Long-Term Fundamentals of Tesla Motors (TSLA)

[JRP3]

Yes, the benefit of Dahn's work is the ability to project the long term effects of additives through improvements in coulombic efficiency without long term testing. Most of his work has been with NMC chemistry but the methods should translate to NCA chemistry. If the right additives can be found to reduce or eliminate undesirable side reactions that would dramatically improve cell performance. Beyond the lifecycle improvements his work on higher voltage NMC might lead to energy density improvements equaling or beating NCA. NMC is traditionally a higher C rate chemistry and slightly safer, so if the higher voltage NMC retains those properties it would trigger across the board improvements in all cell metrics. Exciting times in the battery world.

 

[neroden]

World used ~539 quadrillion btu. (Per year) US used ~98 quadrillion , ~18%, (estimating now) I think we used about ~4,500 terawatt hours last year) or about 12-13 terawatt hours per day. (I love Google) it will take a bit to transition to renewables

Yeah, we can divide most of the BTU numbers by 4 due to the inefficiency of fossil fuels, but it's still a lot of electricity

 

[neroden]

In any case, oil will probably not be obsolete in our lifetimes.

Speak for yourself. I am likely to live 60 more years. I seriously doubt it'll be in use.

 

[wdolson]

Yeah, we can divide most of the BTU numbers by 4 due to the inefficiency of fossil fuels, but it's still a lot of electricity

Probably more like somewhere between 2 and 3X. There are losses from power generation to the wheels. I've seen estimates that from power generation to the wheels the efficiency is about 65% (considering losses in transmission, losses in heat charging, etc.) That's going to vary from one power source to another, but that's the estimate. EVs like the Model S get about 100 MPGe and the average ICE gets around 30 MPG, so about a 3X efficiency there.

Overall the energy needed for EVs will be less than that needed for ICE, but I agree, we will need a heck of a lot more power generation to make the switch whole hog. At the moment the energy needed for EVs is down in the noise compared to other electricity needs, but it's going to be a fair chunk. Right now petroleum fills about 1/3 of the US's energy needs, and almost all of that goes into transportation. Even if EVs reduce that to 25%, that's a lot of extra electricity generation that needs to come online.

U.S. Energy Facts - Energy Explained, Your Guide To Understanding Energy - Energy Information Administration

The revolution in solar is coming at exactly the right time. Because so much solar is being installed, we will probably be a little ahead of the energy need curve when the demand for EVs hits big. Right now the Northwest US has so much extra hydro power that windmills are idle and so much solar has been installed in California that state is buying less of the Northwest's hydro power. Too bad we don't have giant reservoirs up in the mountains, we could pump the snow runoff back up into the mountains and drain it back later in the year. We're having a record runoff this year and the Columbia is at flood stage again (only the second time since 1947).

Speak for yourself. I am likely to live 60 more years. I seriously doubt it'll be in use.

I expect to be around another 50 or so.

 

[ValueAnalyst]

MY production is supposed to be between 2.5 million and 5 million cars per year.

Can you please provide support for this?

 

[Model 3]

but I agree, we will need a heck of a lot more power generation to make the switch whole hog. At the moment the energy needed for EVs is down in the noise compared to other electricity needs, but it's going to be a fair chunk.

Here in Norway it has been calculated that we will increase our electric consumption by about 5% if all ICE cars was replaced by BEV's. (And I think that is less then we currently export?)
The problem here is not the generation, but "the last mile". If everyone charge their cars at the same time - especially if that is at the peak in the afternoon - it may overload the local distribution grid.

 

[phigment]

The problem here is not the generation, but "the last mile". If everyone charge their cars at the same time - especially if that is at the peak in the afternoon - it may overload the local distribution grid.

What if everybody in the United States flushed the toilet at the same time?

 

[MitchJi]

MY production is supposed to be between 2.5 million and 5 million cars per year.

Can you please provide support for this?

I should have said roughly. On the last call Elon said that the M3 production line is designed for 10k per week. He also said about as fast as the fastest existing car factory (about one car per twenty five seconds). When he talked about his Production Epiphany earlier he said that it will be 5-10x faster than the fastest existing car factory. So I used ten thousand per week , 500k per year x 5-10k is between 2.5 and 5 million cars per year .

I think that they are probably sandbagging on the capacity of the M3 line, but if they are that makes the point I was trying to make even stronger. I'm hoping to start a thread similar to the thread I made last quarter, something like "overlooked statements in the Q1 call". I need to prepared an short term trading post first.p

 

[wdolson]

What if everybody in the United States flushed the toilet at the same time?

When the series finale for MASH aired, there were a number of towns that had their sewer systems overflow about 10 minutes after the finale ended. The explanation at the time was most of the people on those towns were watching the finale and most were holding it until the show was over, then everyone ran to the bathroom at once.

