Trump’s sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/09/trumps-sweep-could-be-a-big-setback-to-tesla-and-elon-musk/

by rgbrenner • 10 years ago

86 112 10 years ago

washingtonpost.com

rgbrenner4• 10 years ago

It talks about Tesla, but I'm not really sure how much oil prices can really decline. I would be more worried about SolarCity and solar in general. Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those (and perhaps discontinuation of credits for renewable energy) would discourage new solar installations.

What would be really sad is if this policy change causes bankruptcies in renewable energy companies... it would take a while to rebuild that, even if the policies are restored later on.

hx872• 10 years ago

Natural gas would have to be really cheap in order to beat spot prices for solar on sunny days, especially in the southwest. It's still good for peaker plants though. Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable unless Congress starts taxing solar directly, since it still can't beat solar spot prices and it's categorically unprofitable to run coal plants as peakers.

JoeAltmaier4• 10 years ago

If we harvest Methane Hydrate deposits undersea and pipe them into coastal cities, then natural gas could become essentially free. That would be hard to beat.

rgbrenner4• 10 years ago

Coal, on the other hand, I don't see being profitable

I was looking up the numbers.. and was happy to see renewables cost being lower. But take a look at this 2015 report from the EIA: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo15/pdf/electricity_g...

At the time at least, "clean coal" is more expensive than solar.. but if you eliminated the carbon capture requirement (ie: "conventional coal"), it significantly reduces the price, bringing it in under solar.

There is a 2016 version of this report.. but it gets rid of the conventional coal costs, because regulation prevents plants without carbon capture from being built. http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

k8t• 10 years ago

I agree. Tesla's whole philosophy, I think, was to get people to buy their cars simply because it's a better car, not for any environmental reasons. Oil prices will affect them, but can't destroy them

chronic6l• 10 years ago

Oh, come on. A major reason people buy Tesla vehicles because they "want to do their part" for the environment.

piotrjurkiewicz4• 10 years ago

Trump says he wants to expand coal, nat gas, etc.. and cheaper prices for those would discourage new solar installations.

This is completely illogical. Increased usage of coal or gas will result in higher prices of those resources, not lower.

In addition, switching back to coal and gas as electrical power sources means lower energy costs. Lower energy costs mean lower manufacturing costs, what will finally result in lower electric car/batteries and solar panels production costs.

Lower electricity costs will also result in lower operational costs of electric cars.

_fizz_buzz_• 10 years ago

He wants to increase supply, which will lower prices.

drzaiusapelord• 10 years ago

Tesla and its customers enjoy a fair bit of subsidies. According to the LA Times that number is around $5bn. Trump has stated he wants to cut these types of subsidies and others for renewables as part of his belief that climate change is a "Chinese hoax." I think Elon has a right to worry here as his products are probably too expensive without these subsidies. Even the Model 3 is pricey without that $7,500 tax break. Probably bad news for the Lead and Bolt as well.

mikeash2• 10 years ago

The Model 3 is going to blow through those subsidies within a year of shipping. They're only available for a limited number of cars, then they go away. Tesla clearly thinks that they're viable without the tax credit.

caseysoftware• 10 years ago

Isn't getting rid of corporate welfare a good thing?

cossatot3• 10 years ago

I think the talk of expanding coal production in particular was mostly talk aimed at a segment of the electorate (although I haven't followed Trump closely enough to realize the extent to which he realizes this).

The demise of Appalachian coal was mostly due to the rise of both natural gas and Wyoming coal, as well as exhaustion of readily available resources. Though Appalachian coal is higher grade, it requires expensive and dangerous mining practices such as room and pillar mining, mountaintop removal, or more traditional practices in increasingly small and geometrically complicated seams. The coal from Wyoming is basically at the surface and can be strip mined at scale very cheaply, with lots of automation.

