Exelon agreed to keep two other marginal nuclear plants in the state open as well.

The deal is a culmination of a lot of painstaking negotiations and “midwestern practicality,” according to Illinois Deputy Governor Christian Mitchell.

But not everybody agrees. Illinois gets a much larger percentage of power from nuclear than other states, and it would’ve taken a massive new investment in renewables to meet the state’s clean energy goals. In a sense, Exelon had the state over a barrel.

“This is now the second round of such subsidies that Illinois is paying out,” explained Steve Cicala, a non-resident scholar at the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, referring to a previous round included in an energy jobs bill in 2016.

“When this runs out, they’ll be doing the same ‘pay us or the plant gets it’ dance.”

The need for nuclear today

The latest battle started in Aug. 2020 when Exelon Generation announced that it would to retire two of its Illinois nuclear power plants in fall 2021. Byron was scheduled to close in September 2021 and Dresden would close in November 2021. Exelon said the plants were losing hundreds of millions of dollars, although it declined to disclose exact figures to CNBC.

“Submitting decommissioning paperwork is like a parent dangling their keys and saying ‘I’m really leaving…’ when their kid doesn’t want to put down the video game controller and get in the car,” Cicala said.

It can be hard to justify offering government subsidies to a profitable company with a market capitalization of $52 billion. Exelon in total earned $1.2 billion in GAAP profits in the third quarter of 2021 and its Exelon Generation subsidiary, which operates the plants, earned $607 million. However, as is often the case with utilities, its results can vary widely — for the first nine months of the year total, Exelon earned $1.32 billion and Exelon Generation showed a loss of $247 million, both worse than the equivalent period last year.

NEW YORK, NEW YORK – SEPTEMBER 25: Chris Crane (C) and the Exelon Corp. team attend as Exelon Corp. Rings Nasdaq Opening Bell at NASDAQ MarketSite on September 25, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Jared Siskin/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images)
Jared Siskin | Patrick McMullan | Getty Images

Exelon says it is unfair to ask it to compete in an open competitive energy market where carbon-emitting energy sources are able to emit their waste into the air for free while nuclear power plants have very strict and expensive waste management regulations to comply with.

Meanwhile, legislators were anxious to pass a comprehensive energy bill that moves the state toward 100% clean energy by 2050. The two nuclear plants at issue provided nearly 4,200 megawatts of power, while two others on the edge of viability, Braidwood and LeSalle, provided another 4,700. For reference, 1,000 megawatts of energy will power a mid-size city, according to Bill Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.”

To replace that much power with renewables would have required a tremendous amount of new wind and solar construction in the state.

The current capacity-weighted average size of a solar farm is 105 megawatts, and for wind it is 188 megawatts, Jason Ryan, spokesperson for American Clean Power, a membership organization representing the renewable industry, told CNBC.

That means the state would’ve had to construct about 85 solar farms, or more than 47 wind farms.

If the nuclear power plants were retired now, “renewables wouldn’t be ready in time to take their place,” Jack Darin, the director of the Sierra Club’s Illinois chapter, told CNBC. The environmental lobbying group does not support nuclear power as a long-term clean energy solution because of the nuclear waste that is generated, among other reasons. But Darin also suggested that building new natural gas plants would be worse in the long run.

“Once a gas plant is built, and pipelines are brought in, those are very likely to run for decades and decades and pump out carbon pollution,” he said.

Why are nuclear plants losing money?

According to nuclear advocates, plants constructed decades ago simply cannot compete on an economic basis with other forms of energy in today’s U.S. market. Ultra-cheap natural gas drove energy prices down across the board, and nuclear power plants have not been able to cut costs enough to be competitive.

“The trend that you’ve been seeing across the country of premature nuclear retirements are all entirely about economics,” according to Exelon’s Kathleen Barron, who oversees government and regulatory affairs for the company.

Exelon owns electricity generation facilities throughout the Midwest, mid-Atlantic, Northeast, Texas and California. Of those facilities, more than 85% of its output was nuclear in 2020, with natural gas making up most of the rest.

All of Exelon’s nuclear power plants in Illinois (except the Clinton nuclear plant) hook into PJM, which runs the largest electrical grid in the U.S. and operates one of the largest wholesale electricity markets in the world. Power generators bid into the wholesale marketplace and PJM accepts the mix of sources that keeps rates lowest.

“Everyone bids in, and then we accept the offers from lowest to highest until we reach the target capacity number we need to reach,” explained PJM spokesperson Jeff Shields.

