9 ms·

I was an early investor in Tesla (I cashed out a few years ago). I believe in their mission. I wish their success. But this is hard, simultaneously telling you

I was an early investor in Tesla (I cashed out a few years ago). I believe in their mission. I wish their success. But this is hard, simultaneously telling your workforce: 1) We need to you work harder, better, and faster. 2) To help you achieve this, we will be reducing your headcount (and thus resources) by 7%. 3) By the way, if you fail, the company fails. …But keep your heads up, it's for the planet! At some point these thousands of folks that remain are going to start asking "Is it worth it?" That coupled with legitimate competition from their "entrenched" competitors, 2019 looks to be a very difficult year for Tesla. I still hope they succeed; I just hope the real, human costs are worth it.

Beltiras 8y ago
For such a harsh reality the message was well delivered.
mrpopo 8y ago
I don't believe Tesla will do any good for the planet overall. The only way we can do good is if we sell less individual cars, not more, whether electric or not. Nowhere in Tesla's vision can I see a plan for more electric buses and trains. The USA desperately need a viable train network for the 21st century.
- purple_ducks 8y ago
  It sure seems like Tesla is the foremost reason car manufacturers have started to fully acknowledge electric is the near(& medium/long term)-future and not just some check box/compliance car to satisfy "well meaning bureaucrats". Existing European/Japanese/US car manufacturers were happy enough to trundle along with existing ICE cars as it required less effort & gave better profits. They & Chinese (electric) car/bus makers are the reason our planet is going to improve - ~0 air pollution in populated areas and massive reduction in nuisance engine noises.
  - radiorental 8y ago
    The most popular selling electric car is a Nissan leaf, has been on the market for 8 years, and it costs half of a model 3 (ignoring specs)
    - joenathanone 8y ago
      I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but the top selling electric car is the Tesla Model 3. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-top-5-most-popular-cars/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-top-5-most-popular-ca... https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-becomes-1-best-selling-car-in-the-us/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-becomes-1...
      - radiorental 8y ago
        You are aware there a whole bunch of other parts of the planet? Total worldwide sales of the leaf are north of 400,000 units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf "Global sales totaled over 380,000 Leafs by December 2018, making the Leaf the world's all-time best-selling highway-capable electric car."
        mikekchar 8y ago
        I've been looking for a while: Can you furnish a link for worldwide sales of Leafs for 2018 (or at least several months). I've seen several estimates of 7K per month, which would be 84K units, but no actual figures.
        radiorental 8y ago
        Updated my parent comment. I took my numbers from wikipedia. My understanding is that Leaf sales have declined as better cars have come on the market. That said, I was providing a counterpoint to the OP's statement that Japanese manufacturers weren't doing anything, when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
- wongarsu 8y ago
  They already did good for the planet (as well as humanity). Any time somebody already planned to replace their car and chooses electric over ICE is a win for the planet. It's also a health improvement for humans living in urban environments. Tesla might not be selling that many cars, but they are the major reason why established brands like Volkswagen feel pressure to "catch up" and massively invest in new EV lineups. Once those companies have caught up in terms of technology and lineup they will massively outsell anything Tesla is capable of, helping reduce our impact on the climate and our health. Of course public transport would be even better, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
  - chrisper 8y ago
    >Any time somebody already planned to replace their car I highly doubt that the process of replacing a car does not result in a huge negative impact on the planet that has to be "paid off" over time through the gains of switching to an electric car. Basically, don't you start in the negatives when replacing a car with an electric one?
    - wongarsu 8y ago
      Cars are replaced anyways, and for climate and environment the effects over one year matter a lot less than the effects over a decade.
      - chrisper 8y ago
        Do you really think people buying a Tesla today will still drive the same car in 10 years?
        swish_bob 8y ago
        Do you think that if they'd bought a BMW, the answer would be different? People who regularly change their cars regularly change their cars ...
        8y ago
- vinay427 8y ago