Unconventional oil and gas production is also at odds with coal production. As you've said, oil can't get that much cheaper, and gas is pretty similar, and has more substitution with coal. Many of the restrictions on unconventional production (i.e. fracking regulations) are done at the state level, and given the concern over recent seismicity in associated with injection of post-fracking wastewater, the states probably won't budge that much. If as pro-oil a state agency as the Oklahoma Corporation Commission (the main regulatory agency in OK) is tamping down on production processes, there is very little a Trump administration can do to shift the needle.

Similarly, we (he) won't be able to simply deregulate and re-invigorate mining. Too much of the demand is based in China, and a trade war there will simply depress prices further. Additionally, many of the resources are in states that are not overly favorable to Trump, and the state EPAs have a lot of sway, especially in a more 'states rights' environment. Rare Earths, for example, are mostly found in the US near Las Vegas but across the state line in Mountain Pass, California. And NV isn't as red as it used to be either.

Lithium production could increase, but I think the problems there are there just aren't a lot of good sources, not environmental regulations. Lithium is tied up with salts or brine (salty water) from hypersaline lakes that dried up and concentrated metals that were already especially abundant due to particular geology. Lithium mining is often just pumping salty water out of aquifers or dredging it from lakeshores. It's not like copper or gold mining/processing that involves nasties like mercury and arsenic.

Trump's policies will probably mostly involve somewhat symbolic, macroeconomically insignificant, and locally damaging exploitation of currently off-limits areas like ANWR, offshore CA and the east coast, and possibly many of the new national monuments in the West that may have uranium or other metals.

Eliminating the tax incentives for renewables is also likely, but may not yield as much permanent damage as environmental degradation; some companies may lose market share or capitalization, some may bust, but this won't turn the tide.

mbostleman2• 10 years ago

Agreed. But ironically the biggest pressure on solar now (and in the last 5 years) is price manipulation by China - something he promises to fight (though not necessarily for the sake of green tech).

_ea1k2• 10 years ago

I think that the lack of competition for consumers in the energy sector will reduce the impact on solar. I don't expect utility companies to necessarily pass along their savings (if there are any) to consumers.

f_allwein• 10 years ago

Interestingly, much the same thing happened in Germany in 2010 - a new chancellor called Merkel decided to revise her predecessor's decision to exit nuclear power. This led to massive phobic protests and upheaval among green energy companies. The decision was only revised after Fukushima, some 6 months later.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/06/germany-extend...

Steel_Phoenix• 10 years ago

The US, under Obama, has nearly doubled our oil production, largely through fracking, to the point where we are now producing more than we use, and also lifted the ban on exports. We're not in the business of trying to make oil cheaper anymore.

Fracking is an expensive way to get oil (compared to drilling), and we're near the break even price. The Saudis, who have been manipulating our politics for years by threatening to cut production to raise prices, have now started flooding the market with cheap oil in an effort to starve out both our fracking and our emerging electric car market.

Our response has been to pass a law making foreign nations liable for damages caused by their involvement in terrorism committed on US soil, and declassifying the 9-11 report, which shows enough Saudi involvement to open the door for a lawsuit. Considering how much they have in US assets, this could potentially be collected on. It's a threat. We're trying to pressure them into ending their flood of the market so prices will rise. The Saudis know it and have threatened to drop a trillion in US debt and holdings.

Say what you want about Trump's social issues, but he understands this kind of game. He's not going to expand a US product that is struggling to break even with intent to lower the sale price. He'll continue pressuring the Saudis to drop their production, oil prices will rise, and it will benefit both the US oil industry, and Elon Musk.

johansch• 10 years ago

I was really surprised by TSLA not taking a very rough and immediate hit. It took a slight hit after a while though,

toomuchtodo5• 10 years ago

Counterpoint: https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-11-09/trump-c...

tlack• 10 years ago

He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

"It should be the goal of the American people and their government to achieve energy independence as soon as possible. Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels. A thriving market system will allow consumers to determine the best sources of energy for future consumption."