PJM’s mix of energy sources has changed over the last 15 years or so, with natural gas increasing to about 40% of the total electricity and renewables increasing slightly to sit at 6%. Over the same time, coal has consistently decreased over time and now stands at 19%.

Along the way, nuclear has remained relatively constant at about 35%.

While the composite mix has changed, the wholesale electricity price has largely remained flat over the last 15 years when adjusted for inflation, PJM said.

Cicala argues the real problem isn’t the total supply of energy, but the ability to move power from the rural areas where it’s generated to high-demand areas like the city of Chicago. Today, there’s a surplus of inexpensive wind power in those rural areas — where Exelon’s nuclear plants are located — driving prices down.

“The plants would be in a much better financial situation if they could get the prices that power goes for downtown rather than downstate. Investments in high-voltage transmission could solve that problem and be done with it, rather than re-creating a crisis every few years and throwing money at it,” Cicala said.

“Ultimately this is a problem of too much supply depressing prices. The nuclear subsidies attempt to fix this problem by encouraging even more supply. It’s like thinking that one more flush is going to fix an overflowing toilet.”

UNITED STATES – DECEMBER 12: A sign marks the entrance to the Exelon Corp. Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station in Braidwood, Illinois, Tuesday, December 12, 2006. Exelon Corp., the largest U.S. owner of nuclear-fueled power plants, raised its dividend for the first time since 2004 and forecast an increase in 2007 profit as its generation unit sells power at higher prices. (Photo by Joe Tabacca/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Exelon’s Barron disagreed.

“While transmission improvements in certain areas would aid the expansion of renewable energy and improve grid reliability, they would have no meaningful impact on the underlying market and policy failures that have put nuclear operators at a competitive disadvantage,” said Barron in a statement.

“What we need are state and federal policies that recognize the carbon-free benefits of nuclear energy, much as existing policies value the environmental benefits of wind and solar.”

The arbitrator comes in

To enable a fair discussion, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency hired Synapse Energy Economics in January to complete an independent audit of Exelon’s financials.

“Everyone had a baseline of agreement — from the governor, to the legislature, to the environmental groups to our union allies — everyone agreed that we needed to keep the nuclear fleet online. The only question was, ‘What is going to be a sufficient level of support to allow them to continue to operate?'” Deputy Governor Mitchell told CNBC. “That was really where the push was.”

A redacted version of the audit is publicly available, and CNBC has reviewed a version with fewer redactions, but none of the reports contained a precise breakdown of what each plant was losing, citing proprietary business information. That’s because energy trades on a competitive marketplace, and competitors could use that information to just barely undercut Exelon.

“We see this with other utilities and merchant generators, so Exelon is not unique,” said Max Chang, a principal associate at the auditing firm. “It would be really nice to improve transparency.”

The independent audit did confirm that Exelon was losing money on the plants and recommended a $350 million state subsidy.

Exelon disagreed with the number, saying the auditor left out some of Exelon’s costs and that the report was overly optimistic about where energy prices would trend.

Synapse later admitted its projections of energy prices were off. “As it turns out, our estimates of capacity prices are too high for 2022 and 2023 and our estimates of energy prices are too low for 2021 and possibly for 2022,” Chang told CNBC.

“The $694 million was within the bounds of our analysis. The report focused on the 95th percentiles, not the maximum values.”

Consumer protection advocates agreed the final deal was necessary. “The most cost-effective way to deal with climate change is just to build on what we’ve got,” said David Kolata, the executive director of the Citizens Utility Board, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that works to protect the interests of consumers.

“It became apparent to folks that you can’t, at the end of the day, cost-effectively reach 100% clean energy if existing nuclear plants close prematurely,” Kolata told CNBC. “None of this is an argument for a blank check for Exelon or for nuclear,” he added.

Another part of the deal says that if federal money becomes available to subsidize existing nuclear fleet, then Exelon must apply for those funds and return any money due back to the Illinois taxpayers.

“That made it much easier for us to pass a bill that had this $700 million nuclear support element to it, because if the feds do act, then there’s a strong likelihood that that money will be rebated to or maybe never collected at all from the ratepayers,” said Bill Cunningham, the assistant majority leader in the Illinois Senate, who was the Democratic point person on the negotiations.

That could come into play now that the Democratic-controlled Congress has passed President Biden’s infrastructure spending plan and could be on track to pass the larger Build Back Better plan.

