Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable

[nativewolf]

True, but is investing $1.4B to keep a nuclear plant running longer the best investment? Maybe, but solar, wind, and megapacks might be better.

GSP

What utilization rate? 90%. So 3000mwh * .90% * 24 hours a day. So 64800 mwh of storage to replace that nuke on the bad no renewables days. Am I right on the numbers? If so just on storage keeping the nuke running is a fraction of the cost. The nuke is working right now, every rainy day in Northern California it is working. It should be the last asset to shut down. What if you have a cold rainy cloudy week with low winds?

We are going to need nukes for decades to come.

 

[Paracelsus]

The IPCC reported out their latest report and a survival guide yesterday. It's finally becoming obvious.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1637875896433385481

The broader message of the report you posted @betstarship is extremely important, and my response is not meant in anyway to marginalize it. Just an observation over the last couple years after an entire career of fighting to improve our resources and wild places - I am becoming a bit frustrated by the growing lack of broader messaging from these government and UN funded agencies to include all our other man-made disasters that are having a very similar impact to all species and to the sustainability of the Planet. We cannot solve Climate impacts if we don't solve unrestrained consumerism and a general lack of respect for all things the earth in her natural state has provided us. But then I guess we would have to solve unrestrained capitalism to significantly improve the first two issues...and its a system based on unrestrained capitalism that funds our government that then funds the messaging...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1637783656625483778

 

[TN Mtn Man]

I hadn't seen this yet-apologies if it's been covered. Also didn't realize Ford was so tight with VW.

MSN

 

[Captkerosene]

Mark Jacobson recently posted a brief summary comparing batteries to Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on California's grid. Despite what all the folks with stranded coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plant assets are wanting us to believe, the future is batteries, wind, and solar, not their stranded assets that they need us to continue to 'invest' in.

View attachment 919831

I don't see any compelling information here.

In fact, I haven't seen any compelling information on the economics of the Megapacks. (Can't say that I've really been looking.)

These things are very expensive and it doesn't look like they can store more than a few hundred dollars of energy. How do you pay off a $2M investment by arbitraging energy for a few hundred dollars a day?

The model seems to be: we're going to sell water for $10/gal to people dying of thirst. Great idea if you can find a lot of people dying of thirst. Not so great if part of the plan is to first create a lot of people dying of thirst.

What percentage of the battery's capacity will be able to be used regularly? Obviously, it can't be 100%. The whole idea is that you don't have to build a peaker plant so there will be no backup for the backup. 50% or something like that?

If you're paying $500/ KWh for a battery and you can make 10c/day by time shifting energy usage ... then the earnings are $36.5/year on that battery. Not a compelling return.

Happy to be wrong but please provide evidence.

Love how people quote the phrase "quasi-infinite demand" but then leave off the "at the right price" part.

 

[Ogre]

Mark Jacobson recently posted a brief summary comparing batteries to Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on California's grid. Despite what all the folks with stranded coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plant assets are wanting us to believe, the future is batteries, wind, and solar, not their stranded assets that they need us to continue to 'invest' in.

View attachment 919831

(This is regarding the letter you posted nothing in your text)

This is just a pet peeve of mine. I hate when I see people say batteries “Produced” power.

It’s not what they do, and honestly doesn’t reflect what makes them such an incredibly awesome addition to the grid. Batteries are time machines for energy. They move power from when you don’t need it to when you do need it. With every other power source on the grid, you can only produce a set amount of power and if there is spare power it is a burden on the grid to deal with it.

Nobody talks about the billions of GWH of energy that gets wasted on the traditional fossil fuel grid just due to excess capacity wasted and due to peaker plants firing up and shutting down to fill short term gaps in power needs.

Batteries don’t produce power, they take free power that’s not being used and move it to when it is needed most. They do it in an instant and invisibly. Nothing else can do this.

/rant

 

[M|S|M MYP]

I hadn't seen this yet-apologies if it's been covered. Also didn't realize Ford was so tight with VW.

MSN

Probably built in limited quantities

 

[mongo]

What utilization rate? 90%. So 3000mwh * .90% * 24 hours a day. So 64800 mwh of storage to replace that nuke on the bad no renewables days. Am I right on the numbers? If so just on storage keeping the nuke running is a fraction of the cost. The nuke is working right now, every rainy day in Northern California it is working. It should be the last asset to shut down. What if you have a cold rainy cloudy week with low winds?

We are going to need nukes for decades to come.

Indeed.
If plant has 2GW output, that maps to over 1000 2hr Megapacks, which are $2B to buy and install and only last for 2hr at full output.
For 4hrs of storage, it's more like $3.6B and 2000+ units.

