Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

2017 Investor Roundtable:General Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You know the more I think about it, Tesla could do this in a way that would be very profitable for Tesla. It would require Tesla to basically become the new utility of PR. As long as people are going to live there, they will need power and Tesla can sell them electricity at 20c/KWh on average then they can make this happen and be very profitable. The first step is to send tons of batteries and panels and deploy them all over the island. Several large installs that are spaced out throughout the country. Run lines under ground to further distributed areas and put battery packs. Then work with citizens to buy solar for their homes that connect to the distributed power packs. Not all will so the larger microgrid setups, a dozen or so Kauai sized installs spaced around the island will be the main source for power and the power packs will be for local load balancing near the main transformers.

Telsa could make power at 5c or at worst 10c per KWh and sell it for a decent markup and people on the island would still save money and have a much more reliable grid. Because they would be a captive audience, the financing for the build out would be easy and would not be tied to the government of PR. Ofcourse the next step would be to convert all the cars to EVs so Tesla could offer special EV rates and install software to use the cars to help support the grid by taking power at peak solar times and stressing the power packs less.

Edit: Ok.. Kauai population is 65K, and PR is 3.4M so they would probably need something much much larger and way more of them. That being said, 3.4 million people paying 20c/KWh is ~$10M/Day at 15KWh per day per person.

Ties up too much capital. The return on capital is ~10-15% to provide all that hardware, while they've been getting better than 50% on all those factory build-outs (SWAG, but shouldn't be too far off)
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValueAnalyst
Thank you for this explanation and guidance; this was extremely helpful for me. Could you also please explain how you converted 20 TWh/year to 2.3 GW? One would have to make an assumption(s) in that calculation, right?

Also looking beyond the humanitarian crisis once that is resolved: if industrial power is over 18c/kWh, couldn't Tesla charge 17c/kWh instead of the 12c/kWh included in your example, and invest the additional cash flow into more Gigafactories?
I think Tesla needs to charge about 14 cents a KWh to make a return that would fund a bond offering. This would be about 7%, which might not be enough based on PR credit history. I think 15 cents would provide an 8 to 8.5% return. The key is if someone could underwrite a bond offering, will the existing utility declare bankruptcy and what government agencies and cooperation is required? I think they would need to partner with several solar cell producers and get Samsung onboard to crank out some of the batteries.
 
delayed.png


Elon Musk on Twitter
 
Lessmog got you covered on the first question. Regarding the second, Tesla Energy and others are competing for commercial and industrial customers. So they could structure this as a PPA for whatever rate is competitive. Here the utility is not competitive at 18c/kWh. So they should be losing this business to anyone else that can set up onsite power for such ratepayers. So TE can play in this market without being a utility.

The thing that inhibits ratepayers from building out their own power solutions is the unwillingness of a utility to pay for surplus power that a customer may generate. If a customer knows they can always sell surplus at a certain price, then it reduces the financial risk of investing in the power system. So feed-in tariffs for surplus power is a very contentious issue for utilities and would-be prosumers. This is why I am proposing a micro market solution to basically put a market price on power that participants generate. An industrial may need to use a lot of natural gas for heat, but in a combined heat and power system, they can generate power in turbine and use the exhaust as heat. This is really efficient. But if the CHP produces more power than the industrial plant needs, then they need a market to sell that into. So imagine how the PR economy could perk up if manufactures could get a good deal on selling the power from a CHP system. It cuts their net cost, and it provide power at low capital cost to the utility, which reduces rates for ratepayers. So the whole local economy can benefit through trading power. In my view, this is what utilities should be doing. They should get out of the generation business and focus on enabling local power trading. This would be an asset-lite utility. It's basically Uber for electricity. But the utility laws are not set up this way! That's the barrier.
I think (as strictly an amateur and consumer) that this is the line Sweden has taken, splitting the few big utilities into 1) power generation, 2) power transfer and 3) power selling. There are now many companies and former local utilities competing for customer money, to an extent where it's actually foolish to stay with one supplier after the alluring low price no longer applies (usually one year) and there are businesses (i.a. Elskling) doing nothing else than comparing prices. Of course, this will not last forever, but I know my daughter picks up a new contract periodically, and her prior supplier can't match the low marketing price. Suppliers buy power on the spot market, and the consumer gets two bills, one from the owner of the power lines. And of course it's all taxed, plus sales taxed.
 
Sure, but the load isn't spread evenly out across the days so while the average capacity may need to be 2.3GW, you would likely need significantly more to handle peak loads.
Actually, this is how I computed average consumption from annual consumption. I could not find what their max capacity was. In terms of sizing microgrids for island mode something a bit higher than average load would be prudent, hence 3 GW. This is all just back of the envelop.

Perfect. I just wanted to know the assumption(s) involved. This is very helpful.
 
OK, I have a new favorite analyst: Romit Shah (Nomura):

my words but his sentiment:

Bloomberg: GM says they will bury Tesla

RS: Talk is cheap

Nomura's Shah Responds to Tesla Bears: Talk Is Cheap

From my perspective, GM could not burry their grandmother let alone Tesla. I have watched auto makers and their management styles forever ~ you know since the gal driving a pink Cadalac she bought it on food stamps. Or, maybe it was the unknown owner complaint because the human robot on the assembly line left a coke bottle in door.