In the end, Exelon won by keeping the plants open, Cicala said.

While a nuclear plant may lose money at times, it’s hard to turn on and off — think of it a like a 24-hour convenience store that makes more money at 8 a.m. than it does at 4 a.m.

“Of course, given the opportunity to get subsidized by the government, the 24/7 store is going to complain about how much money they’re losing at 4 a.m.,” Cicala told CNBC. “But there’s option value to holding onto the plant if the economics aren’t working for them right now — look how quickly gas prices can change!”

Exelon CEO Chris Crane celebrated the deal in the quarterly financial report, too, calling the legislation a critical milestone.

As far as costs to consumers, the total subsidy comes down to about 80 cents a month for the average customer, according to Exelon’s Barron.

Exelon Corp.’s Dresden Generating Station nuclear power plant stands in Morris, Illinois, U.S., on Saturday, March 19, 2011.
Daniel Acker | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Unlikely bedfellows in an imperfect compromise

Although contentious, the final agreement involved some unlikely political alliances, which offers hope for similar compromises in the long-term transition to carbon-free energy.

Some environmental groups do not consider nuclear power to be clean energy because of the carbon emissions necessary to construct a plant and the toxic waste which needs to be stored long-term. But they were willing to join arms with nuclear power generators in order to meet short-term carbon-emission goals for Illinois.

Labor unions also wanted to keep the nuclear power plants open because they provide high-paying, community-sustaining jobs, pitting them against environmental advocates, who normally come from the same side of the political spectrum.

Pat Devaney, the Secretary Treasurer of the Illinois American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), told CNBC organized labor supported the bill and glad to see the nuclear power plants kept online.

“The economies of those whole regions, in regards to property tax funding for school and public safety, I mean, it would have just been decimated entire regions of our state” if the plants were to have shut down, Devaney told CNBC.

Environmentalists who wanted the plants shut down think the jobs argument is overblown.

“We dubbed that the nuclear hostage crisis,” said David A. Kraft, director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, an anti-nuclear non-profit. “What we mean by that is you know they would cry economic hardship, we’re losing money, we’re gonna close the plants. And wouldn’t that be awful — you’re going to lose all those jobs.”

Kraft does not believe the financial woes of the plants are a reason to give operators subsidies.

“Competent adults plan for their retirement. We think utilities should do the same thing,” Kraft told CNBC.

Ultimately, Illinois ended up with an imperfect compromise. But the fact that it was possible to reach a compromise in the name of reducing carbon emissions was an accomplishment.

“Even if the bill isn’t what we would write if we were kings and queens, we’ve got to move forward,” J.C. Kibby, the clean energy advocate for the National Resources Defense Council for Illinois, told CNBC.

“It was on the back of years and years of organizing and education. And that filtered up to putting elected officials in place who understood that how important that existential threat of climate change was,” said Kibby. “So as a friend of mine says, ‘You’ve just got to do the work.'”

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Environment

Kia opens EV4 orders in Korea with +330 miles range and it starts at under $30,000

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 10, 2025

By

Kia opens EV4 orders in Korea with +330 miles range and it starts at under ,000

Kia-EV4-orders-Korea

Kia’s first electric sedan, the EV4, has officially hit the market. Kia opened EV4 orders at under $30,000 (41.92 million won) in South Korea ahead of its global rollout. It even has the longest driving range of any Hyundai Motor Group EV rated with over 330 miles (533 km).

Kia EV4 orders open in Korea for under $30,000

Since debuting as a concept in October 2023, Kia’s EV4 has become one of the most highly anticipated electric vehicles.

Last month, we got our first look at the production model during Kia’s 2024 EV Day (check out our recap of the event). Kia showcased four EV4 models, two sedans and two hatchbacks.

The EV4 is part of Kia’s new “EVs for all” strategy with prices ranging from around $30,000 to upwards of $80,000. After launching the EV5 and EV3, both electric SUVs, Kia aims to corner another segment with the EV4.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Kia opened EV4 orders in Korea on Monday, starting at just 41.92 million won, or around USD $29,000. With incentives, Kia expects the actual purchase price to be around 34 million won, or roughly $23,500.

Kia-EV4-orders-Korea
Kia EV4 sedan (Source: Hyundai Motor)

Powered by a 58.3 kWh battery, the standard “Air” model is rated with up to 237 miles (382 km) driving range. The long-range EV4, starting at 46.29 million won ($31,800), gets up to 331 miles (533 km) range from an 81.4 kWh battery, the most of among Hyundai Motor Group EVs.