 

[Intl Professor]

When the series finale for MASH aired, there were a number of towns that had their sewer systems overflow about 10 minutes after the finale ended. The explanation at the time was most of the people on those towns were watching the finale and most were holding it until the show was over, then everyone ran to the bathroom at once.

I didn't notice, I was crying.

 

[MitchJi]

Yes, the benefit of Dahn's work is the ability to project the long term effects of additives through improvements in coulombic efficiency without long term testing. Most of his work has been with NMC chemistry but the methods should translate to NCA chemistry. If the right additives can be found to reduce or eliminate undesirable side reactions that would dramatically improve cell performance. Beyond the lifecycle improvements his work on higher voltage NMC might lead to energy density improvements equaling or beating NCA. NMC is traditionally a higher C rate chemistry and slightly safer, so if the higher voltage NMC retains those properties it would trigger across the board improvements in all cell metrics. Exciting times in the battery world.

The main reason that Dahn started working on higher voltage was to improve the energy density. AH = V * ah, so raising the voltage automatically increases the energy density proportionally.
Tesla battery researcher unveils new chemistry to increase lifecycle at high voltage

May. 4th 2017
<snip>
Dahn is considered a pioneer in li-ion battery cells since he has been working on the batteries pretty much since they were invented. He is credited for having help increase the life cycle of the cells, which helped their commercialization. His work now focuses mainly on a potential increase in energy density and durability.
<snip>
Last year, Dahn transitioned the group from their 20-year research agreement with 3M to a new association with Tesla under the newly formed ‘NSERC/Tesla Canada Industrial Research’.
<snip>
At the International Battery Seminar & Exhibit in March, Dahn presented his new research to improve the chemistry of NMC Li-ion in order to limit the gasses generated by the cells when operating at high voltage.

The improved cells that they created from their research have performed exceptionally well after over 1,200 cycles:
<snip>
If made into a car battery pack, 1,200 cycles would translate to roughly 300,000 miles (480,000 km) – meaning that a battery pack could still retain about 95% of its original energy capacity after ~300,000 miles – or 25 years at the average 12,000 miles per year.

Those results are truly impressive – especially since Dahn said that his team’s research is already “going into the company’s products“.

In his presentation – embedded below, Dahn demonstrates how they virtually removed the harmful reactions in the positive electrode – leading to what they describe as “superb NMC Li-ion cells that can operate at high potential.”
<Snip>
This explains the reason for his interest in the higher voltage:
Meet Tesla's new weapon

<snip>
Dahn's focus won't just be cost, nor will his research apply only to the lithium-ion batteries used in Tesla's electric cars. His research team aims to increase both the energy density — or the amount of energy that can be stored in a battery per its volume — and the lifetime of lithium-ion cells, which could, in turn, help drive down costs in automotive and grid energy storage applications.
<snip>
Conceptually, it's easy to increase energy density. You can store more energy—about another 25%—in a lithium-ion cell simply by charging it to a higher voltage. However, that comes with a major downside.

"The problem is when you do that [charge it to a higher voltage] the lifetime is compromised," Dahn said in an interview with Fortune. "So it's always a trade off between lifetime and energy density."

If Dahn can crack this problem—a technically difficult task that requires improving or changing the materials of a lithium-ion cell—he could help Tesla produce cheaper, longer lasting, more powerful batteries. That could have huge financial implications beyond Tesla's electric cars, and could be used in the company's new energy storage products, the Powerwall and Powerpack.
<snip>

The main advantage of the TE Cells is longer cycle life.

The main advantage of the car cells is higher energy density.

The exciting thing is that he figured out how to increase the voltage and increase the cycle life. Having your cake and eating it too.

 

[Waiting4M3]

All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years in twin ‘death spiral’ for big oil and big autos, says study that’s shocking the industries

 

[Starno]

All fossil-fuel vehicles will vanish in 8 years in twin ‘death spiral’ for big oil and big autos, says study that’s shocking the industries

Yes

 

[JRP3]

The main advantage of the car cells is higher energy density.

Dahn's work has mostly been with NMC cells. We don't yet know if he's improved the NCA cells used in vehicles or if he's increased the density of NMC cells to a high enough level to be used in cars to replace NCA.

 

[MitchJi]

The main advantage of the car cells is higher energy density.

1. Dahn's work has mostly been with NMC cells.

2. We don't yet know if he's improved the NCA cells used in vehicles

3. or if he's increased the density of NMC cells to a high enough level to be used in cars to replace NCA.

1. He has worked almost exclusively with NMC up to now according to all the information we have. He actually held patents (disputed) for the development of the NMC cell chemistry.

2. He is just starting to work with NCA according to his statements.

3. Agreed, we don't know.

I don't understand how your comment is relevant to my post.

General comment, not referring to your post:
One thing to keep in mind is that applying general NMC vs NCA comparisons to cells made by specific manufacturers could be incorrect, because they all use proprietary versions of those cells.

 

[JRP3]

AH = V * ah

Just a note, I've seen you use this before, and I previously pointed out the error. V * ah does not = AH, it equals Wh.

I don't understand how your comment is relevant to my post.

I took the following quote to mean you thought Dahn's work had made NMC chemistry worthy of automotive use. My error.

The exciting thing is that he figured out how to increase the voltage and increase the cycle life. Having your cake and eating it too

 

[DragonWatch]

What if everybody in the United States flushed the toilet at the same time?

Not a problem here ~ we have septic

 

[neroden]

Probably more like somewhere between 2 and 3X. There are losses from power generation to the wheels. I've seen estimates that from power generation to the wheels the efficiency is about 65% (considering losses in transmission, losses in heat charging, etc.) That's going to vary from one power source to another, but that's the estimate. EVs like the Model S get about 100 MPGe and the average ICE gets around 30 MPG, so about a 3X efficiency there.

Overall the energy needed for EVs will be less than that needed for ICE, but I agree, we will need a heck of a lot more power generation to make the switch whole hog. At the moment the energy needed for EVs is down in the noise compared to other electricity needs, but it's going to be a fair chunk. Right now petroleum fills about 1/3 of the US's energy needs, and almost all of that goes into transportation. Even if EVs reduce that to 25%, that's a lot of extra electricity generation that needs to come online.

Vast overestimate. If all land transportation in the US were electrified it would add about 10% to the nation's electricity usage. We've figured this very carefully.

Good gasoline engines are 20% to 25% efficient. Electric motors are over 90% efficient. On top of that, "transmission" of gasoline from well to refinery to car is very energy-intensive compared to transmission of electricity. I won't go through the rest of the calculation again, but suffice it to say that it's been calculated three or four ways, and it's about a 10% increase.

Sounds like a lot? Nah. Because you're right about this:

The revolution in solar is coming at exactly the right time. Because so much solar is being installed, we will probably be a little ahead of the energy need curve when the demand for EVs hits big.

Way ahead. Especially because energy efficiency is actually happening (LEDs alone are knocking off about 10% of US electric usage). Some of it will be in the "wrong place" so we probably will have to fight to build some transmission lines though.

 

[wdolson]

Vast overestimate. If all land transportation in the US were electrified it would add about 10% to the nation's electricity usage. We've figured this very carefully.

Good gasoline engines are 20% to 25% efficient. Electric motors are over 90% efficient. On top of that, "transmission" of gasoline from well to refinery to car is very energy-intensive compared to transmission of electricity. I won't go through the rest of the calculation again, but suffice it to say that it's been calculated three or four ways, and it's about a 10% increase.

I stand corrected.

Sounds like a lot? Nah. Because you're right about this:


Way ahead. Especially because energy efficiency is actually happening (LEDs alone are knocking off about 10% of US electric usage). Some of it will be in the "wrong place" so we probably will have to fight to build some transmission lines though.

Philosophically I like the idea of LED lighting, but it's hell on your eyes if you're more blue sensitive than the average. I'm OK with LED lights at night because my night vision is kicked in anyway, but LED lighting without very good blue filtering leaves me feeling like someone is trying to tear the eyes from my head.

My first evening after buying my Model S I was very worried I was screwed. The extra blue from the LED displays gave me pretty good eye strain before I got home from delivery. Several companies make screen protectors for the center screen and most eliminate the extra blue, but there is only one screen protector out there for the driver's instrument screen on the Model S/X.

I finally got some zero prescription glasses with blue protection that I can wear when exposed to LED lighting, but we've had to leave restaurants because my eyes were bothering me. Early on I got some LED task light bulbs and tried using them for a few days. I think I did permanent damage to my eyes. I haven't been able to focus close in like I used to since then. My eyes hurt for several days after I switched back to halogens.

I also find blue LEDs intensely bright and my eyes won't focus on them. I've compared my experience to others and I'm seeing something different than most people.

I think I'm a bit of the canary in the coal mine. A lot of people get eye strain and don't really know why. For me, the response is so intense I know what's bothering me. Monitor manufacturers are starting to realize the issues with LED backlights and they are slowly dealing with it. For a while the only monitors that did deal with it were EIZO. I have one EIZO monitor and it's easier on my eyes than the old CFT backlit monitors, though it was expensive.

I hope when LED lighting becomes common everywhere awareness of the extra blue will also become mainstream and everything will be filtered. I don't want to have to wear glasses everywhere and the glasses only protect me from light coming in straight, they do nothing for peripheral LED light.

 

[Model 3]

Electric motors are over 90% efficient.

While this is (mostly) correct, and I do agree with the rest of your post, keep in mind that the "plug to wheel" efficient normally is less then 90% when going through the charger, battery, inverter and finally the motor.