$1.4B gets them 1.4GW/ 2.7GWh or 0.8GW/ 3.1GWh

 

[Ogre]

Apologies if this has already been posted:

Falling Lithium Prices Are Making Electric Cars More Affordable (NY Times)​

I can’t believe they spilled that many words on the topic and the best could come up with for why the price of lithium is falling is:

Some analysts said the falling price of lithium was caused by short-term factors like slowing sales growth in Europe and China after subsidies for electric car purchases expired. But other industry experts said the drop suggested that new mines and processing plants were solving the lithium problem sooner than many analysts had thought was possible.

Not a single one of their experts pointed out to them that Lithium is still priced at roughly 5X what it was in all of 2020? Not a single one of their experts said “it’s just the air getting let out of the lithium price bubble?

“We just don’t understand why these prices are falling“

“No idea how low the prices will go”…

 

[hitchhiker]

Nobody talks about the billions of GWH of energy that gets wasted on the traditional fossil fuel grid just due to excess capacity wasted and due to peaker plants firing up and shutting down to fill short term gaps in power needs.

Batteries don’t produce power, they take free power that’s not being used and move it to when it is needed most. They do it in an instant and invisibly. Nothing else can do this.

Exactly. First we need to replace all the peaker plants with batteries. That's where we do the most good because of the nature of the fuel and the nature of the 'turn on/turn off' capability (which gets replaced easily with batteries). Then when we have enough solar and wind we can start looking at replacing baseline generation. But we're not there yet.

 

[EQC_]

If you're paying $500/ KWh for a battery and you can make 10c/day by time shifting energy usage ... then the earnings are $36.5/year on that battery. Not a compelling return.

Just some relatively un-informed thoughts/estimates/calculations from me, but:

With your numbers, and ignoring maintentance costs and such, the battery pays for itself in less than 14 years. Not really a terrible investment, assuming the battery still has value after that point.

Where I am in California, my off-peak rates are 20-something cents per kWh, and my on-peak rates are 50-something cents per kWh. If a battery system can work with those prices, then gain from storing an off-peak kWh to release during on-peak times becomes 30 cents. Compared to the above 10 cents/14 years, the battery pays for itself in less than 5 years.

Also, if I remember correctly from other stories:
- During times of over-production, the instantaneous price of electricity can sometimes go negative. So, the battery would be paid to store energy. And, during times of peak over-demand, the instantaneious price can go huge -- dollars per kWh or more.
- I believe the batteries also do more than just store a kWh and release a kWh. Complicated things that I don't fully understand like voltage support, frequency response, and black start. There's value/payments for these things, and batteries can do them better than fossil plants. If I remember correctly, that first big battery in Australia was reportedly UNDERpaid for the services it provided, and still paid for itself in under a year.
- I also think about non-monetary value. Think about that freeze in Texas a few years ago that killed power during freezing weather. Whether or not there was profit to be made, how much would it have been worth for a community to keep the lights and heat on if they had a battery pack installed? Sortof like an insurance policy...you don't generally "profit" from buying insurance, but it can be nice to have when catastrophe hits.
- Also non-monetary value: making more use of the energy that gets produced (not wasting as much during times of over-production), and releasing energy when needed without any additional pollution or resource consumption.

 

[ABCTG]

This is my guess at the numbers which is very generous to Waymo.

A Robotaxi drives 50,000 miles per year with a 500,000 mile battery pack it lasts 10 years so needs to be depreciated 10% per year.
IMO it is doubtful whether putting a new battery pack in a 10 year old Robotaxi is worthwhile.
Waymo $50,000 -$ 5,000 per year.
Tesla $20,000 - $2,000 per year.
Tesla million mile battery pack $30,000 - $1,500 per year.
As far as we know Waymo doesn't have a Million mile battery pack, but I'll leave it out for now.

Fixed costs - assume the same for both $10 Million per year.
Waymo fleet size - 5,000 = $2,000 per year.
Tesla Fleet size - 100,000 = $100 per year.

Fixed costs
Waymo - $7,000 / 50,000 miles = $0.14 per mile.
Tesla - $2,100 / / 50,000 miles = $0.04 per mile.

So Tesla has a roughly 10 cents per mile advantage and Tesla will roughly know Waymo's cost and margins.

Keep in mind my numbers for Waymo's costs are very generous, Waymo's actual costs might be more like $0.20-$0.50 per mile.

I don't think Robotaxi customers want to be dropped off at a store Google owns, or that many will take meal suggestions from a Robotaxi. Most people know where they are going, and just want to get there with a minimum of fuss,

When the commercial justification for a product or service is selling another product or service, that is a business model on shaky ground.

Tesla has options to watch movies, play games or listen to music, IMO that is what I would want from a Robotaxi, But mostly I don't want to wait for a Robotaxi, It needs to arrive where I am ASAP, and take me to where I want to go with a minimum of fuss.