As Kia’s most aerodynamic vehicle yet, the EV4 has ultra low drag coefficient of just 0.23, which unlocks maximum driving range.

Trim Starting Price
Kia EV4 Standard Air 41.92 million won ($28,900)
Kia EV4 Standard Earth 46.69 million won ($32,000)
Kia EV4 Standard GT-Line 47.83 million won ($32,900)
Kia EV4 Long Range Air 46.29 million won ($31,800)
Kia EV4 Long Range Earth 51.04 million won ($35,000)
Kia EV4 Long Range GT-Line 51.04 million won ($35,900)

With a 350 kW charger, the long range EV4 can charge from 10% to 80% in around 31 minutes, while it will take about 29 with the standard model.

The EV4 is Kia’s fourth EV to arrive in Korea, following the EV6, EV9, and EV3. As its first EV in the segment, Kia claims it will “set a new standard for electric sedans.”

Kia-EV4-orders-Korea
Kia EV4 sedan (Source: Hyundai Motor)

As you can see, the EV4 has a unique sports car-like silhouette with an added roof spoiler, which Kia says is “the new look of a sedan fit for the era of electrification.”

Inside, the electric sedan is loaded with the latest software and connectivity. Kia’s new ccNC infotainment system, with dual 12.3″ driver display and navigation screens, sits at the center of an otherwise minimalistic setup.

Kia-EV4-orders-Korea
Kia EV4 sedan interior (Source: Hyundai Motor)

For the first time, it also includes a new “interior mode, “enabling you to easily change the seating and lights to maximize interior space.

Kia’s vice president and head of its domestic business, Won-Jeong Jeong, said the EV4 “will present a new direction in the domestic electric vehicle market, which has been formed around SUVs.”

Will it have the same “charm” in the US, Europe, and other markets? We will find out soon, with the EV4 rolling out globally this year. What do you think of Kia’s first electric sedan? Would you buy one for around $30,000?

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Segway’s new Ninebot Max G3 scooter brings more speed, more tech, and more everything

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 10, 2025

By

Segway’s new Ninebot Max G3 scooter brings more speed, more tech, and more everything

If you’ve ever thought, “Man, I wish my scooter was faster, smoother, and had more underglow,” then Segway has been reading your mind. The company just opened pre-orders for its new Ninebot Max G3, the latest in its Max series, and it’s packing more features than ever before.

The scooter brand has long pitched Segway’s Max series as a go-to for riders who want a solid commuter scooter that doesn’t break the bank while still offering decent range and comfort. But now, Segway seems to have cranked things up to eleven—or at least up to 28 mph (45 km/h), which is a nice jump in speed compared to the previous Max G2’s 22 mph (35 km/h) top speed.

That extra speed comes courtesy of a 2,000-watt motor, giving the G3 a 0-15 mph (25 km/h) sprint of just 2.4 seconds. Not bad for a standing scooter.

And with 50 miles (80 km) of range, Segway claims its efficiency optimization, which they call SegRange, squeezes even more miles out of each charge. If you manage to drain the 597 Wh battery in a day, you can top up in just 3.5 hours (or 2.5 hours with an optional faster charger).

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Hitting those higher speeds means stability is more important than ever, and Segway seems to be addressing that with dual hydraulic suspension on both ends, plus what they’re calling the SegRide stability enhancement system.

Fancy marketing names are one thing, but what really matters is how well this setup absorbs bumps and keeps the scooter planted at higher speeds. If it delivers, it could make for one of the smoothest rides in the category.

Traction and braking also get an upgrade, with Segway Dynamic Traction Control helping riders maintain grip and dual-piston disc brakes front and rear ensuring you can actually stop when needed. Segway has even thrown in an anti-lock braking system for a more controlled stop – something usually only seen on scooters and motorcycles. Bosch and BluBrake have both brought ABS to e-bikes, but it is quite rare in the standing electric scooter world.

Segway has been adding more tech to its scooters each year, and the Max G3 is no exception. The new 2.4-inch TFT smart display offers turn-by-turn navigation, real-time ride stats, and even notifications for incoming calls.

It also comes with AirLock autonomous unlocking, which means you can use your phone to lock and unlock it without fumbling with a key. If you’re worried about losing it, it’s Apple Find My compatible, so you can track it down when someone inevitably “borrows” it without asking.