  With even a glance at the public transport statement in other countries it becomes clear to me that trains and buses have minimal utility to the swaths of Americans (and Canadians, as well as possibly others) living in sparsely populated suburbs. Most homes in the suburbs and exurbs are about as accessible to a viable train or bus stop as homes in villages in a place like Switzerland, where I currently live. It simply doesn't make sense to have bus stops within a walkable distance (which is necessary for people to transition entirely to public transit) if far fewer people live around each bus stop. In a select few US cities, it works well enough, but many cities and nearly all suburbs are simply not practical cases for buses and trains without other assistive modes of transit. Electric scooters and e-bikes provide hope of fixing this last mile problem, but they're not yet universal enough. I think we should laud Tesla and other similar companies for providing a no-compromises solution that results in immediate positive effects on the environment.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - vidarh 8y ago
    Most people in America live in places with comparable density to places in Europe with good public transport. The idea that America is so sparsely populated is only sustained because of the vast areas with really low density but also low total population. California, for example, is only slightly less densely populated than France. Nevada is slightly less dense than Norway, but 2.2m of the 3m population live in the Las Vegas Valley, that makes up less than a percent of the total land area, so most of the population live in an area more than dense enough for successful public transit. There are certainly really low density areas where trains and buses have less utility, but most people don't live there, or they wouldn't have been so low density. And this is after a century of neglecting public transport. If there was more investment in public transport in the denser areas, density would likely increase further, because public transport hubs tends to drive up footfall to businesses nearby.
    - vinay427 8y ago
      I agree that density would increase with better public transit. However, this is still a chicken-and-egg problem. Anecdotally, I would claim that a lot more places in Europe with similar density have their density organized around existing city centers, plazas/squares, and other focus points, which makes public transit far more effective. The overall density may be similar (for instance, I live in a major European city and there's farmland next to me) but housing is more concentrated around specific points. Destinations such as grocery stores seem more conveniently located, at least in Switzerland, where every train station and major bus stop seems to have a selection of stores in the immediate vicinity as well as a large amount of housing centered around it, with density decreasing as one moves farther from the transit point. It doesn't seem like that's the case in the vast majority of the US. While the density of California may be similar to that of France, it seems like people occupy much more of the land. Here's an article I found that happens to illustrate what I mean, but it unfortunately only has data for a few places: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-measure-population-density/552815/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-...
- beaconstudios 8y ago
  the onus can't be on Tesla to save the world. They're doing their part, we need more companies who aim for good instead of profits. The only way incumbent companies will change is through market pressure. Tesla's doing that for cars, but who's doing it for other forms of manufacturing? And who's pressuring town and city governance to improve public transport and urban planning? There's movements springing up to improve public transit through activism (like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/05/meet-the-numtots-the-millennials-who-find-fixing-public-transit-sexy-urbanist-memes https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/05/meet-the-numt...) but companies who exist to make markets green will be essential.
- redwood 8y ago
  The US is just too low density to solve mobility problems without a mix of electric autonomous vehicles and transit
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    People moving to more dense locations would solve that.
- golergka 8y ago
  That's what Uber is working at. Seriously though - taxi prices and usability before the advent of taxi app were nowhere near the level that would allow me or my peers to regularly take a cab from home to work. Now it's trivial.
  - mrpopo 8y ago
    Indeed Uber's mission is more promising - not only taxi availability but also car pool, and push for AI driving. These are great solutions to reduce the need for individual cars in areas where public transit is not a viable solution.
- tasubotadas 8y ago
  > The only way we can do good is if we sell less individual cars, not more, whether electric or not. Obviously, you have a sound argument(s) to support your claim, right?
- tootie 8y ago
  You're not entirely wrong, but that's still a cynical point of view. Electric cars are a huge win over combustion and don't require us to rebuild the infrastructure of the entire world. Just saying "it won't save the world, so it sucks" is the wrong attitude. It's an improvement. And we're going to need a lot of improvements to add up while we work towards a moon shot solution that may not appear for 50 or 100 years.
  - foepys 8y ago
    I disagree. The power consumption of electric cars is enough to transform entire cities. If everybody drove electric right now, the current power grids would just collapse.
    - brewdad 8y ago
      With the right pricing incentives, there's still a lot of slack during lower demand periods (overnight). The grid must be able to handle peak demand during the day but after say 10pm demand falls sharply. Offer discounts on overnight electrical usage and you can smooth out demand throughout the 24 hour day. We still would need to invest in upgrading the power grid but that investment is long overdue anyway.
