Tesla Motors shares soar as sales drive higher

Story by colleague Dana Hull on the Palo Alto company with the Fremont factory (formerly known as NUMMI):

Tesla Motors followed its first profitable quarter with a second-quarter loss of $31 million, or 26 cents per share, thanks to declining revenue from the sale of zero emission vehicle credits and additional expenses related to the expansion of showrooms and Supercharging stations.

The company is now manufacturing nearly 500 cars a week at its Fremont factory, however, and delivered 5,150 cars in the second quarter, more than the 4,500 expected. Tesla’s highly volatile stock closed at $134.23, but skyrocketed in after-hours trading to $151, a jump of 12 percent.

For more, click here.

Chris DeBenedetti


  1. TESLA has installed a SuperCharger station at their factory location in Fmont. Free electricity for life for any TESLA owner. This is actually the second supercharger site in Fremont. Checkout Premier Nissan of Fremont for the first.

    The announcement about TESLA didn’t make it into TCB so I thought I’d share their announcement here.


    Giving away free stuff is always a great way to overcome customer objections. But, anyone paying attention has to also ask the question of whether or not the giveaway can be sustained over the long haul.

    Whether they pay for it or not, I also wonder where these drivers think this electricity comes from. What % of EV energy is generated in CA by nuclear, for example, or, fossil fuels?

    As increasing numbers of vehicles begin demanding increasing amounts of electricity from sources and a grid which are already claimed to be tapped out. . . . where will the new sources and infrastructure come from to service growing numbers of electricity hungry commuters?

    Under the terms of the current “giveaway” – these owners can’t be (fully) paying their own way, so, who’s picking up the tab on the investment which will be necessary to ensure the future of their alternative energy source?

    Will it be OK if we build a nuke or LNG-powered booster facility in Elon’s backyard?

    Musk is doing some very innovative stuff.

    If only he could focus his creativity on developing ways of generating more and giving away less, I might see his technologies as part of a solution, instead of contributing to a growing problem.

  2. Thanks for the post, bbox. But please note that this is NOT Fremont’s second supercharger station. It is the first in Fremont and the entire East Bay. Tesla spokespersons confirmed that for me Friday, and again this AM after I saw your post. There are other basic charger stations in Fremont, including the Premier Nissan one you mentioned. But the Premier Nissan one is not a supercharger station. Superchargers, which charge at a higher rate of kilowatts than basic charger stations, are rare — which is what made Friday’s unveiling newsworthy.

  3. The man builds state-of-the-art electric vehicles in Fremont and provides electricity to owners one the company’s dime.

    Man, I wish I had a better understanding of the “difference between REVENUE and MARGIN or PROFIT” so I could be as irritated at this as Mr Box.

  4. Gee, Marty – that one seems to have gotten under your skin just a tad bit . . . . that’s not just once, but twice you’ve reused that quote.

    Can you also say “Shadow” ???

  5. #2 – I stand corrected, Chris.

    The TESLA Supercharger is the first “free” high-capacity DC charging station in Fremont.

    There are other “free” EV charging stations in our community – but, we certainly cannot call them “Superchargers”

    The capacity of these other alternatives is less than the what you can obtain from a “Supercharger” station.

  6. Box is correct about the power grid already being overloaded. Why are we building the cars before we take care of the power problem first. This is called putting the horse before the cart.

  7. Put the horse before the cart, and a horseturd is likely all you’ll have to drive your cart, when your horse gallops away
    and into the future…

    ..with all the other solar people

    who aren’t covered in a fine patina of soot, sweaty and asthmatic, waiting in lines or shooting things dead, chronic strugglers who hate what they don’t know or can’t understand.
    The common clay of this land, who believe in God and Fly The FLag and who you can count on to complain about everything that IS WRonG and What MAKes THem MAD!
    except for:

    why the tap water they drink everyday-
    (cuz I’ll be damned if I’m going pay 4 BUCKS for a gallon of WATER!)
    – which usually always consistently and reliably tastes like 3 and 1 oil,
    has started to have an annoying hint of horseturd
    on Fridays?

  8. Hey bbox and worbly, too bad they didn’t stop Edison before he developed the light bulb. We weren’t ready for that either and look at all the trouble that caused.
    The level of absurdity that you reached by criticizing the development of the electric car, is something I only see from Fox News. Hey maybe their hiring. Their always looking for more people who get mad at something because they can’t understand it.

  9. #8 Actually, JD – you make a wonderful point – which is mine exactly.

