-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
The improvement in overall volumetric energy density is combination of improvement in form factor, cell chemistry and new pack architecture (utilized in P100D and about to be carried over to the PowerWall / PowerPack 2.0).
What am I missing? The person with BES, who is in the field, thinks TE is just "buying" projects, ie not selling at profit. Where does the 40-50% gross margin data come from?
TIA
I posted about it few times. PowerWall "list" price is $445 / kWh. Their automotive battery pack cost is $190/kWh (as revealed by Tesla). Assuming that TE pack cost is 25% higher than TA pack cost yields $238/kWh. Gross margin is (445 - 238) / 445 = 46.5%.
The kicker is that TE list price beats the best pricing from the companies listed in the article you linked up-thread. I personally saw budgetary quotations for a 10MWh BES project, with the lowest pricing about 7.5% higher than what Tesla lists on their website for a 2 times smaller BES (5MWh).
All of the above is BEFORE cost reductions due to new cells/packs to be manufactured at the GF.
I am amused that all of the above comes as a surprise. We lived through the same thing with TA: why do you think everybody about 10 years late to the BEVs? One of the reasons is that nobody could produce batteries cheap enough to make 250 miles BEV viable.
Gerasimental
Member
Wait, P100D pack doesnt use 2170 does it? I've not been following developments as closely over summer, but I was under the impression that P100D is still using 18650 cells. In any case, 100kWh is only a 10% increase on 90kWh, while Fred's article suggests a 100% increase for TE products.
P100D pack does not use 2170 cells, but it uses new pack architecture, new cooling and new cell interconnection system.
As I posted, the increase in overall volumetric density is due to a COMBINATION of three changes: cell form factor, cell chemistry and pack architecture.
The new pack architecture of the P100D allowed Tesla to squeeze in a lot more cells, upping the figures by something like 17%. Going to 21-70 format should also improve the capacity by 5-10%.
My guess is that the Powerpack will go from something like 102 kWh to something like 130 kWh, based on volumetric improvement alone. Then the question is if Panasonic has managed to increase the chemistry sufficiently. Going from 130 kWh to 200 kWh would imply a ~55% improvement in chemistry. Or going from something like 200 Wh/kg to 300 Wh/kg, with the NMC chemistry. I have strong doubts this is the case.
3Victoria
Active Member
Please read my comment carefully.
My question was about the contradictory nature of two actions.
Last edited:
FredTMC
Model S VIN #4925
Hmmmm. I was thinking we reached zero availability of shares to short. Maybe not yet..
I bet the packaging itself is now 10-20% bigger, bringing the chemistry numbers back to Earth: "The pack itself will stay roughly the same size, which is a good indication of the improved energy density."
The improved packing of cells in P100D is due to improved efficiency in two dimensional packing of cells. I am wondering if Tesla, in addition to having more cells in each pod was also able to stick more that 16 pods in PowerWall 2.0
There were 0 shares available yesterday after hours. It appears that we are having a new lot becoming available every day.
glhs272
Unnamed plug faced villian
My speculation was that this is a combination of many factors...
1) Powerwall/Powerpack 1.0 didn't use Panasonic Model S type 18650s but lower energy density (perhaps Samsung SDI or LG Chem) 18650 cells. Something 2100mAH Vs. 3400mAH (Model S cells). So because they are using a relatively old cell design/chemistry, there is a lot of room for improvement.
2) Powerwall/Powerpack 1.0 used the same module layout as older generation model S modules, based on what I saw in videos of it's construction. Tesla found room for improvement in module design with the P100D pack design, so again lots of room for improvement.
3) As you say... form factor change.
So when you add up: New chemistry, New form factor, new module layout.... you see a doubling of capacity. Yeah just my speculation.
And why shouldn't we be surprised. The institutions can bleed out a certain number of shares. By bleeding them out they the interest rates they charge since the record date has passed,
If the SP rockets up they gain, if it does not they hedge their paper losses with real interest payment gains
Whoever last week bought those 1000 10/7 TSLA put options at a strike of 200 and another 1000 at the 197.5 strike at the asked price and above, must be pleased by today’s seemingly coordinated effort to push the price under those strikes by today’s close.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