Lighting is another area where Segway went all out. The Max G3 features a 360-degree lighting system, including an automatic headlight that’s three times brighter, underglow lighting, and turn signals that sync with that underglow lighting. Because what’s the point of having a fast, high-tech scooter if it doesn’t glow like a Fast and Furious car while you ride?

The Segway Ninebot Max G3 seems ready to take a stab at competing in the premium commuter scooter space, with performance upgrades that should make it a blast to ride while keeping it safe and comfortable. At $899.99 for the pre-order price before it jumps to $1,399.99, it could be a steal for anyone looking to upgrade their ride without venturing into ultra-premium pricing.

If you’re ready to jump on one, pre-orders are open through March 24 with promotional pricing. Deliveries are expected to begin around the end of March.

What do you think? Should we try to get our hands on one for a test ride when they roll out? Let us know in the comments section below.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

The legend of the ‘Tesla killer’ finally came true, and it’s Elon Musk

Published

2 hours ago

on

March 10, 2025

By

The legend of the 'Tesla killer' finally came true, and it's Elon Musk

The legend of the ‘Tesla killer’ is not a myth anymore. It came true, and it’s not an electric vehicle from a legacy automaker or a new EV startup; it’s Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO.

In the early days of Tesla, the media loved to use the term ‘Tesla killer’ every time a legacy automaker launched a new EV.

At the time, we scolded them for using it, as they would apply it to electric vehicles that didn’t match Tesla’s performance, production volumes, or profitability.

Sure enough, none of them came even close to negatively affecting Tesla, let alone “killing” the company.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

But things are changing now. Tesla is not growing at an insane pace like it was for a decade. In fact, it’s not growing at all anymore. Tesla’s global sales declined annually for the first time in 2024, and it is starting even worse in 2025.

It is undisputable that the increased EV competition is having an impact, but there isn’t a single EV model that can be deemed a “Tesla killer”—even though we do see a couple of Chinese EVs as having quite an impact on Tesla.

Most Tesla fans, myself included, thought that while Tesla’s market shares would go down amid more EV competition, its sales would continue to grow as EV adoption takes over the industry. That’s exactly what happened for a few years, but the trend reversed in 2024, and it’s not because of EV adoption.

Global EV sales surged by 25% in 2024, while the sales of the biggest EV automaker, Tesla, declined by 1%.

There are many reasons to explain this situation, but there’s one main culprit: Elon Musk.

Musk has been completely delusional about Tesla achieving self-driving capability for years, which led him to neglect the rest of Tesla’s automotive business as he thought that by the end of every year for the last 6 years, Tesla would be able to flip a switch and make all its vehicles self-driving – automatically increasing their value and making them infinitely more competitive than other vehicles.

How did Musk neglect Tesla’s automotive business?

The clearest example is the fact that Tesla launched a single new vehicle in the last 5 years: the Cybertruck, which proved to be a total flop.

Tesla Cybertruck

The Cybertruck launched in 2023 at a much higher price and significantly shorter range than what was promised when unveiled in 2019. With a reservation backlog at over 1 million units, Musk said that he could see Tesla eventually selling 500,000 units a year and Tesla planned for an initial production capacity of 250,000 units a year.

Now, a year and a half into production, Tesla is having issues selling the Cybertruck at 10% of its planned production capacity installed at Gigafactory Texas.

Musk also canceled Tesla’s plan to build a “~$25,000 electric car”, which would have greatly fueled demand and allowed Tesla to grow its delivery volumes. The CEO didn’t believe that the vehicle program would make sense if Tesla solved autonomy. He said in October 2024:

“I think having a regular $25,000 model is pointless. It would be silly. It would be completely at odds with what we believe.”

What Musk, and by extension Tesla, believes is that the automaker is on the verge of solving self-driving, but he has thought that to be the case every year for the last 6 years.

There’s no evidence that it is now on the verge of happening, or at least, not on the hardware that Tesla has delivered so far.

It’s clear that this crucial mistake about the timeline of self-driving has led Musk to make many mistakes about how to manage Tesla in the last few years.

For example, Tesla’s decision to remove turn signals and gear shift stalks from vehicles started with Model S and Model X in 2021. The CEO saw them as superfluous in a self-driving world, which he thought was imminent. Now, Model S and Model X sales have crashed.