From https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-president-ele...

lingben3• 10 years ago

if you have been paying attention to what he says, then you would have heard that he is incredibly against renewable energy sources, especially wind (he has a major grudge against wind farms ever since his battle with them in Scotland)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-loses-battle-to-stop-wind-...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/22/trump-re...

it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him. but his pronouncements against renewables and his penchant for "clean" coal, opening up drilling on public lands, fracking, etc. is crystal clear

flukus2• 10 years ago

it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for because it really depends on the day and time and situation since he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him.

I think it's more that he knows his audience. He isn't going to talk up renewable in coal mining areas for instance. He isn't talking to the media, he's talking around them.

artursapek• 10 years ago

he only truly cares about himself

that's one hell of a claim

hoorayimhelping• 10 years ago

it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...
he only truly cares about himself and only thinks about what will benefit him... and his penchant for "clean" coal is crystal clear

Which is it? It's hard to pin down what he stands for, or is it crystal clear?

joering2• 10 years ago

It will be very interesting to watch the country for next few years.

The biggest difference between Obama and Trump is that Obama was just working for some law firm and happened to be a senator from Illinois when his movement took off. He didn't have any strong grudges against people or companies more than me or you. Trump is different. He once purchased a property next to airport for the whole purpose of suing that airport for the noise levels. After he lost 2 times, he sold the property. This is someone that will go after you time and time just because he can shell out sometimes not his money to use court system against you. When he settles, he call it "winning", when others settle he call them "losing".

I don't see this administration having large scandals like Obama did where clearly his buddies are making billions of dollars either in solar or healthcare, etc. I think Trump will make some progress for USA with his business experience, but unless he can change 180 overnight (doubt), I'm sure we will see a few scandals where he uses his presidential position and/or government apparatus such as IRS/DEA/FBI to go after those selected few individuals/companies who he couldn't digest over the years... that I can bet on!

DefaultUserHN3• 10 years ago

...it is notoriously difficult to pin down what Trump stands for...

He was pretty clear about it. He's for wind energy, just not on his golf course.

iamcreasy• 10 years ago

Trump also said Wind farms are bad because it kills birds.

ajross2• 10 years ago

He doesn't seem totally opposed to renewable energy sources:

He has a professional climate change denier[1] being trial-ballooned to run the EPA.

I think of all the question marks about Trumps seriousness and commitment to specific policy areas (and there are lots -- the guy is a blank slate), environmental issues are the least uncertain. The guy is a straight up head-in-the-sand opponent of anything that looks or smells like it might be one of those hippie "clean" things.

[1] Literally! Myron Ebell's day job is to write papers for a conservative think tank "debunking" climate science.

rayiner• 10 years ago

Trump is bad for the environment (then again, all Presidents have been bad for the environment--nobody has the balls to do what needs to be done), but there are some bright sides. If you look at environmental harms in dollar terms, climate change isn't actually the most harmful thing: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/External_costs_of_coal.

Per kilowatt hour of coal-powered electricity, air pollution generates about three times more environmental externalities than the climate change effect. The effects of mining in Appalachia is significantly more harmful too.

Climate change is a sexy issue, but health damage from air pollutants tends to cause more actual health damage. Water pollution is a bigger issue too: http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-editorials/very.... Ideally we'd address all three, but as a practical matter no U.S. President will take more than symbolic steps towards fixing climate change anyway.

_ea1k2• 10 years ago

Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.

Of course, he has also said some stupid things that are very anti-renewable when he has been in front of audiences that wanted to hear that (some parts of his base).

Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump? We will find out in time.

linkregister• 10 years ago

Forgive me for my skepticism, but "clean" coal is now the preferred nomenclature by most coal proponents, including those who have no intention of incurring a 30% efficiency tax on coal consumers. It is as meaningful as "natural" is on a food label.

DefaultUserHN3• 10 years ago

Which Donald Trump is real Donald Trump?

The one that wants all forms of energy? Because that would make the most economic sense. Let the market compete.

dragontamer• 10 years ago

Yes, he has said things that are very pro-renewable. Even his pro-coal stance is pro "clean" coal. A "clean" requirement for coal-based energy sources will effectively make it less economically viable relative to other energy sources.