I think a robotaxi will drive at least 500 miles per 24 hour day in the US. =182,500 for 365 days or ~170,000 per year including downtime.

 

[SOULPEDL]

Hypothetical... If you were Xi (and maybe Putin as a side deal), how would you be planning to do a coordinated attack on US banking system? If what makes these banks struggle is the rapid pull on deposits, how much "pull" does China have? Forget their Bonds, I'm talking cash or property owned in the US by Chinese.

Maybe no way to know this. But without a doubt, many countries want the dollar to NOT stay as the all-mighty reserve currency, even if it means suffering on both sides of the ocean. This is what happens in war - even if it's financial.

For example, what if China were to take over all Chinese owned deposits from their own people... then pulled the rug out in an instant? Could Janet Yellen keep up? China has been known to do drastic things. Example is with housing in the late 50's as they eliminated all Chinese landlords who were <doing what is happening in the US today and causing this extreme homelessness>.

So what does this have to do with TSLA? OK, glad you asked! How would a collapsing dollar affect TSLA stock? Do we really take people's word for it that no Fraud would be involved in trying to shore up a failed banking system or State? I do wish I held my own certificates as I have no intentions of selling TSLA for a long, long time (small bets aside). Xi is a smart man, politics aside. He's acting as a powerful broker today.

Sorry for posting during the green day parade... but the discussion of Banks and Shares ties in if we look back at the last 10 pages here. For the record, I am not selling even if Max Pain is lower than the mark. I sense something very different today. Yahoo touting FSD, Mooooody upgrade, Cruise "applying for permits across California" (so cute). Time to jump in if you haven't already - IMHO, not advice. Either that or AI like NVDA (or Tesla again).

 

[nativewolf]

I don't see any compelling information here.

In fact, I haven't seen any compelling information on the economics of the Megapacks. (Can't say that I've really been looking.)

These things are very expensive and it doesn't look like they can store more than a few hundred dollars of energy. How do you pay off a $2M investment by arbitraging energy for a few hundred dollars a day?

The model seems to be: we're going to sell water for $10/gal to people dying of thirst. Great idea if you can find a lot of people dying of thirst. Not so great if part of the plan is to first create a lot of people dying of thirst.

What percentage of the battery's capacity will be able to be used regularly? Obviously, it can't be 100%. The whole idea is that you don't have to build a peaker plant so there will be no backup for the backup. 50% or something like that?

If you're paying $500/ KWh for a battery and you can make 10c/day by time shifting energy usage ... then the earnings are $36.5/year on that battery. Not a compelling return.

Happy to be wrong but please provide evidence.

Love how people quote the phrase "quasi-infinite demand" but then leave off the "at the right price" part.

I think you would enjoy a look at @petit_bateau work that he kindly published on here. Really it was the best work to date that I have seen anywhere and since batteries are sort of a fascination of mine...I am constantly looking. It's good that they are finally selling megapacks at scale. Awesome. However, baseline load replacement would require incredibly cheap batteries. It seems, based on available data, that we'll get there sooner rather than later and that would mean batteries are very cheap indeed.

It is why in our own planning we plan to wait to install batteries.

 

[Bobfitz1]

Mark Jacobson recently posted a brief summary comparing batteries to Diablo Canyon nuclear plant on California's grid. Despite what all the folks with stranded coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plant assets are wanting us to believe, the future is batteries, wind, and solar, not their stranded assets that they need us to continue to 'invest' in.

100% agree with your statement that batteries and renewable sources are the future.
However, Mark Jacobson's twitter post as it pertains to comparing CA batteries to Diablo Canyon plant has a glaring error.
Nuclear plants if they are safely designed and well maintained are well suited and economically sound (for now) because they
are large base generation, not peak generators. If 1.4 billion is going into DC it is for that reason. Once CA has sufficient solar, wind and batteries to displace all fossil fuel generation, remaining nuclear plants can be decommissioned. Starting w DC as it has significant add'l risk from earthquakes.

 

[SOULPEDL]

The IPCC reported out their latest report and a survival guide yesterday. It's finally becoming obvious.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1637875896433385481

Holy ___. Keep in mind, we only get to see this report because all members of the IPCC have agreed to make it public.
(I'll behave, there's another thread on climate change, thanks for posting).

 

[Tony73]

I don't see any compelling information here.

In fact, I haven't seen any compelling information on the economics of the Megapacks. (Can't say that I've really been looking.)

These things are very expensive and it doesn't look like they can store more than a few hundred dollars of energy. How do you pay off a $2M investment by arbitraging energy for a few hundred dollars a day?

The model seems to be: we're going to sell water for $10/gal to people dying of thirst. Great idea if you can find a lot of people dying of thirst. Not so great if part of the plan is to first create a lot of people dying of thirst.