Tesla brought the same design to the Model 3 with the refresh last year. Seeing the mistake years later, Tesla decided to keep the turn signal stalk with the Model Y refresh this year, and the stalk is rumored to make a comeback on the Model 3.

Perhaps the biggest mistake Musk has made about self-driving is promising that “all Tesla vehicles built since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving” to a level that would enable a robotaxi service, which in SAE self-driving terms would mean level 4-5.

Musk himself has already admitted that Tesla has been wrong about that twice: the automaker had to upgrade Tesla owners having the “2.5 Autopilot computer” to the “3.0 self-driving computer”, which Musk recently admitted will also not be able to get Tesla to self-driving capabilities.

Tesla Full Self-driving computer

He said that Tesla would “painfully” replace the computers in all vehicles of owners who purchased the “Full Self-Driving” (FSD) software package. However, we noted that Tesla is likely in more trouble than that since it promised that “all Tesla vehicles built since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving” – not just those whose owners bought the FDS package. Considering this greatly affects the resale value of those vehicles, you can make the argument that there are millions of Tesla owners out there who are owed a retrofit or compensation for Tesla’s mistake.

This is a current liability at Tesla worth billions of dollars, and there are already examples of lawsuits about this issue.

These are all management mistakes that ultimately fall on Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO.

Then, there are plenty of mistakes that Musk has made outside of Tesla that is affecting the company. The hard turn to the right, buying Twitter, boosting misinformation and Russian propaganda on the platform, financially backing Donald Trump, joining the administration and slashing critical government program indiscriminately.

Regardless of if you agree or not with Musk’s politics, these are things that you simply shouldn’t do as the face of a major consumer product company as you will undoubtedly anger a large part of your consumer base.

That’s exactly what’s happening.

There are now weekly demonstrations at Tesla stores around the world, and sales are crashing in many markets, especially in those where Musk got politically involved, like Germany, where Tesla sales are down 70% so far this year.

Musk is virtually erasing two decades of hard work to build Tesla’s brand into the world’s leading when it comes to electrification and renewable energy.

Now, for a large part of the population, Tesla is just seen as the piggybank of an out-of-touch oligarch.

Tesla is not dead yet, but if Musk continues to be the face of the company, it looks like it’s certainly going in that direction as this brand issue and declining demand is not going away.

Some of his fans cling to the idea that the automaker is about to solve self-driving, but this belief is largely based on Musk’s claims, which have been consistently wrong.

Now, it’s not to say that Tesla hasn’t made great progress on that front, but if we are to listen to the company’s own goal to be safer than humans, it means achieving “miles between critical disengagement” equivalent to human miles between collisions, which is 700,000 miles, according to NHTSA.

The latest available crowdsource data, a dataset that Musk has positively referred to twice lately, shows that Tesla is currently at about 500 miles between critical disengagement.

Electrek’s Take

While Tesla might not die under Musk, I sincerely think that, at best, it will be a fraction of what it was at its peak, which means no bigger than it is now or in 2023.

Musk’s brand is toxic and doesn’t look to be improving significantly now that he has attached himself to identity politics, culture wars, and Trump.

Looking at Tesla fans and shareholders who still support him, their main hope appears to be self-driving and robots. On the self-driving front, I think it’s delusional to believe that Tesla will solve self-driving on its current hardware.

I think it has made some great progress, which may result in Tesla achieving valuable levels of self-driving on next-generation hardware in the next few years. However, others are on the same path, and you have to balance Tesla’s effort against the giant liability it created for itself by promising it on millions of other vehicles.

As for the robots, I’m actually somewhat bullish on humanoid robots, and I do believe that Tesla has some competitive advantage on that front. However, it’s foolish to think they will simply leapfrog the competition, which is significant in the sector.

Tesla’s core business remains selling cars and batteries. There’s no doubt that the business of selling cars is not going well for Tesla right now, and under Musk, there’s no clear path to improvement. The energy business is booming, but margins are falling, and competition is increasing—especially from companies like CATL and BYD, which supply the cells that Tesla uses for its stationary batteries.

On the car side, Tesla is indeed planning to launch cheaper cars this year, but that plan was a pivot after Musk canceled the “$25,000 Tesla.” These new vehicles are expected to be built on the same platform as Model 3 and Model Y, so they will be closer to these models and cannibalize them.

I’d be surprised if they are enough to avoid Telsa from having its annual deliveries decline again this year.

I have been saying this for a while, but it’s time for Elon to go.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending