Same company that was involved in selling $1.2 billion at $262... I guess that was the line they were giving their clients? Not.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Same company that was involved in selling $1.2 billion at $262... I guess that was the line they were giving their clients? Not.
Interesting twitter exchange by Mike Cannon-Brookes in response to a criticism of Turbull's Snowy River storage project:
So the end result is a grand announcement and no batteries. Protection for gas companies. Sad. @mcannonbrookes
MCB's response:
@southernmacro that’s not true at all. Two weeks for battery bids to be submitted to SA.
MCB seems to be pretty on top of this, first time I've heard of the 2 week deadline.
So the end result is a grand announcement and no batteries. Protection for gas companies. Sad. @mcannonbrookes
MCB's response:
@southernmacro that’s not true at all. Two weeks for battery bids to be submitted to SA.
MCB seems to be pretty on top of this, first time I've heard of the 2 week deadline.
Mike Smith
Active Member
Thanks for that run down on battery characteristics. I'm going to keep that pdf because it is a good reference snapshot of many battery facts. I've always been keen on batteries and electric motors, even as a kid. Together they are the obvious solution to so many problems. Now we have Tesla, which is the creation of people, especially Musk, who just can't get enough of how good these things are.
Your response was to a post I wrote about future ways Tesla will power the Model 3. For some reason I got a fair bit of resistance on this forum, which surprised me. I was only trying to show expanded capabilities that are certain to be incorporated in it soon in the future. It is likely Tesla will always keep it a step ahead of its competitors, and ever more loved by its owners. It will easily last a million miles, but many will find ways to make it last much longer.
I believe that the Model 3 will share a space similar to the good old 'volkswagen', 'peoples car' which was logical transport for a whole generation in the sixties and seventies. Cheap. Utilitarian. Practical. I owned it in all its iterations, from Beetles to vans. Now we have the Model 3, and it will grow with the present generation, but it will only get better and better for its owners. There is no need for another vehicle for most uses, except there will be similar iterations; vans, pickups, SUVs... everything we need.
So my post merely pointed out how new batteries will improve the scope of its development from the energy standpoint. There is little doubt that it will get to 100 kWh and much more in the years ahead. Battery technology will eventually allow Tesla whatever it needs for the car. 500 miles range? 1,000 miles if necessary. In time it will be fully charged in an half an hour, or only 5 minutes, if you only need 300 miles for now. This is a great time in the history of the automobile.
That's just it. Your calculations are suspect which leads to bad speculation about the future. That's especially bad when you are in the investor's forum. You can take this to the battery forum to hash it out.
Thanks for the suggestion, but as an investor I'm interested in the many good reasons to invest in Tesla. My posts are relevant to that. No one has shown anything suspect about my calculations that I've seen. I have seen a lot of rigid thinking - not sure what benefit that is.
Sigh...
First, some background material on the move to bigger than 18650 cylindrical cells:
http://www.emove360.com/wp-content/...Report-ver-3-presentation-for-conferences.pdf
Let's take two actual cells, the NCR20700B and compare it to the NCR18650A. Here are the two data sheets:
http://industrial.panasonic.com/cdbs/www-data/pdf2/ACI4000/ACI4000CE25.pdf
http://akkuplus.de/mediafiles/Datenblatt/Panasonic/Panasonic_NCR20700B.pdf
They have almost the same gravimetric energy density of 224 and 225 Wh/kg and same nominal voltage and roughly the same discharge characteristics, so likely the battery chemistry is the same or very similar. The volumetric energy density is 620 Wh/l for the 18650, and 659 Wh/l for the 20700. The actual diameter difference is 18.5 mm versus 20.35 mm. This 10% increase in diameter means a volumetric energy density gain of 6%. Going to a full 21mm isn't going to get you to the rest of the gain you are expecting. When the bigger cells are assembled into a pack, there is more wasted room between the cells... and so the entire gain, say, 8% is likely nearly gone at the pack level.
Further, this is volumetric energy density. Note that there is no gain in specific/gravimetric energy density between these cells. So the weight is the same for the same capacity. Given the weight of the Model S and the X, it is weight that is the big issue. High weight causes decreased efficiency and poorer driving characteristics. The problem in a dedicated long distance BEV design isn't usually volume for the battery, it's weight then cost. The specific energy directly affects weight and cost. Certainly, the bigger cells will have less cell interconnects for the same capacity. And with less cells, less BMS circuitry. But those aren't going to be big wins in specific energy or volumetric energy density but would be cost savings.