What percentage of the battery's capacity will be able to be used regularly? Obviously, it can't be 100%. The whole idea is that you don't have to build a peaker plant so there will be no backup for the backup. 50% or something like that?

If you're paying $500/ KWh for a battery and you can make 10c/day by time shifting energy usage ... then the earnings are $36.5/year on that battery. Not a compelling return.

Happy to be wrong but please provide evidence.

Love how people quote the phrase "quasi-infinite demand" but then leave off the "at the right price" part.

On the contrary, that is a very compelling risk adjusted return. I doubt the actual return is that good.

 

[M|S|M MYP]

Hypothetical... If you were Xi (and maybe Putin as a side deal), how would you be planning to do a coordinated attack on US banking system? If what makes these banks struggle is the rapid pull on deposits, how much "pull" does China have? Forget their Bonds, I'm talking cash or property owned in the US by Chinese.

Maybe no way to know this. But without a doubt, many countries want the dollar to NOT stay as the all-mighty reserve currency, even if it means suffering on both sides of the ocean. This is what happens in war - even if it's financial.

For example, what if China were to take over all Chinese owned deposits from their own people... then pulled the rug out in an instant? Could Janet Yellen keep up? China has been known to do drastic things. Example is with housing in the late 50's as they eliminated all Chinese landlords who were <doing what is happening in the US today and causing this extreme homelessness>.

So what does this have to do with TSLA? OK, glad you asked! How would a collapsing dollar affect TSLA stock? Do we really take people's word for it that no Fraud would be involved in trying to shore up a failed banking system or State? I do wish I held my own certificates as I have no intentions of selling TSLA for a long, long time (small bets aside). Xi is a smart man, politics aside. He's acting as a powerful broker today.

Sorry for posting during the green day parade... but the discussion of Banks and Shares ties in if we look back at the last 10 pages here. For the record, I am not selling even if Max Pain is lower than the mark. I sense something very different today. Yahoo touting FSD, Mooooody upgrade, Cruise "applying for permits across California" (so cute). Time to jump in if you haven't already - IMHO, not advice. Either that or AI like NVDA (or Tesla again).

Let that "sink" in

 

[Captkerosene]

Just some relatively un-informed thoughts/estimates/calculations from me, but:

With your numbers, and ignoring maintentance costs and such, the battery pays for itself in less than 14 years. Not really a terrible investment, assuming the battery still has value after that point.

Where I am in California, my off-peak rates are 20-something cents per kWh, and my on-peak rates are 50-something cents per kWh. If a battery system can work with those prices, then gain from storing an off-peak kWh to release during on-peak times becomes 30 cents. Compared to the above 10 cents/14 years, the battery pays for itself in less than 5 years.

Also, if I remember correctly from other stories:
- During times of over-production, the instantaneous price of electricity can sometimes go negative. So, the battery would be paid to store energy. And, during times of peak over-demand, the instantaneious price can go huge -- dollars per kWh or more.
- I believe the batteries also do more than just store a kWh and release a kWh. Complicated things that I don't fully understand like voltage support, frequency response, and black start. There's value/payments for these things, and batteries can do them better than fossil plants. If I remember correctly, that first big battery in Australia was reportedly UNDERpaid for the services it provided, and still paid for itself in under a year.
- I also think about non-monetary value. Think about that freeze in Texas a few years ago that killed power during freezing weather. Whether or not there was profit to be made, how much would it have been worth for a community to keep the lights and heat on if they had a battery pack installed? Sortof like an insurance policy...you don't generally "profit" from buying insurance, but it can be nice to have when catastrophe hits.
- Also non-monetary value: making more use of the energy that gets produced (not wasting as much during times of over-production), and releasing energy when needed without any additional pollution or resource consumption.

I pay about 10c/KWh. I use electricity to heat my house. I'd love to have a solar roof and go "off grid" but spending 100k to do so is not a wise move.

With people "mentally' pencilling in 500B valuations for Tesla energy, I just want to know if those numbers are realistic. Or, are we looking at another solar business. I don't think the business model has been explored enough to come to any conclusions at this point.

 

[Captkerosene]

On the contrary, that is a very compelling risk adjusted return. I doubt the actual return is that good.

With an expected life of twenty years, you need to subtract 5%/year for depreciation. So, net, about a 2% return. But, my numbers are just a WAG with no real-world foundation. Still, does it all add up?

 

[KBF]

Tesla tsunami hits Europe priming for end-of-quarter push

A massive wave of Tesla deliveries is hitting Europe as the automaker engages its infamous end of quarter push.

www.teslarati.com

Sounds like the quarterly push is still happening... Or it's just the result of shipping logistics. It is more efficient to completely fill a ship, and I guess Tesla just sent all their Portugal orders at once.