      - foepys 8y ago
        That's not even what I'm talking about. People will want to load their cars at the supermarket or at work. That's when power demand is very high anyways, so the grid will be under a lot of stress.
        brewdad 8y ago
        And you missed my point. If it costs $10 to charge at work and only $1 to charge at home, people will charge at home overnight. The worst electric vehicles easily go 100 miles on a charge in cold weather. The number of people doing commutes greater than 50 miles each way is statistical noise.
- ohitsdom 8y ago
  Removing the need for every household to have their own dedicated car is part of Tesla's vision. Elon has referred to self-driving functionality as a "shared electric autonomy". https://electrek.co/2018/10/25/tesla-network-elon-musk-competing-uber-self-driving-cars/ https://electrek.co/2018/10/25/tesla-network-elon-musk-compe...
  - clouddrover 8y ago
    I've tried short term car rental services where you can rent a car for a few hours. Half the time it worked well, the other half of the time it was a hassle. Some problems I had were that sometimes the car wasn't where it was supposed to be, a couple of times the car was double booked, and quite often the cars had other people's rubbish in them. One time the car was full of sand (clearly someone had been to the beach). I think in my case I'd always prefer to have my own car.
    - gaius 8y ago
      Some problems I had were that sometimes the car wasn't where it was supposed to be, a couple of times the car was double booked, and quite often the cars had other people's rubbish in them. One time the car was full of sand (clearly someone had been to the beach). These are not things that Elon will ever personally experience.
    - michaelt 8y ago
      People who advocate this line of thought imagine a density of cars so high that if a car is dirty, you reject it and a replacement is 2 minutes away; and if you need a child seat and a bike rack, a car with both fitted is only 2 minutes away, and so on. They imagine a street like [1] but with every yellow cab an instant-hire robot car. Obviously, it's difficult to square that theory with the "Public transit won't work in America as the population density is too low" line of thought so you probably have to choose one or the other. [1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-busy-street-scene-in-city-avenue-road-manhattan-new-york-city-new-1477662.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-busy-street-scene-in-city-...
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  Your comment requires readers to dive head-first into the train fantasy myth, which has been debunked numerous times. Trains will not happen in the very sparsely populated USA, from Amtrak to NYC to Cali high speed rail, we are seeing evidence that trains are extremely hard to accomplish even in high-density areas. We must move forward amazingly fast for climate change if we are to avoid trillions in damage, and we simply can not do so if we don't include massive amounts of batteries into our energy system. On cars, I agree with you, people are very irrational when it comes to cars. I'd be in favor of a massive vehicle miles traveled tax, to repair our roads and to tax emissions from transit. But the simple fact is people love being in their own car and there's no other viable option for most people. Furthermore, even if you magic a train system into existence, you still don't solve the battery/energy storage situation with trains (which will never have the will or funding or political backing to ever be built, as we are seeing over and over). Without batteries or nuclear (another two train-like near-impossible task), we'll still need natural gas peakers, and we won't solve climate change. Batteries are the only area we're moving forward, and that's why Tesla is doing amazing good for the planet.
  - tasubotadas 8y ago
    I have no idea why is this downvoted (greyed out). It seems that trains (intercity) can work in some countries (Japan for example), but in most countries these days it is more expensive to take a train than a flight (the UK, Germany for example)! And these are densely populated areas. I can only imagine how ridiculous that would be in the US which is sparsely populated. A note on peak energies is spot on as well - if it is difficult to balance a network with a varying consumption that would be even a bigger challenge when production is nondeterministic (solar, wind) as well. While I definitely support battery storage development, the truth is that fossil-based plants are going to be needed for another few decades so the operators could balance the network. For example, the recently installed battery in Australia could provide electricity to San Francisco just for 9 minutes (if I did my math correctly) which is probably not even enough time to start another plant. EDIT: 11 minutes : https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=129MWh+%2F+(5740+GWh+%2F+(24h+*+365)+ https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=129MWh+%2F+(5740+GWh+%...)
- nwah1 8y ago
  Tesla's full vision of self-driving cars that form a ridesharing network would indeed dramatically reduce the number of cars. Most cars sit around unused, taking up space. When idle time for cars drops, then demand for cars will drop. This also means we'll have much less need for parking lots, etc. Parking infrastructure consumes a huge portion of prime urban land. Curbside parking alone is sometimes estimated at 10%. Thus, it would also reduce sprawl, and thereby reduce both commute times and the amount of energy required to commute. All of those things would be eco-friendly, if we can move in that direction. Particularly once we shut down all the coal plants.