Uber continuing to struggle. It's been apparent that the coming of autonomous vehicles would be a challenge to them, but who would expect so many challenges within a few months to their brand. Jeff Jones, their President, and number two exec to founder Travis Kalanick, not only was reported to be leaving today, he confirmed the reports with a comment to Recode that was not limited to routine corporate lingo,
“It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business”
Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting, citing differences over ‘beliefs and approach to leadership’
This isn't the roughest of what they've been going through, but it just adds on to the list of events that make retaining talent to develop autonomous tech, and retaining the drivers and customers that built up their network effect advantage more difficult. While it's unclear when Tesla wants to enter this market with a Tesla Network, currently the market is becoming more open to potential competitors like Tesla, even with the pre-autonomous disruption need for a driver in the car. If Tesla wasn't already planning to do so, maybe they are now considering launching the Tesla Network as some cities start to build up a fair amount of available Model 3s. I think they have a real opportunity to gain share with their green credibility (not to mention the "cool" factor of the brand).
“It is now clear, however, that the beliefs and approach to leadership that have guided my career are inconsistent with what I saw and experienced at Uber, and I can no longer continue as president of the ride sharing business”
Uber president Jeff Jones is quitting, citing differences over ‘beliefs and approach to leadership’
This isn't the roughest of what they've been going through, but it just adds on to the list of events that make retaining talent to develop autonomous tech, and retaining the drivers and customers that built up their network effect advantage more difficult. While it's unclear when Tesla wants to enter this market with a Tesla Network, currently the market is becoming more open to potential competitors like Tesla, even with the pre-autonomous disruption need for a driver in the car. If Tesla wasn't already planning to do so, maybe they are now considering launching the Tesla Network as some cities start to build up a fair amount of available Model 3s. I think they have a real opportunity to gain share with their green credibility (not to mention the "cool" factor of the brand).
The form factor change by itself is only but one part of the overall story. There is too much played up on the form factor change alone. We expect new cell chemistry. We expect that Tesla can make these cells cheaper and in far greater quantities. We expect slight gains in volumetric energy density and maybe some decent gains in cost efficiencies with less BMS circuitry, cooling jackets, and so forth.
If form factor was all that, then Tesla would be doing what other are doing with prismatic or pouch cells.
Ok, let's do this again
Given the size of a module, the switch from 18650 to 21700 will have the following effect:
- The increase in diameter will be exactly offset by the reduced number of cells that fit in that area. (Assuming perfect orientation without gaps)
- The increased height will increase energy per module by ~7.7%
Increased energy density per module therefore is caused by:
- increased height of the cell
- better active material to casing ratio
- better packaging of the cells into a module ( already maxed out with the 100KWh design?)
- improved chemistry
From my point of view there isn't a 50% improvement in there at all.
But if you look at it from a $/KWh perspective:
- lower cost due to mass production
- less gross margin on the cells due to joint-venture
- improved chemistry
- less casing material per KWh
- higher KWh throughput with same amount of cells (lower depreciation / KWh)
- less cells to manage & track
- less cells to assemble
- easier pack design
- no packaging - shipping - unpacking
That's where a 50% improvement is possible.
Which actually is what AFAIK both Elon and JB where talking about the whole time.
They already got the density/range they need. Now it's all about getting the costs down. (And of course gladly take all density/range improvement they get on the way there)
Given the size of a module, the switch from 18650 to 21700 will have the following effect:
- The increase in diameter will be exactly offset by the reduced number of cells that fit in that area. (Assuming perfect orientation without gaps)
- The increased height will increase energy per module by ~7.7%
Increased energy density per module therefore is caused by:
- increased height of the cell
- better active material to casing ratio
- better packaging of the cells into a module ( already maxed out with the 100KWh design?)
- improved chemistry
From my point of view there isn't a 50% improvement in there at all.
But if you look at it from a $/KWh perspective:
- lower cost due to mass production
- less gross margin on the cells due to joint-venture
- improved chemistry
- less casing material per KWh
- higher KWh throughput with same amount of cells (lower depreciation / KWh)
- less cells to manage & track
- less cells to assemble
- easier pack design
- no packaging - shipping - unpacking
That's where a 50% improvement is possible.
Which actually is what AFAIK both Elon and JB where talking about the whole time.
They already got the density/range they need. Now it's all about getting the costs down. (And of course gladly take all density/range improvement they get on the way there)
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Porsche pockets $17,250 profit on every vehicle
The Volkswagen AG brand (Porsche) delivered 238,000 vehicles last year and posted an operating profit of 3.9 billion euros ($4.1 billion), up 14 percent from 2015. Put those numbers together and it’s on pace to net about $17,250 a vehicle, up 9 percent.
Its Teutonic peers don’t have nearly as much profit punch. Daimler AG pocketed about $5,000 a vehicle last year, roughly the same margin BMW AG has been managing.
Porsche isn’t that precious anymore. In terms of product, by now it’s about one-tenth the size of BMW, and in the past three years has boosted its annual output by 47 percent.
Hitting dealerships in 2014, the Macan crossover now accounts for roughly 40 percent of Porsche sales.These days “the little tiger,” as they call the Macan around the shop, starts at a prosaic $47,500. But few people who spring for a Porsche settle for basic -- it’d be like going to a steakhouse and skipping the sides.
