Based on the job descriptions Tesla posted for stationary storage, I'm confident that Tesla is developing its own version of the Ideal Power device.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
thanks for the hint. I've just browsed through those job postings. Here's an interesting quote from one of those:
"As electric cars are only as clean as the grids that charge them, Tesla has also developed a business unit built on top of the same vehicle powertrain technology to allow for increasing levels of renewable generation on the grid. Furthermore, the suite of grid-connected battery systems developed by Tesla also performs a variety of high value functions for utilities, businesses, and residential customers. Stationary Storage will be a multi-billion dollar per year business unit in the near term and the fast-growing team is adding top team members for engineering, business, and sales." Source: https://chc.tbe.taleo.net/chc01/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=TESLA&cws=1&rid=25581
...did I read that correctly as "multi-billion dollar per year business unit [for Tesla]" and not "multi-billion dollar per year market" ? ...and "in the near-term"...:love:
@jhm: Yep, the stationary storage prices in Germany are quite high but given that current utility power costs about $0.25-0.30 per kwh (+ monthly fee of around $5-10 per household), the math for a PV system with storage is still slightly positive for houses with a high power consumption (return on investment after 7-15 years depending on the exact numbers).
Last edited:
In the picture provided of the current testing system(in this thread), this system from Schneider Electric was included. You think that they are going to develop their own inverter charger even though they use one from an outside company now?
I though when this story about Bloom Boxes aired on 60 minutes our energy problems were solved. $3,000 and you can produce all the electricity your home can handle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxyKlTDHAyU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxyKlTDHAyU
Yes and that was years ago. Since then I have heard little about that product. But of course it uses natural gas as an energy source, so not renewable, and not a good long term solution. But better than coal.
Regarding Teslaenergy.com
https://westernthought.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/packaging-erin-west.pdf
https://westernthought.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/packaging-erin-west.pdf
Gerasimental
Member
Great find. That's certainly how it reads. Makes me a little more optimistic that Elon might announce some very large contracts already in place along with the product announcement on April 30. There's been lots of media talk about TM's cash burn and about maybe running out before Model 3 launch and I feel this is one of the big things holding the stock back. This could easily put an end to that once and for all.
I did post this info a while back, and I was surprised it didn't attract more notice. But, yes, it's a big deal.
AndreN
Member
Unfortunately the home Bloom Box would only put out power at a 1kw rate. That won't even run a hair dryer, let alone a clothes dryer (5kw) or charge a Model S (10kw). So you'd need Tesla stationary battery storage to stock up power all night to use during peaks in the daytime.
I definitely noticed your post and was also surprised so few made note of it. Tesla's job postings have always been a good barometer of their future direction. I'm definitely anxious to see what the announcement means beyond the residential market as noted by this:
"Furthermore, the suite of grid-connected battery systems developed by Tesla also performs a variety of high value functions for utilities, businesses, and residential customers"
jhm
Well-Known Member
"Multi-billion per year unit." Let's see. 15 GWh @ $200 to $400 per kWh is $3B to $6B in annual revenue. Targeting 30% GM implies $900M to $1800M in gross profit. Assuming 20% SGA, R&D and the rest leaves us with $300M to $600M net income. This unit could add $6B to $12B in market cap to Tesla by 2020.
This unit also helps us put a price on the Gigafactory as a whole. Let's suppose that the the stationary unit uses 30% of the Gigafactory and is worth that fraction. If it was worth more, then Tesla would build more capacity. So this is conservative. Let's also be conservative and assume the unit is worth a $6B market cap. Thus, the Gigafactory is worth $20B conservatively. That's not a bad five-year return for a $5B investment.
Of course, the bigger value enabled by the Gigafactory is the automotive unit. With cars there is about $1200 revenue per kWh and at 30% GM, this is around $360 gross profit per kWh. Contrast that opportunity to stationary where gross per kWh is $60 to $120. So it is definitely worthwhile to support automotive, but the return on stationary needs to be large enough to make the investment in capacity. There is little point to subsidizing stationary capacity on the back of automotive. That is to say, stationary needs to be an attractive business on a stand alone basis, and the valuation above suggests that it is.
Other ways that stationary supports the auto business is that grid ties storage makes power and charging infrastructure cheaper and greener. Today a Toyota exec made foolish comments about the power demands of ultra fast charging, 500 kW, and suggested that grids could not support this. Well, of course, they can, but use of stationary storage to buffer power makes this capacity much more affordable. Consider a Supercharger station some day with a 1MW 2MWh battery. It would be able to deliver 300 mile range charges in 12 minutes for 2 cars at a time for upto 20 charges in 2 hours without a recharge. Drawing only 200 kW for charging, it deliver 48 100kWh charges per day. As Tesla drives the cost down to $100/kWh, such a massive battery would cost around $200,000. It could also provide peak shaving for nearby business or the grid to generate supplemental income. This kind of solution allows the power demands of increasing EV penetration to scale in a low cost way. It should not be necessary for utilities to add capacity to support a massive fleet of EVs. If Tesla needed to roll out one of these per 1000 cars sold, that alone could generate demand for 1 GWh of stationary in a year selling 500,000 cars. So Tesla pretty much needs to work this out for itself, and figuring this out may as well market the solutions wherever they can. Hense, the stationary unit is pretty integral to the whole company, as anticipated in the Secret Master Plan.
This unit also helps us put a price on the Gigafactory as a whole. Let's suppose that the the stationary unit uses 30% of the Gigafactory and is worth that fraction. If it was worth more, then Tesla would build more capacity. So this is conservative. Let's also be conservative and assume the unit is worth a $6B market cap. Thus, the Gigafactory is worth $20B conservatively. That's not a bad five-year return for a $5B investment.