    See – Edison did NOT *just* perfect (he did not invent) the first viable incandescent bulb. Edison delivered a total solution which included generator, distribution, AND the first viable light source.

    Unlike the EV, which is only one piece of a larger problem, Edison offered society a TOTAL SOLUTION.

    These aren’t MY thoughts – they’re the conclusions of others as well –

    “The lamp was a small component in his system of electric lighting, and no more critical to its effective functioning than the Edison Jumbo generator, the Edison main and feeder, and the parallel-distribution system.”

    —Historian Thomas P. Hughes


  10. AND – while this quote isn’t from a source nearly as credible as Hughes, it is so prophetic in the context of this discussion that I couldn’t help but include it –

    “He (Edison) saw the need to build infrastructure of what could be beyond just creation of single works of invention. He (Edison)saw the destination and knew how to build the car *and the road to get there*…unlike Tesla who was only focused variably on the road or the car…..”

    I’d provide the link but some arbitrary rule is kicking it out so – please feel free to google it – you’ll find it.

  11. This conversation started, in part, with a discussion of cart and horse. Worble mentioned it first in post #6. Coincidentally Worble is in very good company on this point as the Wall Street Journal makes precisely the same point at the conclusion of their analysis of the environmental “friendliness” of EV’s.

    See their story here –


    It would seem that if there is any absurdity in this conversation it can only be the (once again) anecdotal nonsense proffered in #8.

  12. Ok bbox, so are you arguing that Musk shouldn’t have started Tesla. Simply because some say are power grid can’t handle it. If that’s your argument ,
    then I’m correct in calling it absurd. I’m sorry if I’m
    being a bit harsh, I just haven’t heard anyone argue against electric cars before. I was gonna bring up Henry Ford, but you would find a way around that too. So strait to the point, you are clearly wrong about Musk, his company and
    electric car charging. Watch the documentary
    “Who killed the electric car” and you’ll see Ed Begley jr charge his car solely on solar panels.
    Oh, one more thing “Necessity is the mother of invention “. How’s that for anecdotal nonsense?

  13. And if Fox ain’t hiring, maybe you can get on with Chevron or BP. Cuz they’re the only ones who have a problem with electric cars.
    Oh wait, just for laughs, would Musk have to fix the grid problem by himself or would he get some help
    from the power companies who profit from selling electricity on the grid?

  14. “I just haven’t heard anyone argue against electric cars…” –

    Ummm – yeah – take it up with the Wall Street Journal and the article you apparently didn’t both to read.

    Obstinance AND ignorance – – what a delightful combination of traits.

  15. Bbox suggests we stop thinking for ourselves and give up authority over our opinions, lest we appear obstinate and ignorant. But before we do that, let’s examine the outfit behind these articles that he cites conclusively and the master who writes the message he wants to covert us to.


    NEWSCORP IS Parent company for
    Wall Street Journal and Fox news

    is a member of


    WSJ Editorial Board Member Stephen Moore has been since 2007 one of five people on ALEC’s “Board of Scholars”

    in 2009, ALEC said Moore “represents what we should expect of all journalists,” and gave him its “Warren Brookes Award” for “journalistic excellence.

    Moore is co-author of one of ALEC’s main publications, “Rich States, Poor States,” which claims to rank the performance of states in accordance with their adherence to ALEC’s ideal economic policies.
    Moore himself goes on FOX news to promote his analysis found in the “Rich States, Poor States” publication.

    In the 70’s Moore worked at the Charles Koch-created CATO institute and then the Koch-funded Heritage Foundation.

    He was the Research Director for President Reagan’s ” Commision on Privatization.

    Moore started the “Club for Growth” in 1999 which heavily promoted George W. Bush for President.

    in 2004 Moore started a new group “the Free Enterprise Fund” a non profit that lobbied to privatize social security and repeal the estate tax.

    in 2010 Moore was one of ten directors on the Board of the DONOR’S CAPITAL FUND.
    The Donor’s Capital Fund’s primary purpose is to distribute funding from billionaires and millionaires, including the Koch Brothers to right-wing groups.

    While editor, Moore has applauded and admired charles Koch on the pages of the Wall Street Journal, with editorial’s and stories he’s written himself.

    One last thing,
    before, and throughout the California energy crisis,
    The Wall Street Journal supported complete deregulation of the energy industry as the best and only solution.

    And now that we know who Bbox231 takes it up with…
    And where Bbox231 takes it up ..
    …well, I can only speak for myself,

    but I’m going to pass on that “article”, leave that gift from a long gone horse sitting in front of the cart.