Porsche’s revenue breaks down to almost $99,000 per vehicle. One of the few options that’s still free: factory pickup. If you’re just joining the club, you might want to skip the espresso seats and buy a plane ticket instead.
The Volkswagen AG brand (Porsche) delivered 238,000 vehicles last year and posted an operating profit of 3.9 billion euros ($4.1 billion), up 14 percent from 2015. Put those numbers together and it’s on pace to net about $17,250 a vehicle, up 9 percent.
Its Teutonic peers don’t have nearly as much profit punch. Daimler AG pocketed about $5,000 a vehicle last year, roughly the same margin BMW AG has been managing.
Porsche isn’t that precious anymore. In terms of product, by now it’s about one-tenth the size of BMW, and in the past three years has boosted its annual output by 47 percent.
Hitting dealerships in 2014, the Macan crossover now accounts for roughly 40 percent of Porsche sales.These days “the little tiger,” as they call the Macan around the shop, starts at a prosaic $47,500. But few people who spring for a Porsche settle for basic -- it’d be like going to a steakhouse and skipping the sides.
Porsche’s revenue breaks down to almost $99,000 per vehicle. One of the few options that’s still free: factory pickup. If you’re just joining the club, you might want to skip the espresso seats and buy a plane ticket instead.
Reciprocity
Active Member
Jonathan Hewitt
Active Member
I'd urge everyone here to watch the BBC documentary, HyperNormalisation - it lays out the history of how we arrived in the post-truth era. Fascinating and quite terrifying...
Plus will take 7 months for a full charge using USB to Lightning (and that's with an iPad charger!)
Some dealers discounting Chevy Bolt: From Fred L:
Chevy Bolt EV is already being discounted by $5,000+ as deliveries are stalling
Chevy Bolt EV is already being discounted by $5,000+ as deliveries are stalling
? for the experts on demand limits-
this would be a GM supererogation production problem right?
Chevy Bolt EV is already being discounted by $5,000+ as deliveries are stalling
"
EV inventory in California and found that most dealers were actually discounting the vehicle already and some by over 10%:
“At Harbor Chevrolet in Long Beach, Calif., all 21 Bolts shown on its website are discounted by at least $1,285. One Bolt Premier is $4,160 off, a nearly 10 percent markdown. Another nearby dealership listed 32 Bolts in its inventory, with two priced at discounts of more than $5,200.”
[...]
Sergio Navarrete, a Harbor Chevrolet sales manager, told Automotive News:
“We price every single vehicle in inventory to move. Our business model is more geared toward volume vs. any one sale. Per unit we make less, but long-term it works out better.”
Across all current markets for the Bolt (California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia ), the average amount paid by customers was $1,400 below MSRP in January, a 3.4 percent discount, and it went up to $2,200 in February, a 5.3 percent discount, according to TrueCar.
"
edit: Al beat me to that one as usual
this would be a GM supererogation production problem right?
Chevy Bolt EV is already being discounted by $5,000+ as deliveries are stalling
"
EV inventory in California and found that most dealers were actually discounting the vehicle already and some by over 10%:
“At Harbor Chevrolet in Long Beach, Calif., all 21 Bolts shown on its website are discounted by at least $1,285. One Bolt Premier is $4,160 off, a nearly 10 percent markdown. Another nearby dealership listed 32 Bolts in its inventory, with two priced at discounts of more than $5,200.”
[...]
Sergio Navarrete, a Harbor Chevrolet sales manager, told Automotive News:
“We price every single vehicle in inventory to move. Our business model is more geared toward volume vs. any one sale. Per unit we make less, but long-term it works out better.”
Across all current markets for the Bolt (California, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland and Virginia ), the average amount paid by customers was $1,400 below MSRP in January, a 3.4 percent discount, and it went up to $2,200 in February, a 5.3 percent discount, according to TrueCar.
"
edit: Al beat me to that one as usual
Best rebuttal to this article(without even trying, just using things like facts and data), from Electrek this morning:
Chevy Bolt EV is already being discounted by $5,000+ as deliveries are stalling
When DeBord says GM will use its profits and balance sheet (mostly from selling SUVs) to crush Tesla, the logical follow on question would be: How have they been doing that? The answer:
Why General Motors May Have Already Lost To Tesla
By buying back their stock and paying dividends?
So in summary, Tesla is in trouble because GM is using profits to buy back stock rather than invest in batteries and electric cars and GM dealerships that are in the best EV markets can't sell their existing inventory of Bolts without discounts 3 months after release because the Bolt is not compelling and dealerships are disincentivized from selling electric cars because of the lack of residual maintenance income. DeBord talks about a "mid-model refresh" for the Bolt if the Model III is late. Tough to refresh a concept that was DOA because its creators and those responsible for its sales have little interest in its success.
If you are still wondering why Tesla has upside, review the widespread misconceptions from the majority of business and financial "journalists", feeding the misperceptions of Retail consumers and investors alike.
Edit: OK, Al and Ken and I are all reading the same articles, but to be fair, I had to ramble a bit.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
