Tesla Gigafactory Investor Thread

[daniel Ox9EFD]

You can't just take X% improvement per year in batteries and assume that trend just continues. You need to look at actual battery chemistries coming up.
There are a few companies doing solid-state Lithium batteries: Sakti3, Quantumscape.
From an interview of Ann Marie Sastry, CEO of Sakti3, she said they will be in consumer electronics in two years, from 2014. So next year. They claim 1100kWh/l (not sure how much that is in kWh/kg), and a $100/kWh target. Of course, I think it was Edison who said the battery industry turns people into liars.

The point is rather, it is hard to project out more than 3-5 years with reasonable accuracy.

Here it is: The Charge of the Battery Brigade - Autoline This Week 1833 - YouTube

 

[daniel Ox9EFD]

I take back the Sakti3 comment. I couldn't find any information on energy density by weight. I thought I was just missing something but it seems they intentionally did not publish it.

 

[dmckinstry]

I take back the Sakti3 comment. I couldn't find any information on energy density by weight. I thought I was just missing something but it seems they intentionally did not publish it.

I assume your 1100 kWh/l is a typo. Actually she said 1100 Wh/l. That's still not bad. 1.7 - 4.4 times that of current technology.
But, if it could be afforded, 1100 kWh/l would give us 110 kWh Tesla with a 100 cc battery.

 

[JRP3]

I'd take anything Lux research says with a BIG pinch of (Lithium-Cobalt) salt.

As I recall Lux has consistently overstated battery costs, and I'd say they are still doing so with Tesla, though getting closer to the mark than ever before.

 

[daniel Ox9EFD]

I assume your 1100 kWh/l is a typo. Actually she said 1100 Wh/l. That's still not bad. 1.7 - 4.4 times that of current technology.
But, if it could be afforded, 1100 kWh/l would give us 110 kWh Tesla with a 100 cc battery.

Oops. Yes. 1100 Wh/l. I was thinking about kWh/kg while typing.

Here might be the catch - they did not publish kWh/kg. This might be quite relevant since you could expect an all solid state battery to be heavier than current ones.
It might still be a leap in technology, but we don't know. I sent them a message a day ago asking what is the energy density be weight.

 

[mrdoubleb]

As I recall Lux has consistently overstated battery costs, and I'd say they are still doing so with Tesla, though getting closer to the mark than ever before.

Didn`t Elon say in one of the recent ER class or on a conference or something that they are already below $200 per kwh? I think it was the same call where he said he would be very disappointed if they would not get below $100 within 10 years.

 

[jhm]

I wish Tesla would start reporting their battery cost every quarter just like how SolarCity reports their cost per Watt every quarter. It would be good for the industry to know where they stand. The problem with Lux is that they lull the industry into thinking that they have time to wait for someone else to solve their battery problem. The industry has a false sense of security in the status quo. It's time for Tesla to set the record straight.

 

[Zapped]

I assume your 1100 kWh/l is a typo. Actually she said 1100 Wh/l. That's still not bad. 1.7 - 4.4 times that of current technology.
But, if it could be afforded, 1100 kWh/l would give us 110 kWh Tesla with a 100 cc battery.

Funny thing; I recently saw a similar battery (and better) in the movie Knight and Day

 

[Model 3]

Didn`t Elon say in one of the recent ER class or on a conference or something that they are already below $200 per kwh? I think it was the same call where he said he would be very disappointed if they would not get below $100 within 10 years.

It's been reported that their current price (as of their last contract with Panasonic) is $180/kWh for the battery cells. But to Lux's defence - they are talking abut the price for the cells *and* the battery they are enclosed in - including electronics. But still....

 

[mrdoubleb]

It's been reported that their current price (as of their last contract with Panasonic) is $180/kWh for the battery cells. But to Lux's defence - they are talking abut the price for the cells *and* the battery they are enclosed in - including electronics. But still....

Ok, fair enough.

 

[jhm]

It's been reported that their current price (as of their last contract with Panasonic) is $180/kWh for the battery cells. But to Lux's defence - they are talking abut the price for the cells *and* the battery they are enclosed in - including electronics. But still....

Right, so Lux is put the non-cell cost of the battery at $5950 for a 85 kWh pack. That still seems steep. Can we break that down a bit?

 

[chickensevil]

Right, so Lux is put the non-cell cost of the battery at $5950 for a 85 kWh pack. That still seems steep. Can we break that down a bit?