    Save that link for the driver to eat,
    while he waits for someone from the CATO institute to come and push his cart.

  16. Nah – – never suggested that you stop thinking.

    Unlike Tony – I *do* suggest avoiding making any leap of faith or sweeping generalizations . . .

    So – you might search IEEE Spectrum for an article entitled “Unclean at Any Speed” which offers as well-balanced a perspective as I’ve found and references studies on both sides of the argument.

    The author does a great job of identifying the bias creep that finds its way into most of the studies to date.

    Or – you could broadly generalize – – – and NOT think for yourself – – as Tony suggests.

  17. In 2010 Iowa State University’s
    Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
    and Department of Civil, Construction & Enviornmental Engineering did a study called:

    Electric Energy and power consumption by light duty
    Plug-In Electric Vehicles

    Which they presented in June of that same year at the
    TRB Enviornment and Energy Research Conference
    in Raleigh North Carolina


    It might be hard for your “author” to find the bias in since it’s an actual study doing experiments, determining facts, and addressing the issue itself,
    but you’re welcome to try and find it creep.

  18. Why the ad hominem, Tony?

    Why do you feel compelled to draw on personality and feelings as opposed to relying solely on your facts?

  19. Anyone else feeling a sense of deja vu?

    As one proponent of nonsense sails into the sunset, another emerges.


  20. #18 – Tony – the study and presentation you referenced is a great resource but which attempts to estimate the actual energy demand (and timing of that demand) by typical EV users.

    It says nothing about the sources of energy which will be required to satisfy growing future demand. (The point of my original post)

    It does nothing to speak to the carbon footprint of EV’s. (The point of the WSJ article I ref in #12)

    It offers data re concepts of scheduling and variable rate(s).

  21. I’m pretty sure you said something about Musk ignoring the power grid that won’t be able to handle all the electric cars he’s going to throw on it, because Worble agreed:
    “Box is correct about the power grid already being overloaded. Why are we building the cars before we take care of the power problem first.”

    Unless I’m reading the charts wrong, the study is quite conclusive in showing that 10 MILLION Electric Cars
    will increase demand on the grid during peak hours by 5%.

    And where is the power going to come from?
    Unplug an appliance or two. Turn down the water heater, buy a clothesline and if you got a pool, buy a black pool cover.
    That will probably cover it for most people.
    If it doesn’t the solar panels probably will.

    Where’s the increase in pollution coming from?

  22. “Where’s the increase in pollution coming from?” –

    For starters – it’s coming from a lifetime of free electricity promised to current TESLA buyers.

    But – Its also a result of every kilowatt/hour of electricity extracted from the system for purposes of powering your car…..WHERE a lump of coal or cubic/foot of natural gas is burned to generate that electricity. That you can offset this incremental demand by conservation doesn’t mean that EV’s aren’t responsible for generating their respective share of pollution.

    If you read the WSJ article (or the studies it references) OR – if you don’t like that author – you can read the IEEE article I referenced (as well as the studies IT references) you’ll find that the TOTAL LIFETIME EMISSIONS of an EV are a modest advantage in states where fossil fuels are NOT required to generate electricity (I can think of 3 or 4 where this is true) and a modest loss against gas-powered vehicles in states where fossil fuels are the primary sources.

    In part – the mining and manufacturing of the EV battery packs, effectively put 80k miles of greenhouse gasses into the environment before the vehicle even hits the road. . . .
    The hidden dirty little secret is it’s also a contributor to its own respective share of the ongoing nuclear waste problem – where some portion of the electricity consumed is generated by such sources.

    BUT – all that said – EV’s are a part of the solution -I get that.

    My points were really two-fold, Tony – I wish Elon would put his amazing talents to work addressing the generation and distribution problems we already face AND I think the promise of free electricity for life is completely contradictory to any rational notion of conservation.

  23. So what if Musk designs a solar panel that sits on the top of the garage and can generate and store enough electricity to fully charge an EV in 5 hours?

  24. Hey Bbox, How about Traffic Jams? Electric cars or Gas cars? Would you rather be stuck in bumper to bumper traffic on the new bay bridge for an hour or more with: gas powered cars or electric cars?
    It’s a hard one for me too, because I really like the smell of exhaust.

  25. I agree with you Tony.

    Let’s populate your hypothetical bay bridge with a S***load of Tesla’s instead . . . . .and once you’re done taking in several gulps of the fresh and unscathed air, place your lips around the waste pipes at San Onofre or Diablo Canyon and suck your respective share of nuclear waste. . . . don’t worry – it’s only a very, very small proportion. . . .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *