jhm
Well-Known Member
Hmm, this makes me wonder if there is an economical way to capture the waste heat of batteries as they charge and discharge. This is maybe 15% of the energy cycling through. Perhaps it could preheat water to a water heater.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
Jonathan Hewitt
Active Member
Well I only bought 4 of the $500s and 2 of the $600s, not like I established a big position or anything. When I bought them I considered it lottery ticket money that could pay for a nice Model X if they worked out, haha. So you are up a lot more $$$ than me so far on your position!!
Won't they need to do that to simply fund the M3 production ramp?
You can put together a capital budget to reach a production goal of 8 million units in 2024. That budget in the best case scenario is still tens of billions of dollars that must be invested in the next 3 years. Musk's clear preference is to own everything. But I don't see how that strategy exploits Tesla's advantage this decade. They need to sell cars to get paid.
What auto analysts understand is the scale of major manufacturers. The simple mass of production capacity Tesla needs to build is huge. The situation is cleverly masked by the "giga"factory.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Can you please provide breakdown/support/detail for the bolded statement?
I estimate cap-ex needs for 2018-20 will not exceed $20 billion assuming Tesla breaks ground on 4 Gigafactories simultaneously in 2017.
Internal cash flows supported by non-dilutive debt should be enough to finance this level of cap-ex.
Hard to imagine Tesla will price it around 250K. I would think and hope in an industry with operators that understands cost will and be willing to pay up for Tesla semi trucks.
Obviously, this is all very speculative without more info/guidance from Tesla. A couple high level reactions.
Reaching 800K Semi sales by 2023 (or in the foreseeable future) seems very optimistic to me. For example, Chinese truck companies are already making inroads selling low-cost diesel trucks and it is a foregone conclusion they will do the same with electric, and other competitors will jump in as well.
Also, it is unlikely that diesel Semis will disappear overnight, and instead I would expect diesel Semi manufacturers to respond to competition by improving MPGs. In fact, 10-12 MPG diesel Semis appear to be on the drawing board. Daimler Unveils SuperTruck; 12-MPG Semi Is More Than Twice As Fuel-Efficient
On fuel savings, improvements to diesel MPG over time means the 6 MPG estimate for alternative diesel Semi is probably too low in the long term. Also, your electric "fuel" numbers seem a bit optimistic, at least until we have guidance from Tesla on expected Wh/mile. They may be ok for the long run if electric rates drop with low cost solar coming online.
Incidentally, I would be interested to know how you came up with a market size of 1.6M -- not questioning it, just curious as I have not seen solid numbers that differentiate Semis from other large trucks.
Last edited:
jhm
Well-Known Member
@ValueAnalyst, I would encourage you to post this sort of thing in the Tesla Semi thread. Such a thread helps to preserve these thoughts over time in a consolidated location. A year from now what is posted in this thread will largely be ignored. Think about the longevity of your posts.
That said, I think your ramp is way too slow. If the long term demand is about 800k/yr, why not start out with 200k to 400k in the the first full year of production? At this scale, Tesla rolls out a highly automated production line from the outset. If you roll out a line that is optimal for say 20k/yr, you have to work hard doubling it every year for six years. But if you start with 200k/yr you double it once every 3 years. I don't think Tesla is going to want to have lots of small lines that need to be doubled frequently. Even when Model S was the only product, Tesla was quite challenged to double productuon every 2 years. I think Tesla Semis will save fleet operators serious cash starting day one so waiting for demand to grow to 200k should not be the binding constraint. Put another way, if Tesla can get 100k or more reservations, then it is full speed ahead. Major fleet operators that are eager to flip to electric can sell off older trucks just as quickly as they can replace them with new electrics.
You provided your answer. Also, four more gigafactories does not produce 8 million cars in 2024.
Will the market allow Tesla to start four gigafactories in 2017? I don't know. The game definitely changes when Musk gets the M3 out the door. But Musk lied about the Model X launch. The model 3 really isn't launched until the car is in civilians' garages. Musk brilliantly obscures the launch with employee sales (more ruthlessness points from big money).
I don't think the capital market will require GAAP profitability for a long time. But I can't guess at what capital commitments the market will allow Tesla to make. How many new factories is too many?
ValueAnalyst
Closed
I agree that there will be competition. It seems to me, however, that Tesla's 1) cost per kWh advantage, 2) plans to grow capacity very quickly with additional Gigafactories, and 3) existing Supercharger network with upcoming v3 expansion, will all play in its favor even more so than it does with automobiles.
It's not just the fuel cost, but also the maintenance cost. Vibration level is an important consideration in trucking, and ICE Semi cannot match an all-electric Semi on this.
Great question, as long-term market size is probably the weakest link in my argument. It's a rough estimate using the number of Semi trucks in the US, average life of a Semi truck, US GDP as a percentage of Global GDP, and the assumption that trucking will take share from trains/other modes of goods transportation as its marginal cost per mile drops due to fueling/maintenance but also driver cost.
Without Elon there wouldn't even be a Bolt or a Leaf.
Tesla Model 3 will single-handedly increase US EV Sales by 40% says Teslanomics
(I personally think 65K+ ... these guys have it at 83 K)
(I personally think 65K+ ... these guys have it at 83 K)
Mike Smith
Active Member
The longer we go without a date for the final reveal, the more likely it is that Trevor Page is correct. If all they were going to do is show the final version then the date wouldn't matter much and they'd just pick one. If significant deliveries are planned then they'd have to wait longer to make sure the cars will be finished on time.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
This is an interesting thought. But on the other hand, if the July deliveries are employee cars, why couldn't they set a date, and just deliver what they have on that day? If some cars don't make it and some employees don't get a car, are those employees going to go to some online forum and bitch and moan? I imagine not.
DurandalAI
Member
Sure, they may all be going to employees, but I think they want to make a "splash" by announcing, "and today, we are shipping 1,000 Model 3 vehicles" or something similar. Will drive people crazy.
ValueAnalyst
Closed
Two statements from the Audi $/kWh article: Audi: Claims EV Battery Costs Of Around €100/kWh ($112/kWh)
"Currently, a kilowatt hour costs about 100 euros ($112 USD) depending on the model."
"Audi intends to introduce the all-electric e-tron next year, and has already starting taking deposits on the ~300 mile SUV. The e-tron Sportback will follow in 2019. Both will have 95 kWh batteries – which apparent cost Audi around 9500 € ($10,600 USD)."
Question: If Audi is getting 300 miles with 95 kWh at $112/kWh cost, does this mean Tesla's advantage is really at battery density (i.e. more miles per kWh due to more advanced batter chemistry?) rather than cost per kWh?
In other words, is Tesla getting significantly more miles per kWh rather than producing each kWh at a significantly lower cost vs. competitors?
"Currently, a kilowatt hour costs about 100 euros ($112 USD) depending on the model."
"Audi intends to introduce the all-electric e-tron next year, and has already starting taking deposits on the ~300 mile SUV. The e-tron Sportback will follow in 2019. Both will have 95 kWh batteries – which apparent cost Audi around 9500 € ($10,600 USD)."
Question: If Audi is getting 300 miles with 95 kWh at $112/kWh cost, does this mean Tesla's advantage is really at battery density (i.e. more miles per kWh due to more advanced batter chemistry?) rather than cost per kWh?
In other words, is Tesla getting significantly more miles per kWh rather than producing each kWh at a significantly lower cost vs. competitors?
Last edited:
Do you understand what a kWh is? If you buy a 1 kW heater and it stays on for 1 hour, you have used 1 kWh, if it stays on for 2 hours, it has used 2 kWh. Not sure how you make it more efficient
Only way, as mentioned earlier in this thread is if a more efficient battery chemistry makes the battery smaller/lighter, which could make the car go farther because it weighs less or makes the car more aerodynamic. Other than that, 1 kWh is 1 kWh is 1 kWh no matter the chemistry 
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
I wonder if that's the surprise?
Regardless if or when they can announce 100k reservations I believe that that will move the SP.
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Locked
