somewhere. Build the equipment and test it 'somewhere'...
Perhaps at the location of your in-house factory automation division...
Tesla Factory in Prüm, Germany Is Already Completed
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
Perhaps at the location of your in-house factory automation division...
Tesla Factory in Prüm, Germany Is Already Completed
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
It's just a book-keeping technicality, but in this case it's actually quite significant from a big picture perspective because it establishes the date at which the ownership of every share must be uniquely identified (typically in blocks of shares under the same ownership) so the dividend shares can be matched with them. The number of shares on that date must match the number of shares issued by the company. Any previous sales of TSLA in addition to those will need to be made whole by market makers by buying legitimate shares and substituting them for the synthetic shares the market makers had created in the course of their buying/selling duties. I'm not clear on how much leeway they have in terms of time but, for example, during the last split they were unable to provide the shares in a timely fashion. It was obvious they were still buying shares after the actual split date to balance their books.
My understanding is that even when a stock is not being split, market makers must keep books to ensure an orderly market. but there are a certain number of shares on their books that are always in transition. A split forces them to basically publish a snapshot at a given moment in time of all the legitimate shares. Any synthetic shares floating about need to be retired because they will not be getting dividend shares. It breaks the cycle of floating a bunch of shares that don't exist. These shares are essentially naked shorts created by market makers (they have sold more shares than they have bought in the course of making a market in TSLA). They are supposed to be allowed to do this for practical reasons (at least to the degree necessary to perform their market maker functions), but it appears that when you give the market makers an inch, and they can make money on that inch, then they take a mile (if no one prevents them), and the regulators are not preventing them because it's all one big happy family and no one is the wiser.
The SEC works more for the firms they are supposed to be regulating than they do for you and me.
The impression I got was the Cybertruck was designed around and assumed the 4680s would be ready.
I’m more than happy to be wrong on this though, or in any case its not worth arguing. At this point, Tesla‘s management has made it clear Cybertruck won’t start until that Austin cell line is running.
The range is not that much better than the roadster 2.0 or from the Semi reveal, both suppose to be out by 2020 which 4680s are not even in the conversation. It's all about how many batteries they are packing. I do think they are working on efficiency and weight reduction of the cybertruck to hit those ranges.
I think Elon was hoping to pack 4680s into them to make COGS less because the form factor is suppose to be a massive money saver. Given the current iteration of 4680s, I don't think he was banking on them having better battery density.
Correct, the CT has (will have) a structural battery pack which requires 4680's.
Maybe they will in the future.
There seem to be major downsides to vanadium redox flow batteries, from brief searches I did earlier in the year.
- Vanadium supply chain isn’t built out for it.
- Installed cost per kWh is very high
- Highly toxic solution. Wasn’t able to determine if this is a risk to environment, but doesn’t look like a positive
- Claimed superiority in battery life seems to compare to old data on lithium ion batteries
- Relatively narrow operating temperatures (though wiki article says exact opposite)
The DaLian battery referenced in the article may or may not even be completed. It started being built years ago and it’s either 400MWh or 800MWh. It was planned to be completed at the end of 2021. I can’t tell if it was ever finished.
Much more, including many listed advantages, found here: Wiki article
There are multiple ways to store energy. Tesla will never get into all of them. I can’t tell if vanadium redox even has much of a future, but it’s competing with all the others, as well.
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Can't wait to see the "business press" portray these Chinese military drills as the end of the world tomorrow. NASDAQ down what......2.8%?
How convenient!
How convenient!
TheTalkingMule
Distributed Energy Enthusiast
Yup. People need to remember that up is now down. This idea of things like domestic renewables manufacturing being vital is merely a remnant from our fossil fuel scarcity-based programming. You can't hoard the wind. The fuel-mindset is gonna be obsolete soon.
Likewise, making batteries or staying at the forefront of stationary storage isn't gonna have much reward.
Elon talks about "getting to 3TWh of cells" annually. What he doesn't talk about is when the world finally hits 200TWh in total cell supply..... we'll be all but done.
The money will be in services and speed to market with off the shelf solutions to setup entire new decentralized grids. Pace of innovation will still be king, but it's unlikely to be in things like slightly cheaper flow batteries or slightly better solar panels.
willow_hiller
Well-Known Member
Fred has the scoop on why Tesla paused Solar Roof installations. Tesla is testing new version of Solar Roof (v3.5) on employee's homes
Long story short, they're testing Solar Roof version 3.5 on employee homes right now for a wider launch toward the end of the year. Improvements said to be made on durability and ease of installation.
Long story short, they're testing Solar Roof version 3.5 on employee homes right now for a wider launch toward the end of the year. Improvements said to be made on durability and ease of installation.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And why wouldn't they take advantage of the structural pack? They need to reduce weight as much as possible on such a heavy vehicle.
As a rule insiders aren’t considered retail.
We don't know this kind of detail, and I guess we will find out when Munro tears down a CT, and probably not before that.
It could go either way, but if the CT isn't using the 4680s in a structural pack, the thick steel can might be engineering overkill.
IMO any vehicle that doesn't need a structural pack could use 2170s, 4680, or prismatic LFP, the main reason to prefer 4680s over 2170s in a non-structural pack is cost.
I also think LFP 4680s could be used in a structural pack, LFP 4680s seem possible, and the ability to use them in a structural pack would be an advantage that may justify the effort.
We know the CT requires the 8000 ton Gigapress, probably there is a lot more equipment required, and some of that is in the process of being installed, The Tesla guidance should be taken as the earliest possible start of production, not a written guarantee
The U.S. made a breakthrough battery discovery — then gave the technology to China
Taxpayers spent $15 million on research to build a breakthrough battery. Then the U.S. government gave it to China.www.npr.org
Why is Tesla not considering, 'Vanadium Redox Flow' batteries for grid storage?
Because it is hard
I'm not sure they're mutually exclusive. The CT needs to be able to carry loads and pull trailers.
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
I come from ML. When we see things that are consistent bad, we are happy! Just do the opposite and get all the rewards!
In this case: average performance of +20% .. not bad!
Artful Dodger
"Neko no me"
Nope, no red flags here:
BREAKING!!! Lucid CEO Sells Stock: $180 Million - Massive! (Warren Redlich from Mar 10, 2022)
...can't say there were no signs.
Cheers!
thesmokingman
Active Member
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
