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

[EVNow]

They were cell-constrained in early-to-mid Q3. Then Panasonic added several cell lines since then, and is guiding for 35 GWh annual production capacity by the end of March. Again, just doing simple math together with Tesla's guidance is giving me significant excess capacity. Either they have hugely lowballed their annual Model 3 and Tesla Energy production, or there is something else requiring that excess cell production.

Your alias says you are a J Petersen Fan, is that correct ?

Nonsense from John Petersen

ps : While you are at it, can you also tell us whether you are Long/Short on TSLA ?

 

[Cosmacelf]

And that is guidance.
Just one PG&E project is 730 MWh-1.1GWh
Tesla and others to deliver over 2 GWh of energy storage in California project to replace 3 gas plants
And I think they are subcontractor on another large one.

Yeah, just because the plant is capable of producing 35 GWh, doesn't mean they plan at running it at 100% capacity. There may be headroom for projects like this. Tesla may indeed have asked for headroom, and may be paying for it.

 

[Sudre]

(35 GWh capacity by end of March at GF1)

Let be perfectly clear. That is only 26.25 GWh for the last three quarters of the year. They ARE cell constrained now. It looks like they might actually be able to catch up.

 

[EVNow]

Yeah, just because the plant is capable of producing 35 GWh, doesn't mean they plan at running it at 100% capacity. There may be headroom for projects like this. Tesla may indeed have asked for headroom, and may be paying for it.

Its actually very beneficial not to be constrained by parts. Then you can plan production based on the market demand and maximize revenue & EPS.

 

[Steve m]

Or their current production equipment cannot handle much more Powerwall/Powerpack production than their stated guidance.

Conjecture lacking supporting evidence.

 

[jbcarioca]

The "quote" you used omitted well over a hundred words including an entire paragraph between "stay" and "to provide." That omission totally distorts the content of the full statement. The convention is to use an ellipsis " ..." to indicate omitted words.

Reciprocity raised the peaker issue by implying Tesla could avoid demand charges at SuperCharger locations simply by entering into private, bi-lateral transactions with utilities to add stationary storage throughout their systems. My view is that any such transaction would not only need regulator approval, but likely draw intervention from other utility customer groups/constituents.

Utilities here have been integrating stationary storage into their systems for nearly a decade--AES was among the first. Which actual deals have you watched that were completed without regulator involvement?

I never implied regulatory approval was not required. All that I know about have readily been approved. Standard industrial supply agreements also specify quite routinely both excess power absorption and load shedding. These are the services supplied by batteries, are they not? There are rapidly evolving deals that provide for distributed battery grid services.
Tesla Powerwall 2.0 - Green Mountain Power
The link is to Green Mountain Power pilot program.

My quibble is not about no regulation, but about the progress being made, sometimes using existing grid services corporate contract formats as a prototype.

As it happens Reciprocity is quite correct, given current events.

As for offending you by only quoting the beginning and end of your longish post, really you should know a convention also exists to indicate the object of your comments rather than the entire reference. Kate Turabian long ago recommended footnotes for that purpose. Online conventions have changed those age-old practices.
.

 

[dc_h]

​

You guys are much more ...um...patient than I am.
When someone is as consistently wrong as that guy I stop paying any attention to them.

can someone build a bot or theee to follow mark and like all his posts, but to also follow flat earth, Alex Jones and large animal pornography. Feel free to add other detail. Just seems like it could help give him the credibility by association he deserves.

 

[mongo]

Yeah, just because the plant is capable of producing 35 GWh, doesn't mean they plan at running it at 100% capacity. There may be headroom for projects like this. Tesla may indeed have asked for headroom, and may be paying for it.

Although, from the recent Panasonic report, the cell side is still working on getting to 35 GWh..

 

[AudubonB]

The Panasonic quarterly from today has some points that merit a closer look for the cautious Tesla investor :

* Provision for legal expenses in battery market segment (unspecified if this is Tesla related, but strong possibility)
* $2B yen provision related to quality related issues regarding a customer in North America
...

9 demerits for mixing currencies.
Is it $2bn, or is it ¥2bn? The latter is about $18million...mousies.

 

[jpterpsfan]

Your alias says you are a J Petersen Fan, is that correct ?

Nonsense from John Petersen

ps : While you are at it, can you also tell us whether you are Long/Short on TSLA ?

That is not what my username means. And I hold just over 200 shares of TSLA. The point of my posts isn't "to drag down the company", it's to set realistic expectations, goals, and unannounced plans for the year. People cannot pretend that Tesla hasn't royally screwed up Model 3 production. They were over 1 year late for hitting 5k production for one week, and they seem to have given up on producing 10k/week Model 3 at Fremont. And they will probably screw up the launches of all of their future products. But, I am still an investor. From what I have seen, their EV-specific technology is second to none and they have the all-out R&D and CapEx commitment to EVs that it will take to dominate the automotive market going forward.

But this does not mean that they are immune to criticism, nor does it mean we should get carried away with assuming things will turn out well above their stated guidance. I am trying to theorize while not venturing well outside the boundaries of their guidance.