How is removing regulations from the EPA going to focus on "clean" coal? Trump is going to remove regulations.

dreta• 10 years ago

If Tesla’s not competitive, then it’s not competitive. I’m glad to see the government involvement being reduced. Let the free market handle things.

deepnotderp• 10 years ago

And yet subsidies for fossil fuels continue...

rch• 10 years ago

It's much easier to make a buck if you're not held accountable for negative externalities.

toomuchtodo5• 10 years ago

If you're not paying for the carbon externalities, the free market has failed.

codingdave2• 10 years ago

Letting the free market handle things works, IF your only goal is economic. And while that is important, there are bigger pictures to worry about. Like, preserving a habitable planet.

merc2853• 10 years ago

yes because we can undo china and india's record breaking smog and pollution. /s

cossatot3• 10 years ago

It's probably cheaper for government and taxpayers in the long run to for the govermnent to aid in the development of markets for alternative energy that can reduce the negative externalities of pollution, the international control of conventional fuel sources, and ease the transition from finite nonrenewables as supply diminishes, than to sit it out completely and deal with the aftermath.

Not many private investors invest on the >50 year timescales that energy transitions require.

Spivak• 10 years ago

Serous question, why not just fund/subsidize the research and development until it's actually competitive? Then when it's ready to bring to market give them a huge investment for the infrastructure to combat the high barrier to entry in return for something we want as a society, like say, a cap on battery costs or an open charging protocol.

Are electric cars, as they currently stand, really so environmentally friendly that it's worth the taxpayers $5-15k/car plus the infrastructure subsidies to get someone off gasoline? If that's the case then I'll happily pay it but then damn -- we should just pay people $2k/year to just not own a car.

gusgordon• 10 years ago

You clearly don't have a basic understanding of the issues here. Cars that use gas incur the additional penalty of environmental damage that is unaccounted for in the value of those vehicles relative to their cost. For example, a gas car may cost $1000, and bring $1500 of value to the owner, but incur $200 of damage to the environment. This is not priced into the value of the car. If you want to learn more you can read the first few chapters of an introductory economics textbook where they cover market failure.

vvanders• 10 years ago

I think Tesla will do okay, they've got a solid product that stands on its own.

What I'm worried about is rooftop solar tiles. One of the thing that can make it cheaper than a traditional roof is that the whole thing will qualify for solar subsidies. If that goes away it could make things incredibly difficult for Solar City.

terravion• 10 years ago

I guess it depends on whether you think that net metering is a subsidy and whose eyes are beholding the payments. Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?

eli_gottlieb• 10 years ago

Those tiles are generating electricity, why shouldn't they get paid same as large generators?

Because they haven't bribed the governor.

icebraining• 10 years ago

My understanding is that the extra complexity of the network to support a multitude of small generation points precludes most of the gains from the extra energy supply.

stcredzero• 10 years ago

I don't think that's the critical subsidy. My understanding is that with a solar roof, your whole solar freaking roofway is subject to the solar installation subsidies.

maxerickson• 10 years ago

Large generators get paid wholesale prices and have to deal directly with the market (which means they occasionally sell electricity for $0, or pay someone to take it).

There are prices below 20 per Megawatt-hour here right now http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/learning-center/price-ticker.as...

That's less than $0.02 per kw-h. As the amount of solar installed increases, that will be $0 on cooler sunny days that don't create a lot of demand for cooling.

anon1253• 10 years ago

Hey Elon, just move all your assets and manufacturing to Europe!

avmich• 10 years ago

he will roll back regulations on fossil fuels

Does it mean no more subsidizing fossil fuel companies?

pklausler• 10 years ago

On the plus side for Tesla, though, there's probably going to be fewer liberals buying cars from the Rust Belt states.

loourr3• 10 years ago

This is based on completely the wrong premise, Tesla is an unsubsidized car company. Even if the Solar City deal goes through and the value goes to $0 within a year Tesla will still be a great thriving company.

Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant), they create cars that are better and more performant then competing gasoline cars, they do it at much higher margins.

Tesla is hopping to produce about 500k cars within 2 years while the average automobile manufacture produces about 10MM cars per year. And they plan to do it at a 20-30% margin.

Even if gas prices go down by 75% they would then only match the price of fueling a Tesla, which in itself would be an incredible feat given how subsidized oil already is.

dcosson• 10 years ago

Not only is Tesla a shinning example of American manufacturing (a main Trump tenant)

Except that they use a ton of automation. I'm very curious how this will play out under Trump. Because even if he does all the things he's been talking about (pulling out of trade deals and raising tariffs) and even if it has the intended short-term effect of bringing more manufacturing back to America, there will be a lot of automation and it probably won't look very much like it did in the pre-globalization good-old days that his base wants to revert to.

What then? They'll need somewhere other than trade deals to point the blame.

loourr3• 10 years ago

That's a good point though they still employ a lot of people.

It'll be interesting when people start trying to deal with the job loss from automation. I'm not sure how you can practically restrict the use of software and robots.

botty_throwaway• 10 years ago

Sure, oil is subsidized. But it's disingenuous to claim Tesla doesn't play the regulation arbitrage game either.

Not only is demand for Tesla's cars _partially_ sustained through consumer tax rebates, but Tesla's _profitability_ has historically relied on selling ZEV credits. Both of these factors may be cut short by the changing political tides now that the [federal] executive, legislative, and (soon) judicial branches will be majority led by a party that has a rough consensus on switching priorities from the past decade or so.

I'm not trying to antagonize against Tesla specifically, nor prop up the virtues of a truly ecologically-damaging industry that plays by a similar rulebook, but anytime a company's business model relies on a certain political climate rather than _solely_ on efficiency gains through technological innovation, the door swings both ways given a long enough time scale.

Cue discussion about how innovative R&D is not possible without initial government investment, especially against already subsidized industries that don't have to factor in tremendous externalities... but that's a more politically subjective debate compared to just stating how I don't agree with the claim of Tesla being 'unsubsidized.'

loourr3• 10 years ago

Tax credits will be all exhausted by the time they release the model 3 since it applies for only so many vehicles per manufacturer.

Also the ZEV credits are being sold for less then $0.50 on the dollar if they can find a buyer at all since they don't produce polluting cars themselves (per Teslas latest earnings call) and contribute negligibly to their bottom line.

Not to say that Subsidies haven't helped to get Tesla to where they are, only to say they won't be necessary moving forward.

merc2853• 10 years ago

More typical anti-trump propaganda. Tesla is a private company. Trump supports free market and private business. He even went as far to say he wants to improve our efforts in space.

This is also from the Washington Post. The mainstream media has zero credibility at this point.

saretired2• 10 years ago

Trump received a 40-year, $120 million full tax abatement from NYC for the Grand Hyatt (Newsweek 6/17/90) . He sought a residential tax abatement for Trump Tower, an abatement designed for low- and middle-income housing (NYT, 8/6/1983), and an abatement for another luxury tower, Trump Palace, and for Trump International Hotel (NYT 7/17/94). He sought a $356 million low-interest loan from the federal government for the West Side Yards, received a $34 million tax abatement in Florida, and had the assessed value of a Las Vegas property lowered from $180 million to $8.6 million (LA Times, 5/11/2011).

merc2853• 10 years ago

please explain to me how this has anything to do with tesla

nostromo• 10 years ago

I'm shocked that a businessperson would take the tax breaks and cheap loans provided to them.

pman2000• 10 years ago

Awesome! Another reason for outrage. That's exactly what we need.

At this point, shouldn't he be trying to get the 'other' half of the country on his side instead of pissing them off further?

Trump’s sweep could be a big setback to Tesla and Elon Musk

Related Stories