The only way I can see counting a cost that high is some form of amortization of the R&D cost that went into making and designing the pack... Because there is no way I could see Tesla's material costs and minor labor coming in at 70$/kWh not counting the cells. The pack has to cost less than that.

 

[brandude87]

Looks like this picture predates the drone video based on the extent of steel work on the first four sections. Of interest is that the steel work on the fifth section appears to have disappeared by the time the drone video was taken.

Yeah, I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this. I photoshopped a comparison of the Gigafactory using images from February 28 (airplane shot) and May 17, 2015 (4k drone video). You can clearly see that since February, all of section 5 has been completely removed. Why would Tesla do this? Were they short on supplies and needed to focus on completing sections 1-4? Was it due to a design change? Thoughts?

 

[jhm]

Is it posible that sections 1-5 in the first photo is sections 1-4 in the second photo? It's hard to see definite markers in this.

 

[Gerasimental]

Is it posible that sections 1-5 in the first photo is sections 1-4 in the second photo? It's hard to see definite markers in this.

Using the carpark and incoming road (above section 4 in the 1st image), it does seem that the frame has been removed. As you come down that road to the GF and look right you'd have seen quite a lot of frame in February and just look at empty space now.

 

[brandude87]

Is it posible that sections 1-5 in the first photo is sections 1-4 in the second photo? It's hard to see definite markers in this.

No, it looks pretty clear to me. I've removed the white borders in the image below to make it more clear.

 

[vgrinshpun]

I think that the spans (11) were removed in conjunction with the planned expansion of the GF, by possibly 50%, mentioned by Elon during the ER. It might be that either the sections breakdown, and/or orientation of sections required changes due to the new increased footprint of the GF.

 

[brandude87]

I think that the spans (11) were removed in conjunction with the planned expansion of the GF, by possibly 50%, mentioned by Elon during the ER. It might be that either the sections breakdown, and/or orientation of sections required changes due to the new increased footprint of the GF.

Increasing building size by 50% with such short notice seems a bit impractical for many reasons (cost, time, engineering, etc.), so I think Elon meant that they were going to make the process 50% more efficient. In addition to making the factory more efficient, he probably wants to start pack production sooner than initially planned to help meet demand. My theory is that they halted (and even cannibalized) section 5 so that they could divert all resources to completing sections 1-4 first. This is evidenced by the complete lack of spare beams lying around. Perhaps sections 1-5 were meant to house the core pack production and they found a way to cram it into just 4 sections. This would be consistent with the goal of increasing Gigafactory efficiency. Thoughts?

 

[Fanatic]

Increasing building size by 50% with such short notice seems a bit impractical for many reasons (cost, time, engineering, etc.), so I think Elon meant that they were going to make the process 50% more efficient. In addition to making the factory more efficient, he probably wants to start pack production sooner than initially planned to help meet demand. My theory is that they halted (and even cannibalized) section 5 so that they could divert all resources to completing sections 1-4 first. This is evidenced by the complete lack of spare beams lying around. Perhaps sections 1-5 were meant to house the core pack production and they found a way to cram it into just 4 sections. This would be consistent with the goal of increasing Gigafactory efficiency. Thoughts?

Seams reasonable enough. Now roofing has been completed on section 1 as labeled in previous posts. More concrete work has been done on section 2-3.. Think its possible they expand the factory by a couple of sections in the future. their site it huge, they will have plenty of land to do it!

 

[vgrinshpun]

Increasing building size by 50% with such short notice seems a bit impractical for many reasons (cost, time, engineering, etc.), so I think Elon meant that they were going to make the process 50% more efficient. In addition to making the factory more efficient, he probably wants to start pack production sooner than initially planned to help meet demand. My theory is that they halted (and even cannibalized) section 5 so that they could divert all resources to completing sections 1-4 first. This is evidenced by the complete lack of spare beams lying around. Perhaps sections 1-5 were meant to house the core pack production and they found a way to cram it into just 4 sections. This would be consistent with the goal of increasing Gigafactory efficiency. Thoughts?

We are all speculating, so in general a lot of things could be plausible. However, given the conversation Elon Musk had with Andrea James during the ER, expanding production by increasing output per the square foot of the GF building is unlikely, as they specifically discussed availability of additional space at the GF Site to expand the building and production because of surprisingly strong stationary storage demand.

I think they are more likely planning for increase of the final building size, and this might require re-calibration of the construction phasing and/or size and quantity of the building sections.