  - slededit 8y ago
    The main benefit to owning your own car is instant access. To retain that a significant portion of these cars will be sitting in parking lots just the same as if their owners had drove them. Queuing theory forms a mathematical basis for analyzing the problem. So far its been heavily analyzed and applied towards dynamic pricing models. But if you want to replace cars people need to feel confident they are going to have a ride available in a short amount of time and not be price gouged.
    - nwah1 8y ago
      Urbanization has been continuing apace, and in urban environments ridesharing apps generally can have a car at your doorstep in minutes. Sometimes as little as 1 minute. Generally not more than 7. When you factor in not needing to find parking, and no need to walk to and from your parking spot, it absolutely saves time.
- beerlord 8y ago
  The US has the largest rail network in the world [1]. Its used for freight, not passengers, which is a more sensible use since rail can more large amounts of heavy stuff cheaply. Moving a few passengers at high speed is extremely expensive, and better done by aircraft or autonomous cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran... Tesla is doing the best for planet Earth of any company on the planet. Without them we would not be seeing traditional autos move away from fossil fuel vehicles - the margins and established knowledge would have been too good to just abandon it.
newsgremlin 8y ago
The other reality for a lot of people is going to a established company that has an admirable mission, but doesn't actually take it seriously and is more for appearing like a force for good than actually doing good. Same could be argued for Tesla, but it doesn't make Tesla unique in any case. They are putting out the product they said was the change needed and they have.
scoggs 8y ago
I think I'm about to say something that might be met with displeasure but I feel like it's a question I'd like to toss around anyways: Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? I feel like 95% of what was said is implied at other places and when that's the reality but it's never spoken of it would probably create an even higher level of anxiety? Maybe the more extended life of bigger and more dug in companies offer some sort of incentives or worker's rights that alleviate some of those anxieties? I guess I feel like what's being said isn't surprising nor is it that remarkable, to me. What would be surprising or remarkable is if the message was: You don't have to work so hard, we're hiring 7% more people because we feel like it's a nice thing to do and regardless of our performance the failures of this company or the products we make will never be your (the workers) fault. I'm sure everything I just said is stupid but, even if the message from Tesla rubs people the wrong way I somehow feel like the harsh truth might just be an OK pill to swallow compared to the, "Aren't you going at least buy me dinner before you... " type message / ethos that I see and have felt in corporate environments for decades?
- lukeqsee 8y ago
  > Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? No—there's nothing wrong with it. The results might be bad, though. 2019 will be hard for Tesla and its workforce. When things are hard, people start asking the question "Is it worth it?" This could very well have been the very best way to handle the business necessity of reducing the workforce by 7%; it just might have some bad consequences that were unavoidable when the available business options are: be unprofitable or layoff workers. My comment was aimed at the realities (2019 will be hard for Tesla and employees)—not a moral comment on the action of laying off people.
  - scoggs 8y ago
    I've agreed with everything you said not only in this comment I'm replying to but also your original top level one -- it's just that it spurred the thought in my mind to ask the questions I did and say what I said. Hope it didn't come off otherwise.
cleeus 8y ago
Are Tesla employees compensated with some kind of shares?
addicted 8y ago
Having seen layoffs in my own company, and having survived them myself, what I found in our case was that as important as they were, the impact was significantly more negative than if things had continued the way they were. To put more perspective, the company was very profitable but had bad margins. The only thing the lay-off managed was a short term increase in margins, followed by years of stalled growth because immediately after the layoffs the best people quit as soon as they found another opportunity, and being the best people, they found opportunities extremely easily. I suspect the margin improvement was less than the lost profits at the older lower margins due to the stalled growth (the company had been growing rapidly before. Arguably, that’s why it became bloated). I am curious if there is a better way to right size a company after it has become more bloated than it needs to be than a blunt instrument like layoffs.
mrguyorama 8y ago
In a very cynical way, I've always loved when a company tells it's employees "Last year was our best", and then follows it up with "By the way, you're all taking a haircut"

