ssq
Member
SDGE is a bunch of thugs, the faster consumers can push them to bankruptcy the better...I sincerely wish this happens.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
That caught my attention as well. Not sure where he got "at or below $220/KWh."
ssq
Member
I went solar and guess what - they don't let you go over 120% of past 12 months usage. How ridiculous is that!! If I was on vacation overseas for couple of months the past year and now I have added to family and got an EV I am not allowed to cross the 120% yet. Well actually I was able to sneak in 160% past them (my installer did some shenanigans, but most other companies won't). Now after doing that I am adding two more panels hitting up against a second rule they have - you can only augment your system by 10% max else you got to do a fresh NEM agreement(for most practical PV array sizes that would come to just one solar panel!). I am using loopholes to hopefully sneak in two panels and get approval stating nom optimal panel placement.. It's sad they would try to put hurdles on solar installation. Their TOU rates are absolutely BS too!! Gahhh I hate SDGE.
Perhaps but this is an ICE-Industry centric metric and not what customers value. It is an artificial false and misleading metric because adding a gallon of capacity to a fuel tank lets any ICE vehicle win for now.
What matters to consumers is total cost of ownership expressed in monthly household cost of car ownership.
On that metric the table will rearrange but all of the ICE vehicles costing more than $20,000-$25K (without including the effect of incentives) arrange themselves neatly as more expensive than a base Tesla Model 3 and given the horrible resale values of compliance type EVs, all of the so called competing EVs including Bolt will be considerably more expensive for families (or fleets) to own too - while the Model e provides the owner in most cases with a much nicer car in their driveway without at least doubling or tripping the monthly cost of running a gasoline car with typical routine maintenance and non-warranty repairs.
With $7500 of incentives it's a wipe-out on the basis of TCO right down to the $15K-$20K level assuming your credit will hold for a $35K vehicle loan.
With a mid-ownership update of early Tesla Model 3 to full Autonomy, wipe-out does not begin to describe it. Total Cost Of ownership will be do an 180 to Total Profit of Ownership.
Last edited:
Zhelko Dimic
Careful bull
You were looking at this article, right? How Storage Can Help Get Rid of Peaker Plants
Here is critical quote:
"Using assumptions taken from a recent California Energy Commission (CEC) study, our analysis found a levelized cost of generation for the simple cycle gas-fired peaker plant of $492 per megawatt-hour (MWh),..."
My previous post shows that price is $166 per MWh used, and then with efficiency adjustment(that others calculated) it's around $200. This price is competitive right now.
There is confusion here that some studies discuss price of storage in KWh, and others price of produced KWh. Difference is of course that 1 Powerpack has 100KWh, but if you think of it as a bucket, you can fill it and empty it for 10+ years, so produced capacity is much greater.
Last edited:
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
IMO that's currently the big question, will they do it sooner or later. The best way to do this would be to do something to trigger a short squeeze, then do the raise. Julian said that Elon has done that before. So if they believe that they have enough ammunition at the Q1 ER-CC it would make sense to fire those bullets then, and announce the raise, possibly in June.
Elon's "autonomous", "not exactly a bus" comments in Norway might be an indication that they are planning to do that:
Elon Musk teases a new autonomous ‘Tesla Mobility’ service
His worries about production "every time EM announces a car it's late" are a perfect example of why I think the MX problems will cause, and to a lesser extent, are currently causing an opportunity, because those problems hid the big improvement in Tesla's ability to ramp car production. Tesla has produced 750 MX's in one week six month's after the MX Launch. How long did it take Tesla to produce 750 MS's in one week after the MS Launch? Most of the MS slowness is due to the fact it was the first car they built themselves. The MX problems were due to the complexity of the MX. I think they have learned from these experiences, so I think investing (using options, carefully) before the M3 Launch, will be very profitable.
I believe that the actual product is the first GF Production Line (GFPL1), utilizing Custom Cell Manufacturing Equipment. Tesla and Panasonic will be using custom cell manufacturing equipment at the GF, and that will have a big impact on the cost reductions.
Several implications of that:
Colocation and the use of custom equipment and getting good prices on raw materials are the main reasons for the GF cost reductions.
Designing and building the custom equipment only make sense financially because of the massive scale of the GF, (they need to build more than one of these production lines). I believe that this equipment is designed and optimized to be used in integrated production lines. The first line will be GF Production Line 1. As soon as that’s completed and working satisfactorally, they will start be able to start producing more production lines. These can be installed anywhere that Tesla needs a multiple of one or more of the number of cells as GF Phase One. In other words the major product is not GF1, it’s GF Production Line 1 (GFPL1). This has huge implications for the flexibility of setting up smaller factories, or setting up factories in phases to obtain most of the cost benefits of a 35-50 gWh factory. It means that the GFPL1 will capture most of the cost benefits of the completed GF, and that for example Panasonic will be able to set up factories in Japan using the GFPL equipment.
I think that it’s pretty clear the idea to use customized equipment was Tesla’s idea, and that Panasonic’s hesitancy to invest ended when they were convinced that a 30% cost reduction was a conservative number.
Tesla confident that Gigafactory can hit the magic number: $100/kWh - Metro Plugin, Atlanta GA Electric Vehicle Charging Station Installation & Sales
And so I disagree with your premise that they are either behind schedule or having problems with Panasonic.
Last edited:
MitchJi
Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Did you remember to deduct the price of the power used to fill the powerpacks (batteries produce zero power).
