Depending on your needs, that has arguably already happened. While Tesla is still the "coolest" brand of car, there are better/cheaper electric cars from many non-Tesla companies already widely available today. That will not go away, even if Tesla implodes.
Also, I wonder how many would go buy a competitor EV vehicle if their Model 3 doesn't happen. Or will they go ICE ?
If it's a bankruptcy (and why would they told before that point?), whatever he deposit contract or general principles of law suggest for a going concern would be the upper limit of refunds, but the actual value would be dependent on what assets were left and what other claims were competing.
The Chevy Bolt is a clean-sheet design and is also a "skateboard".
I'd like Tesla to stick around for a while, so that the other idea also catches on - you know, the "do the right thing for a change" philosophy.
No, there are a very small handful of cheaper electric cars that may be subjectively better for some uses but worse for many others. Bolt, i3, Leaf - that's about it for mass-produced cars being bought in any volume, and the manufactureres are taking a bath on them.
GM is reportedly losing ~$7,500 for each Bolt they sell, how long do you think that would go on if Tesla were to disappear overnight?
https://insideevs.com/april-2018-plug-in-electric-vehicle-sa...
My point is, the needle is just barely starting to move toward EVs - it’s not pegged yet by any means.
But given that Nissan and Renault had EVs on the market for as long as Teslas has, I wouldn't be too concerned about the post-Tesla EV market.
I think they would sell more Bolts because without the Model 3 there would be less competition in the Bolt's price range.
Everything I've seen indicates to me that GM is very serious about this, and the German brands are also investing a lot -- the rise of electric cars is coinciding with the decline of diesel, and they are moving their money from one to the other.
The private sector has historically been the one that had sane and logical business practices minimizing risk, while government had the funding necessary to take on large, risky projects for the good of their constituents. Somehow taxes have gone further and further up while our expectations of government plummeted, and now we are looking to these single "genius" entrepreneurs to revolutionize science and technology with investor money.
I'm not a "free market trumps all" person by any means, but is this really true? Xerox PARC, GE, IBM, Ford all come to mind. Sure, still the government was involved in quite a few of these, but I wouldn't say these companies were minimizing risk by any means.
Are you kidding? Society had progressed more in the last 10 years than it has in the previous 20, with all indications the next 10 will see even more progress. We are making real progress, even excluding the great work Musk is doing in Solar/EV/Space/Boring/Hyperloop.
* We are very near peak carbon output, with the majority of the developed world very concerned.
* The United States voted for an African American president (slightly more than 10 years ago) and a female presidential candidate won the popular vote, a milestone for equality.
* Almost 50% of the world's population is connected to the internet, and can communicate directly and instantly.
* The internet moved from on our desks/laps to in our pockets and on our wrists.
* We've made major advancements in medical science, from cardiology to genetics.
* Huge social changes, from winding down the drug war to marriage equality
* Super computers have roughly the same processing speed as the human brain
* VR/AR is entering mainstream.