Beltiras 8y ago

For such a harsh reality the message was well delivered.

mrpopo 8y ago

I don't believe Tesla will do any good for the planet overall. The only way we can do good is if we sell less individual cars, not more, whether electric or not. Nowhere in Tesla's vision can I see a plan for more electric buses and trains. The USA desperately need a viable train network for the 21st century.

purple_ducks 8y ago
It sure seems like Tesla is the foremost reason car manufacturers have started to fully acknowledge electric is the near(& medium/long term)-future and not just some check box/compliance car to satisfy "well meaning bureaucrats". Existing European/Japanese/US car manufacturers were happy enough to trundle along with existing ICE cars as it required less effort & gave better profits. They & Chinese (electric) car/bus makers are the reason our planet is going to improve - ~0 air pollution in populated areas and massive reduction in nuisance engine noises.
- radiorental 8y ago
  The most popular selling electric car is a Nissan leaf, has been on the market for 8 years, and it costs half of a model 3 (ignoring specs)
  - joenathanone 8y ago
    I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but the top selling electric car is the Tesla Model 3. https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-top-5-most-popular-cars/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-top-5-most-popular-ca... https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-becomes-1-best-selling-car-in-the-us/ https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-becomes-1...
    - radiorental 8y ago
      You are aware there a whole bunch of other parts of the planet? Total worldwide sales of the leaf are north of 400,000 units. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf "Global sales totaled over 380,000 Leafs by December 2018, making the Leaf the world's all-time best-selling highway-capable electric car."
      - mikekchar 8y ago
        I've been looking for a while: Can you furnish a link for worldwide sales of Leafs for 2018 (or at least several months). I've seen several estimates of 7K per month, which would be 84K units, but no actual figures.
        radiorental 8y ago
        Updated my parent comment. I took my numbers from wikipedia. My understanding is that Leaf sales have declined as better cars have come on the market. That said, I was providing a counterpoint to the OP's statement that Japanese manufacturers weren't doing anything, when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
wongarsu 8y ago
They already did good for the planet (as well as humanity). Any time somebody already planned to replace their car and chooses electric over ICE is a win for the planet. It's also a health improvement for humans living in urban environments. Tesla might not be selling that many cars, but they are the major reason why established brands like Volkswagen feel pressure to "catch up" and massively invest in new EV lineups. Once those companies have caught up in terms of technology and lineup they will massively outsell anything Tesla is capable of, helping reduce our impact on the climate and our health. Of course public transport would be even better, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
- chrisper 8y ago
  >Any time somebody already planned to replace their car I highly doubt that the process of replacing a car does not result in a huge negative impact on the planet that has to be "paid off" over time through the gains of switching to an electric car. Basically, don't you start in the negatives when replacing a car with an electric one?
  - wongarsu 8y ago
    Cars are replaced anyways, and for climate and environment the effects over one year matter a lot less than the effects over a decade.
    - chrisper 8y ago
      Do you really think people buying a Tesla today will still drive the same car in 10 years?
      - swish_bob 8y ago
        Do you think that if they'd bought a BMW, the answer would be different? People who regularly change their cars regularly change their cars ...
        8y ago
vinay427 8y ago
With even a glance at the public transport statement in other countries it becomes clear to me that trains and buses have minimal utility to the swaths of Americans (and Canadians, as well as possibly others) living in sparsely populated suburbs. Most homes in the suburbs and exurbs are about as accessible to a viable train or bus stop as homes in villages in a place like Switzerland, where I currently live. It simply doesn't make sense to have bus stops within a walkable distance (which is necessary for people to transition entirely to public transit) if far fewer people live around each bus stop. In a select few US cities, it works well enough, but many cities and nearly all suburbs are simply not practical cases for buses and trains without other assistive modes of transit. Electric scooters and e-bikes provide hope of fixing this last mile problem, but they're not yet universal enough. I think we should laud Tesla and other similar companies for providing a no-compromises solution that results in immediate positive effects on the environment.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- vidarh 8y ago
  Most people in America live in places with comparable density to places in Europe with good public transport. The idea that America is so sparsely populated is only sustained because of the vast areas with really low density but also low total population. California, for example, is only slightly less densely populated than France. Nevada is slightly less dense than Norway, but 2.2m of the 3m population live in the Las Vegas Valley, that makes up less than a percent of the total land area, so most of the population live in an area more than dense enough for successful public transit. There are certainly really low density areas where trains and buses have less utility, but most people don't live there, or they wouldn't have been so low density. And this is after a century of neglecting public transport. If there was more investment in public transport in the denser areas, density would likely increase further, because public transport hubs tends to drive up footfall to businesses nearby.
  - vinay427 8y ago
    I agree that density would increase with better public transit. However, this is still a chicken-and-egg problem. Anecdotally, I would claim that a lot more places in Europe with similar density have their density organized around existing city centers, plazas/squares, and other focus points, which makes public transit far more effective. The overall density may be similar (for instance, I live in a major European city and there's farmland next to me) but housing is more concentrated around specific points. Destinations such as grocery stores seem more conveniently located, at least in Switzerland, where every train station and major bus stop seems to have a selection of stores in the immediate vicinity as well as a large amount of housing centered around it, with density decreasing as one moves farther from the transit point. It doesn't seem like that's the case in the vast majority of the US. While the density of California may be similar to that of France, it seems like people occupy much more of the land. Here's an article I found that happens to illustrate what I mean, but it unfortunately only has data for a few places: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-measure-population-density/552815/ https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-...
beaconstudios 8y ago
the onus can't be on Tesla to save the world. They're doing their part, we need more companies who aim for good instead of profits. The only way incumbent companies will change is through market pressure. Tesla's doing that for cars, but who's doing it for other forms of manufacturing? And who's pressuring town and city governance to improve public transport and urban planning? There's movements springing up to improve public transit through activism (like https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/05/meet-the-numtots-the-millennials-who-find-fixing-public-transit-sexy-urbanist-memes https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/05/meet-the-numt...) but companies who exist to make markets green will be essential.
redwood 8y ago
The US is just too low density to solve mobility problems without a mix of electric autonomous vehicles and transit
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  People moving to more dense locations would solve that.
golergka 8y ago
That's what Uber is working at. Seriously though - taxi prices and usability before the advent of taxi app were nowhere near the level that would allow me or my peers to regularly take a cab from home to work. Now it's trivial.
- mrpopo 8y ago
  Indeed Uber's mission is more promising - not only taxi availability but also car pool, and push for AI driving. These are great solutions to reduce the need for individual cars in areas where public transit is not a viable solution.
tasubotadas 8y ago
> The only way we can do good is if we sell less individual cars, not more, whether electric or not. Obviously, you have a sound argument(s) to support your claim, right?
tootie 8y ago
You're not entirely wrong, but that's still a cynical point of view. Electric cars are a huge win over combustion and don't require us to rebuild the infrastructure of the entire world. Just saying "it won't save the world, so it sucks" is the wrong attitude. It's an improvement. And we're going to need a lot of improvements to add up while we work towards a moon shot solution that may not appear for 50 or 100 years.
- foepys 8y ago
  I disagree. The power consumption of electric cars is enough to transform entire cities. If everybody drove electric right now, the current power grids would just collapse.
  - brewdad 8y ago
    With the right pricing incentives, there's still a lot of slack during lower demand periods (overnight). The grid must be able to handle peak demand during the day but after say 10pm demand falls sharply. Offer discounts on overnight electrical usage and you can smooth out demand throughout the 24 hour day. We still would need to invest in upgrading the power grid but that investment is long overdue anyway.
    - foepys 8y ago
      That's not even what I'm talking about. People will want to load their cars at the supermarket or at work. That's when power demand is very high anyways, so the grid will be under a lot of stress.
      - brewdad 8y ago
        And you missed my point. If it costs $10 to charge at work and only $1 to charge at home, people will charge at home overnight. The worst electric vehicles easily go 100 miles on a charge in cold weather. The number of people doing commutes greater than 50 miles each way is statistical noise.
ohitsdom 8y ago
Removing the need for every household to have their own dedicated car is part of Tesla's vision. Elon has referred to self-driving functionality as a "shared electric autonomy". https://electrek.co/2018/10/25/tesla-network-elon-musk-competing-uber-self-driving-cars/ https://electrek.co/2018/10/25/tesla-network-elon-musk-compe...
- clouddrover 8y ago
  I've tried short term car rental services where you can rent a car for a few hours. Half the time it worked well, the other half of the time it was a hassle. Some problems I had were that sometimes the car wasn't where it was supposed to be, a couple of times the car was double booked, and quite often the cars had other people's rubbish in them. One time the car was full of sand (clearly someone had been to the beach). I think in my case I'd always prefer to have my own car.