I think that all of the estimates of both cell level and pack level costs are just that - estimates. It is closely guarded proprietory Tesla information. According to the Credit Suisse "Tesla - Not a Fair Fight" report issued on August 13 of 2014, the 2015 pack cost for Model S was pinned to $245 (see a page from the report with my highlights in yellow and orange).
I believe that Credit Suisse is closer to the actual cost than the Bloomberg number. During the Q1 ER call Elon indicated that TE gross margin on originally low volume would be "relatively low", and, much more tentative in terms of the margin once the GF production scales up, saying: "Once we get Gigafactory up and running, and high volume and get the economies of scale working, this is just a guess, right now, but I mean, like, maybe it's somewhere around 20% because this is not like – it's like we just don't have enough information to say exactly what that would be. But probably 20% is a reasonable guess."
Just days before this report Elon tweeted about PowerPack pricing to be at $250/kWh. From my point of view, when nominal profit is set at 20%, "relatively low" profit would be less than 5%. The Bloomberg pack level cost yields 250 / 220 -1 =13.64%, while Credit Suisse pack level cost yields 250 / 245 -1 = 2%. I believe that Credit Suisse cost of $245/kWh is closer to Tesla's actual cost than the Bloomberg $220/kWh.
Last edited:
I think that the PowerPack pricing reveal will prove to be a huge catalyst for the SP. The remarkable difference in price quoted by Elon about a year ago ($250/kWh) and actual price of PowerPacks included on the Energy page of the Tesla's website ($470) is an indication of a very significant change in strategy. As I speculated up-thread, it seems that the strategy now is to have approximately the same gross margin per the kWh of batteries for TE as for Tesla Automotive (TA).
The implications of this are huge. During the Q1 2015 ER call both Elon and JB alluded to the fact that the demand for batteries for TE could be at least equal to the demand for TA, and, based on this, they are considering increasing their planned GF 1 production by at least 50%.
There is a hugely important conclusion from the above, namely that value of TE business is at least equal to the value of TA business, and it is NOT currently priced into the SP.
I think that TE conversation will dominate the Q1 ER call. I also think that Friday's run-up was due to the PowerPack pricing reveal, and we will see more of the same next week.
The implications of this are huge. During the Q1 2015 ER call both Elon and JB alluded to the fact that the demand for batteries for TE could be at least equal to the demand for TA, and, based on this, they are considering increasing their planned GF 1 production by at least 50%.
There is a hugely important conclusion from the above, namely that value of TE business is at least equal to the value of TA business, and it is NOT currently priced into the SP.
I think that TE conversation will dominate the Q1 ER call. I also think that Friday's run-up was due to the PowerPack pricing reveal, and we will see more of the same next week.
Last edited:
Thanks! That was whats wrong, we were comparing storage cost/capacity vs. cost/KWh produced, which didnt make sense!
I just watched a video how a model X beat a Ferrari F430 in drag racing and roll racing. That's a 7-seats SUV weights almost 3 tons, beat an expensive 2-seat race car. I don't need to mention the huge difference in safety, utility, autopilot, etc.
In the Standpoint video, there was a famous fund manager, who manages $40B, said he buys Ferrari stock (P/E 28) because he heard an used Ferrari sold for huge amount of money, and a few other reasons. The Ferrari age is clearly coming to an end. The Ferrari owner saw what's coming, that's probably why he listed the company to get rid of some shares. These ICE super cars are having hard time racing against Tesla's SUV, imagine what happens when the new Tesla Roadster comes out.
For apple to apple comparison, Here are the assumptions used in the article in 2011 on gas peaker plant vs. lead battery. Need to replace lead battery column with powerpack cost for a realistic comparison. Natural gas was price has doubled since 2011 i think. Any taker?
jesselivenomore
Member
Goldman Sachs maintains rating(neutral) and raises price target from $202 to $245.
"Analyst Patrick Archambault raises the probability of Tesla going from being merely successful to fully disruptive to 35% from 25%."
"Analyst Patrick Archambault raises the probability of Tesla going from being merely successful to fully disruptive to 35% from 25%."
jesselivenomore
Member
On the plus side, put another way - GS raised their disruptive probability to 1.4 times their prior estimate.
On the minus side, its only Goldman Sachs. They are no Standpoint research so I doubt this will get as much airtime on financial media.
On the minus side, its only Goldman Sachs. They are no Standpoint research so I doubt this will get as much airtime on financial media.
PaulRocket
Member
For those not familiar with Goldman Sachs methodology in their original report, they came up with five scenarios for the future Tesla business and assigned probabilities for each scenario as a weight factors to arrive at their PT.
The original report was actually fairly detailed and allows any user to play with it by assigning various weight factors to each of the scenarios. They also had a Grid Storage option adder to the PT. Just for everybody's fun, attached is a page from their March 18, 2014 report (with my highlights in yellow), which allows anybody to play with their model by assigning probabilities that are different than the ones used by GS.
Five cases:
The original report was actually fairly detailed and allows any user to play with it by assigning various weight factors to each of the scenarios. They also had a Grid Storage option adder to the PT. Just for everybody's fun, attached is a page from their March 18, 2014 report (with my highlights in yellow), which allows anybody to play with their model by assigning probabilities that are different than the ones used by GS.
Five cases:
- Elon as a Steve Jobs (iPhone case)
- Elon as a Henry Ford (Ford Model T Case)
- Elon as Maytag Repairman
- Base Case
- Downside case
jesselivenomore
Member
doggusfluffy
Closed
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