 

[Unpilot]

People cannot pretend that Tesla hasn't royally screwed up Model 3 production. They were over 1 year late for hitting 5k production for one week, and they seem to have given up on producing 10k/week Model 3 at Fremont. And they will probably screw up the launches of all of their future products.

Fair and Balanced?

 

[jpterpsfan]

Let be perfectly clear. That is only 26.25 GWh for the last three quarters of the year. They ARE cell constrained now. It looks like they might actually be able to catch up.

Cell constrained for the future? I mean sure, but they aren't going to start producing Model Y or Semi cells at the start of Q2. I'm assuming Panasonic brings more battery cell lines online in Q4 specifically for the low-volume Y production in early 2020.

 

[jpterpsfan]

Fair and Balanced?

Why did you not quote the rest of my post that explained why I was still an investor? And are you going to dispute any of what you quoted from my post?

 

[EVNow]

People cannot pretend that Tesla hasn't royally screwed up Model 3 production.

Wha … ?

I don't know how long you have been following the EV market - the kind of volume and year over year growth Tesla has is unprecedented. Nissan said they'll make 150k Leafs a year - in 2011. They don't make that even now*. That is what actually screwing up looks like - not being a year or so late.

Here's the funny thing. All these years journalists kept talking about various cars as the "Prius killer". All of them turned out to be duds. They never gave that name to Model 3 - but its selling more than Prius in just 2 years.

You need to look at the big picture. I'm sure, given how agile they are, Tesla will find a way to use excess capacity.

ps : Nissan sold a max of 60k Leafs per year, in 2014 i.e. until last year, when they sold 87k.

 

[sdtslafan]

Sure, but if you grade on a curve compared to Audi, Porsche, Mercedes, and BMW, they get an A+ anyway.

And let's not forget they are ahead of original guidance of 500K cars in 2020.

They are doing a fantastic job.

 

[Unpilot]

What is there to

Why did you not quote the rest of my post that explained why I was still an investor? And are you going to dispute any of what you quoted from my post?

What is there to dispute. It is pure nonsense. "seemed to have given up....probably screw up all future launches"
Nope I will say your a tool and I am now done with you.

You can join the rest of the "quickly skimmed over" people.

 

[Sudre]

.....75 kWh packs

FYI The packs are 80kWh.
Model 3 battery pack size

They are not making any SR Model 3 yet.

With the notes others have made, the real total yearly output of batteries being well under 35kWh plus the true LR battery sizes your margin of error is quickly being eaten away. Not to mention the potential (altho I highly doubt) that Musk will include an 80 kWh pack with every purchase just software locked. He really seems to like the software lock. He might include a MR battery with the SR software locked.

I do see a potential for 5 to 6 GWh that WE can not account for with current items on the market but I have never known Tesla not to introduce something new that requires batteries.

Your theory that they moved (are moving) the 18650 production to GF1 might be plausible. They could also build the pack there and free up room in Fremont. Then they could retool the Japan factory to make 2170s for the China GF. That would would be about 3000 cars worth. I am not sure how the tariffs would work importing all the cells but that would only be at the beginning.

 

[jpterpsfan]

Wha … ?

I don't know how long you have been following the EV market - the kind of volume and year over year growth Tesla has is unprecedented. Nissan said they'll make 150k Leafs a year - in 2011. They don't make that even now. That is what actually screwing up looks like - not being a year or so late.

Here's the funny thing. All these years journalists kept talking about various cars as the "Prius killer". All of them turned out to be duds. They never gave that name to Model 3 - but its selling more than Prius in just 2 years.

You need to look at the big picture. I'm sure, given how agile they are, Tesla will find a way to use excess capacity.

They significantly overautomated, had to rip out the parts conveyance system and other equipment that was not working consistently, did not properly test and benchmark the battery module production equipment whose development they outsourced, continually pushed back timelines for their customers, and risked running out of cash if they did not solve their problems. In terms of production planning and validation, this was close to a disaster.

Again, I think they do learn from this and screw up future launches slightly less. Clearly battery module and pack production should not be a problem with the Y. They'll find all kinds of other ways to screw up. But, I'm still an investor. I think they have too many brilliant engineers and EV tech, and they have the urgency to push themselves to be the automotive leaders while helping combat climate change. But I'm still going to use realistic estimates and call them out when they do something that I don't think they should have.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

So the purple line represents what entity in what unit please? It made no sense as either power or energy. Power would drop right off following acceleration. Energy used would continue climbing.

That's incorrect. The battery still needs to provide power to overcome aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and mechanical friction of the drivetrain (half-shaft, wheel bearings, motor bearings, etc).

I guess the purple line should be read as you're drawing battery "power" to maintain speed, and you'd acquire battery "power" when regenerating.

 

[dc_h]

I forgot to add - @ZachShahan please feel free to include this stunning example in the next Pravduh article.

Speaking of Twitter, can we make some noise and get after f’ing Cramer. He posted Anton wahlman of all the credible people.

Swarm!

Jim Cramer on Twitter