  - gaius 8y ago
    Some problems I had were that sometimes the car wasn't where it was supposed to be, a couple of times the car was double booked, and quite often the cars had other people's rubbish in them. One time the car was full of sand (clearly someone had been to the beach). These are not things that Elon will ever personally experience.
  - michaelt 8y ago
    People who advocate this line of thought imagine a density of cars so high that if a car is dirty, you reject it and a replacement is 2 minutes away; and if you need a child seat and a bike rack, a car with both fitted is only 2 minutes away, and so on. They imagine a street like [1] but with every yellow cab an instant-hire robot car. Obviously, it's difficult to square that theory with the "Public transit won't work in America as the population density is too low" line of thought so you probably have to choose one or the other. [1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-busy-street-scene-in-city-avenue-road-manhattan-new-york-city-new-1477662.html https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-busy-street-scene-in-city-...
WhompingWindows 8y ago
Your comment requires readers to dive head-first into the train fantasy myth, which has been debunked numerous times. Trains will not happen in the very sparsely populated USA, from Amtrak to NYC to Cali high speed rail, we are seeing evidence that trains are extremely hard to accomplish even in high-density areas. We must move forward amazingly fast for climate change if we are to avoid trillions in damage, and we simply can not do so if we don't include massive amounts of batteries into our energy system. On cars, I agree with you, people are very irrational when it comes to cars. I'd be in favor of a massive vehicle miles traveled tax, to repair our roads and to tax emissions from transit. But the simple fact is people love being in their own car and there's no other viable option for most people. Furthermore, even if you magic a train system into existence, you still don't solve the battery/energy storage situation with trains (which will never have the will or funding or political backing to ever be built, as we are seeing over and over). Without batteries or nuclear (another two train-like near-impossible task), we'll still need natural gas peakers, and we won't solve climate change. Batteries are the only area we're moving forward, and that's why Tesla is doing amazing good for the planet.
- tasubotadas 8y ago
  I have no idea why is this downvoted (greyed out). It seems that trains (intercity) can work in some countries (Japan for example), but in most countries these days it is more expensive to take a train than a flight (the UK, Germany for example)! And these are densely populated areas. I can only imagine how ridiculous that would be in the US which is sparsely populated. A note on peak energies is spot on as well - if it is difficult to balance a network with a varying consumption that would be even a bigger challenge when production is nondeterministic (solar, wind) as well. While I definitely support battery storage development, the truth is that fossil-based plants are going to be needed for another few decades so the operators could balance the network. For example, the recently installed battery in Australia could provide electricity to San Francisco just for 9 minutes (if I did my math correctly) which is probably not even enough time to start another plant. EDIT: 11 minutes : https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=129MWh+%2F+(5740+GWh+%2F+(24h+*+365)+ https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=129MWh+%2F+(5740+GWh+%...)
nwah1 8y ago
Tesla's full vision of self-driving cars that form a ridesharing network would indeed dramatically reduce the number of cars. Most cars sit around unused, taking up space. When idle time for cars drops, then demand for cars will drop. This also means we'll have much less need for parking lots, etc. Parking infrastructure consumes a huge portion of prime urban land. Curbside parking alone is sometimes estimated at 10%. Thus, it would also reduce sprawl, and thereby reduce both commute times and the amount of energy required to commute. All of those things would be eco-friendly, if we can move in that direction. Particularly once we shut down all the coal plants.
- slededit 8y ago
  The main benefit to owning your own car is instant access. To retain that a significant portion of these cars will be sitting in parking lots just the same as if their owners had drove them. Queuing theory forms a mathematical basis for analyzing the problem. So far its been heavily analyzed and applied towards dynamic pricing models. But if you want to replace cars people need to feel confident they are going to have a ride available in a short amount of time and not be price gouged.
  - nwah1 8y ago
    Urbanization has been continuing apace, and in urban environments ridesharing apps generally can have a car at your doorstep in minutes. Sometimes as little as 1 minute. Generally not more than 7. When you factor in not needing to find parking, and no need to walk to and from your parking spot, it absolutely saves time.
beerlord 8y ago
The US has the largest rail network in the world [1]. Its used for freight, not passengers, which is a more sensible use since rail can more large amounts of heavy stuff cheaply. Moving a few passengers at high speed is extremely expensive, and better done by aircraft or autonomous cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran... Tesla is doing the best for planet Earth of any company on the planet. Without them we would not be seeing traditional autos move away from fossil fuel vehicles - the margins and established knowledge would have been too good to just abandon it.

