Just because Tesla put something in a presentation filled with flaws doesn’t mean it’s true. Battery Day was all about what could happen in a perfect world, trying to explain why they are shifting, not necessarily anything they had achieved. It was a sales a marketing presentation to drum up investors, not a show and tell if what they had already perfected. Once YOU understand that, you will come to different conclusions as to what is possible from battery day.
And just because Tesla may not intend to use DBE in 2170 doesn’t mean it cannot be done. So get your facts correct before you start lecturing others. You are suggesting that only something in the 4680 form factor can use DBE. Why can’t you use that tech in a smaller form factor? Or larger? Show me the science that says it requires 4680. Please, show me.
OK - I should not have said "cannot" be added, but "doesn't make sense to retrofit existing lines" would have been more appropriate. Panasonic even just added 2 additional "wet" lines to GF Nevada.
OK, here are the "straight facts" as we know them.
1) DBE in 2170s would require pretty much new lines on the 2170s. It's a MAJOR departure from how current 2170 cells are built. It would be a multi-billion-dollar investment to put DBE into the 2170s. Is it THEORETICALLY possible? Yes. Is there ANY data that Tesla has done that or plans to? NO, not a SHRED.
2) Panasonic builds the 2170s for Tesla, Tesla doesn't run the lines (this is a joint venture with Pana at GF Nevada). Panasonic has stated they have NO PLANS to implement DBE in any of their cell production at this time or in the foreseeable future. 2170 or 4680. Not till the technology is much more mature. They are letting Tesla effectively vet out the production process, and then (possibly) through a cross-licensing agreement (they already have one in place), utilize DBE. That means no 2170s produced in the USA for Tesla use or will use DBE for the foreseeable future. Tesla doesn't import 2170s, so none made abroad are going to use DBE.
3) Tesla's FINANCIAL REPORTS (10Q filings and quarterly calls) have reported that the 4680 cell production is proceeding along the planned path (i.e. WITH DBE), but at a slower pace than expected. These are legally-binding factual reports. To "lie" on one of them would open up Tesla to Nikola-level lawsuits.
4) We have people that have toured the lines in Austin and there are drone videos through the glass on the 3rd floor of GF Texas. There are NOT wet electrode ovens and solvent reclaimers in that building for a wet process. What you propose has visual EVIDENCE to prove that the argument is wrong. Could they rip out everything and put in a wet process? In theory, but it would take 8-10X more space (the ovens are huge, they occupy the bulk of the space in a wet process), and it would make no sense because they are already getting 4680 DBE cells from the lines there. The entire point of DBE is to produce many MANY more cells from the same SF of floor space, at a lower price point.
So we are supposed to believe you, with a theory that Tesla has materially deviated from all their plans, lied on financial filings, and decided to do a 180 to an old process with visual evidence to counter that argument, when you have presented ZERO evidence to support this, over all the above tangible evidence collected? You want us to believe "but they could do it" is a reasonable argument in this case? It's an "outlier" chance of happening.
I never said 4680 REQUIRES DBE, I said Tesla has ZERO plans to use anything but DBE in their 4680s. And we have plenty of evidence to support that.
Is the ramp and product development happening as fast as we would like? No. But it's progressing, and cell tear-downs give us evidence that Tesla is successful in this, and that there is still plenty of headroom for them to improve the 4680 product from where it is now.
www.bloomberg.com