It is hard to lend credibility to a company where the President had to relieve (fire) the CEO for incompetence. Apparently the governing board should have been tossed too. Shall we talk about government bailouts/subsidies and GM or is this not the time:eek: GM is my least favorite auto manufacturer. The only US made car we ever bought new, if you want to call it US made, was a Saturn ~ I will save you the negative language I want to use, but. . . :mad: That was the only US auto, we ever bought new together, or since 1973. We have owned over twenty cars, of which 75% were new, and Tesla is not included in these numbers. My wife likes new cars, what can I say:rolleyes: While never is a very very long time, I will never ever buy a GM product again. Only thirty years plus or minus left on my physical body contract, depending on who likes me or not.:cool:

While I have a low opinion on the citizens for failing to stand up against oppression; I truly believe that as people get their hands on a Tesla M3, an MY or . . . They will be like me ~ I will probably without question never, ever buy anything but a Tesla:D Tesla would have to make a 180 degree turn in management style and quality product for me to change my opinion of them. If you think turnover in management is just cause, think again.

If GM had ever invested in quality as opposed to a quick dollar, maybe the things I've mentioned and experienced would not have formed this opinion. But then that was their management style and their opinion of my fellow citizens. If you do not respect your customers, your company will never succeed. Existing is not the same as succeeding.:cool:

Bottom line, GMs threat should not be viewed like a grain of sand or salt, but more like a wet bag of dog poo:p

Thank you to all that kept Tesla in the green today:D
 
I think Tesla needs to charge about 14 cents a KWh to make a return that would fund a bond offering. This would be about 7%, which might not be enough based on PR credit history. I think 15 cents would provide an 8 to 8.5% return. The key is if someone could underwrite a bond offering, will the existing utility declare bankruptcy and what government agencies and cooperation is required? I think they would need to partner with several solar cell producers and get Samsung onboard to crank out some of the batteries.
The key is Tesla should not be the utility, or should not tue up their own capital, except insofar as building the factories to make the solar cells and batteries.
Going to financial markets to fund a utility would be a Chanos fantasy.
 
From my perspective, GM could not burry their grandmother let alone Tesla. I have watched auto makers and their management styles forever ~ you know since the gal driving a pink Cadalac she bought it on food stamps. Or, maybe it was the unknown owner complaint because the human robot on the assembly line left a coke bottle in door.

It is hard to lend credibility to a company where the President had to relieve (fire) the CEO for incompetence. Apparently the governing board should have been tossed too. Shall we talk about government bailouts/subsidies and GM or is this not the time:eek: GM is my least favorite auto manufacturer. The only US made car we ever bought new, if you want to call it US made, was a Saturn ~ I will save you the negative language I want to use, but. . . :mad: That was the only US auto, we ever bought new together, or since 1973. We have owned over twenty cars, of which 75% were new, and Tesla is not included in these numbers. My wife likes new cars, what can I say:rolleyes: While never is a very very long time, I will never ever buy a GM product again. Only thirty years plus or minus left on my physical body contract, depending on who likes me or not.:cool:

While I have a low opinion on the citizens for failing to stand up against oppression; I truly believe that as people get their hands on a Tesla M3, an MY or . . . They will be like me ~ I will probably without question never, ever buy anything but a Tesla:D Tesla would have to make a 180 degree turn in management style and quality product for me to change my opinion of them. If you think turnover in management is just cause, think again.

If GM had ever invested in quality as opposed to a quick dollar, maybe the things I've mentioned and experienced would not have formed this opinion. But then that was their management style and their opinion of my fellow citizens. If you do not respect your customers, your company will never succeed. Existing is not the same as succeeding.:cool:

Bottom line, GMs threat should not be viewed like a grain of sand or salt, but more like a wet bag of dog poo:p

Thank you to all that kept Tesla in the green today:D

1955, 1956 & 1957 Chevys were good.
 
Looks like Elon is prepping the sleeping bag for some quality time on the M3 line.

I hope they are able to work out the kinks quickly. It looks like the reality is that the line won't be running smoothly until December. The question is - once the bottlenecks are resolved, will production jump up to 5k/week in short order? That's what Elon seems to be insinuating.

Again - short-term issue - but will probably impact Q3 earnings and SP for now. Irrationality will probably drive the price down to ~300 before December if I had to guess. I'll be waiting with my wallet.
 
OK, I have a new favorite analyst: Romit Shah (Nomura):

my words but his sentiment:

Bloomberg: GM says they will bury Tesla

RS: Talk is cheap

Nomura's Shah Responds to Tesla Bears: Talk Is Cheap

Yes, I like him too. It's worth taking note of his Tipranks standing: #204 out of 4698 analysts, with an average return of +17.6%.

Guess what is the average return of John Lovallo of Merryl Lynch? -21.6% (#4596 out of 4698).
How about that of David Tamberrino at Goldman? -18.4% (#4502 out of 4698).
 
1955, 1956 & 1957 Chevys were good.

Yeah, but I left high school a very long time ago:rolleyes:

I used to run the 100 yard dash in 10.4 seconds('68) but now they measure it in meters:eek: Did I say I have since pulled my hamstring three times and twisted my left knee in 2015?

So, while the '55, '56 and '57s Chevys are good auto classics, they like me should not continue to rest on our laurels :( Did I say the school news paper listed the second place finisher as the winner with a photo clearly of me in front:confused: Guess the media could not get it right even then:p
 
He had more electoral college votes.

Actually yes.

I lost the Senior Class Election, and my mother demanded a recount. The school principal told her that the ballots had been tossed already:( A prieview of things to comeo_O No hanging chads:mad: Do not worry, I assumed I lost it fair and square. My opponent promised free ice cream:eek: (seriously) I just told them I was the best candidate and listed my accomplishments ~ no wonder I lost:cool:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: GoTslaGo and TMSE
Status
Not open for further replies.