newsgremlin 8y ago

The other reality for a lot of people is going to a established company that has an admirable mission, but doesn't actually take it seriously and is more for appearing like a force for good than actually doing good. Same could be argued for Tesla, but it doesn't make Tesla unique in any case. They are putting out the product they said was the change needed and they have.

scoggs 8y ago

I think I'm about to say something that might be met with displeasure but I feel like it's a question I'd like to toss around anyways: Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? I feel like 95% of what was said is implied at other places and when that's the reality but it's never spoken of it would probably create an even higher level of anxiety? Maybe the more extended life of bigger and more dug in companies offer some sort of incentives or worker's rights that alleviate some of those anxieties? I guess I feel like what's being said isn't surprising nor is it that remarkable, to me. What would be surprising or remarkable is if the message was: You don't have to work so hard, we're hiring 7% more people because we feel like it's a nice thing to do and regardless of our performance the failures of this company or the products we make will never be your (the workers) fault. I'm sure everything I just said is stupid but, even if the message from Tesla rubs people the wrong way I somehow feel like the harsh truth might just be an OK pill to swallow compared to the, "Aren't you going at least buy me dinner before you... " type message / ethos that I see and have felt in corporate environments for decades?

lukeqsee 8y ago
> Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? No—there's nothing wrong with it. The results might be bad, though. 2019 will be hard for Tesla and its workforce. When things are hard, people start asking the question "Is it worth it?" This could very well have been the very best way to handle the business necessity of reducing the workforce by 7%; it just might have some bad consequences that were unavoidable when the available business options are: be unprofitable or layoff workers. My comment was aimed at the realities (2019 will be hard for Tesla and employees)—not a moral comment on the action of laying off people.
- scoggs 8y ago
  I've agreed with everything you said not only in this comment I'm replying to but also your original top level one -- it's just that it spurred the thought in my mind to ask the questions I did and say what I said. Hope it didn't come off otherwise.

cleeus 8y ago

Are Tesla employees compensated with some kind of shares?

addicted 8y ago

Having seen layoffs in my own company, and having survived them myself, what I found in our case was that as important as they were, the impact was significantly more negative than if things had continued the way they were. To put more perspective, the company was very profitable but had bad margins. The only thing the lay-off managed was a short term increase in margins, followed by years of stalled growth because immediately after the layoffs the best people quit as soon as they found another opportunity, and being the best people, they found opportunities extremely easily. I suspect the margin improvement was less than the lost profits at the older lower margins due to the stalled growth (the company had been growing rapidly before. Arguably, that’s why it became bloated). I am curious if there is a better way to right size a company after it has become more bloated than it needs to be than a blunt instrument like layoffs.

mrguyorama 8y ago

In a very cynical way, I've always loved when a company tells it's employees "Last year was our best", and then follows it up with "By the way, you're all taking a haircut"