Of course, the bigger value enabled by the Gigafactory is the automotive unit. With cars there is about $1200 revenue per kWh and at 30% GM, this is around $360 gross profit per kWh. Contrast that opportunity to stationary where gross per kWh is $60 to $120. So it is definitely worthwhile to support automotive, but the return on stationary needs to be large enough to make the investment in capacity. There is little point to subsidizing stationary capacity on the back of automotive. That is to say, stationary needs to be an attractive business on a stand alone basis, and the valuation above suggests that it is.
Other ways that stationary supports the auto business is that grid ties storage makes power and charging infrastructure cheaper and greener. Today a Toyota exec made foolish comments about the power demands of ultra fast charging, 500 kW, and suggested that grids could not support this. Well, of course, they can, but use of stationary storage to buffer power makes this capacity much more affordable. Consider a Supercharger station some day with a 1MW 2MWh battery. It would be able to deliver 300 mile range charges in 12 minutes for 2 cars at a time for upto 20 charges in 2 hours without a recharge. Drawing only 200 kW for charging, it deliver 48 100kWh charges per day. As Tesla drives the cost down to $100/kWh, such a massive battery would cost around $200,000. It could also provide peak shaving for nearby business or the grid to generate supplemental income. This kind of solution allows the power demands of increasing EV penetration to scale in a low cost way. It should not be necessary for utilities to add capacity to support a massive fleet of EVs. If Tesla needed to roll out one of these per 1000 cars sold, that alone could generate demand for 1 GWh of stationary in a year selling 500,000 cars. So Tesla pretty much needs to work this out for itself, and figuring this out may as well market the solutions wherever they can. Hense, the stationary unit is pretty integral to the whole company, as anticipated in the Secret Master Plan.
jhm,
I would argue that the selling of these packs for stationary storage allows the gigafactory to be up and running without the model 3 in full production. They could delay the Model 3 by a few months and still have a use for the battery packs that the gigafactory creates. The factory could start at 50% of packs for stationary storage and 50% for the Model S/X....then transition slowly to 70% ModelS/X/3 and 30% for stationary storage. This would give Tesla a lot of flexibility regarding the gigafactory.
I would argue that the selling of these packs for stationary storage allows the gigafactory to be up and running without the model 3 in full production. They could delay the Model 3 by a few months and still have a use for the battery packs that the gigafactory creates. The factory could start at 50% of packs for stationary storage and 50% for the Model S/X....then transition slowly to 70% ModelS/X/3 and 30% for stationary storage. This would give Tesla a lot of flexibility regarding the gigafactory.
jhm
Well-Known Member
Yes, I totally agree. I'm not sure exactly how they'll use this flexibility, but stationary gives Tesla a lot of options for how to ramp up production and maintain high utilization of the Gigafactory. It the auto business is slow to ramp up, stationary can surge ahead. If auto surges ahead and needs capacity , production of stationary can be sacrified.
Another interesting angle is how to manage upgrades in cell technology. Suppose an new higher density cell goes into production and need lines with new tooling. While the new cell capacity ramps up it is introduced into specific models and versions first. But what to do with older lines that may just be a few years old? The old cell output is not needed so much for autos. So Tesla can direct that capacity into stationary products. So while the latest technology may only be cutting edge for auto for a few years, the production lines for that generation of technology can continue production for many more years. This gets the most out of tooling investments. It allows Tesla to constantly roll forward new technology.
So options and flexibility are good.
I agree that the stationary storage business is great for flexibiblity in that it can absorb just about any extra cells or manufacturing capacity.
However, what is our official theory on what cells they are launching with? If they are battery constrained why launch this product at all? I have suggested that Panasonic has an output which is not up to automotive ratings, is that the party line? Bears will, quite rightly, point out that if they were supply constrained they would not be able to launch this product as much as they might like to.
jhm
Well-Known Member
My personal theory is that Tesla now has a new higher density cell for the Model X and that they have begun to place emerging capacity into the 70D. It's a theory waiting for confirmation. In the meantime, bears can dismiss it. But I don't think it is baked into the price right now so shorts are bearing the risk of disbelief.
At any rate, one consequence of this theory is that the production capacity for the incumbent cells need a new market, ergo, stationary launches now.
I had forgotten that, thank you. I figured this was a dumb question, and it was
As long as we are offering theories: It could be that one or more other cell makers have excess capacity. When Tesla came along, the industry was in a slump due to the decline of the laptop, and TM soaked up that capacity, but only from Panasonic. Is it possible there are other suppliers that cannot or will not meet the automotive spec that TM has, but has cell capacity? This launch need not involve Panasonic's output at all.
Gerasimental
Member
I had forgotten that, thank you. I figured this was a dumb question, and it was
As long as we are offering theories: It could be that one or more other cell makers have excess capacity. When Tesla came along, the industry was in a slump due to the decline of the laptop, and TM soaked up that capacity, but only from Panasonic. Is it possible there are other suppliers that cannot or will not meet the automotive spec that TM has, but has cell capacity? This launch need not involve Panasonic's output at all.
That's consistent with qualifying further cell suppliers this year, of course. I always thought it seemed odd to basically 'mix and match' cells from two different suppliers and use them in the same product. Would each pack be mixed Samsung SDI and Panasonic cells, or would some cars come with packs of SDI cells and others with packs of Panasonic cells? Both seem non-ideal.
If, however, Stationary Storage (I hate that I can't bring myself to use an acronym, must find a solution. StaSto maybe?) uses cells form a different supplier to the cars, then the flexibility mentioned above is lost.
The flexibility comes in by assuming that the stationary products can use auto or consumer cells, from panasonic, gigafactory or 3rd party cell makers. The stationary business soaks up whatever is available from the GF or spot market.
Similar threads
