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

[KarenRei]

Caps can withstand thermal cycling much better than batteries and their operating temp is between -40-70degC.

So can titanate cells (not quite 70°C, but still hot). And while they're far more expensive than Tesla's cells, they're still vastly cheaper than supercapacitors. Much less energy density than Tesla's cells, but orders of magnitude more than supercapacitors. They don't leak like supercapacitors. Huge cycle life. Power density of several kilowatts per kilogram (I know that even a decade ago there were manufacturers offering cells that did 5kW/kg).

Supercapacitors are just a nonstarter. If Tesla wanted more power, they'd just use higher-power li-ions. But even that tradeoff isn't worthwhile.

 

[ZachShahan]

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

OMG, really sponsored by Shell?

It's one of 5 articles we're highlighting at the beginning of #Pravduh this week. Publishing in a few hours. I'll add a note about this. Thanks.

Btw, absolutely love your profile pic. One of my favorites

 

[ZachShahan]

OMG, really sponsored by Shell?

It's one of 5 articles we're highlighting at the beginning of #Pravduh this week. Publishing in a few hours. I'll add a note about this. Thanks.

Btw, absolutely love your profile pic. One of my favorites

Wait, not finding where it's sponsored and when (before or after publishing). Help @SPadival

 

[KarenRei]

If 10% of cells have to be scrapped

I love how you're trying to attribute *all* cells to any single cause (e.g., it's not "scrappage + powerpacks + powerwalls + megapacks + superchargers", it's "try to attribute them all to just one of those things at a time!"). In order to prove that Tesla lied on the conference call. In order to claim that they're going to do something that makes no financial sense whatsoever (a 2170 conversion for S/X).

And again, Shanghai is down the pipeline

No, it's not. According to official guidance, it could be as high as 3k/wk by the end of the year.

Guidance for Tesla Energy in 2019 was as follows:

Yes, which would be just over 1GWh new construction - more to the point, you can see from their graph that it's 1,1GWh. The figure I quoted. So what exactly are you trying to do? Prove that I gave you the correct figure? If so - good job.

And on the call, Musk said their internal guidance was for close to 3 GWh, but it would depend on timing of projects

Heck, I didn't even mention that part!

Your assumption is that Tesla Energy production lines "can just be run faster" to handle a capacity...

My "assumption" is that Tesla is not run by morons, and if they want to sell more Tesla energy products, they'll scale their lines appropriately for their planned sales. Your assumption is that Tesla lied on an SEC-enforceable public analyst call in order to make a nonsensical financial decision.

 

[SPadival]

Wait, not finding where it's sponsored and when (before or after publishing). Help @SPadival

Not directly sponsored. But the author is speaking with some Shell exec at a BNEF summit. I found the timing a little strange.

 

[ZachShahan]

Sigh...

You really think that Tesla just openly lied to analysts on an investor call? You think they're daring the SEC to prosecute them?

Please, come back to reality: there are no plans to switch S/X to 2170s, any time remotely soon. Tesla Energy needs cells. Lots of them.

But wait a second, do you think Tesla might use 2170s in the S & X next month?



jk!

 

[Cosmacelf]

My quick math was:
35 GWh annual production = 8.75 GWh quarterly production
Musk stated the internal guidance for Tesla Energy installs this year was close to 3 GWh. On a quarterly basis, that would be 0.75 GWh.
If Tesla produced 70k Model 3's all with Long-Range (75 kWh) packs, that would total 5.25 GWh per quarter.

Which leaves 2.75 GWh of quarterly production excess.

Again, I could be making a big miscalculation somewhere. But that's the math I've been using.

The Panasonic exec could have been talking about maximum theoretical run rate not taking into account normal planned downtime for maintenance, calibration, etc. And unplanned downtime including supply shortages. And then you have take yield into account (no manufacturing line produces widgets with 100% yield). All this could easily knock 20% off his figure.

 

[Curt Renz]

About an hour ago on CNBC new panelist Mark Tepper advised viewers to sell Tesla shares, because Model S & X test drives are down 50% year over year. I have no idea where he got that information, but if true:

A temporary dip could have been expected when tax credits were halved. Three more months of free Supercharging is now given to those who choose not to test drive. A car can now be returned for a refund within three days with no questions asked if no test drive was taken. Since most of those cars are made to order, one cannot easily test drive a particular car and then choose to buy it. There are now so many of those cars out there that a great many prospects can now test drive a friend’s car.

By incentivizing not to test drive, fewer employees and test cars are needed at Tesla stores. The business decision to discourage test drives is a sound one. It’s added reason to buy the stock, not sell it.

 

[jpterpsfan]

I love how you're trying to attribute *all* cells to any single cause (e.g., it's not "scrappage + powerpacks + powerwalls + megapacks + superchargers", it's "try to attribute them all to just one of those things at a time!"). In order to prove that Tesla lied on the conference call. In order to claim that they're going to do something that makes no financial sense whatsoever (a 2170 conversion for S/X).



No, it's not. According to official guidance, it could be as high as 3k/wk by the end of the year.



Yes, which would be just over 1GWh - more to the point, you can see from their graph that it's 1,1GWh. The figure I quoted. So what exactly are you trying to do? Prove that I gave you the correct figure? If so - good job.



Heck, I didn't even mention that part! 3 GWh installed (+2GWh in 2019), with none for Superchargers, none for Shanghai, zero for Semi, and zero scrappage, would alone be 2/3rds of your "excess" (remembering that the capacity doesn't come online until the start of Q2).



My "assumption" is that Tesla is not run by morons, and if they want to sell more Tesla energy products, they'll scale their lines appropriately for their planned sales. Your assumption is that Tesla lied on an SEC-enforceable public analyst call in order to make a nonsensical financial decision.

You keep misreading what my posts say. My calculation of excess capacity includes the assumption that they produce 3 GWh this year specifically for Tesla Energy. Please understand that I have already accounted for this when calculating the excess.

I am not outright stating that the 2170s are getting put into the S/X. I am trying to figure out why they would have so much higher cell capacity than necessary, and I don't believe any of your suggestions could realistically come close to addressing the gap. Panasonic would be a terrible manufacturer if 10% of cells had to be scrapped. Megapacks/Powerpacks specifically for Supercharger v3 would have to be more than double their stated guidance for Tesla Energy. Is it possible? I guess. But it doesn't explain why "capital requirements would be much lower" than current Superchargers. It should make them significantly higher.

My "assumption" is that Tesla is not run by morons, and if they want to sell more Tesla energy products, they'll scale their lines appropriately for their planned sales. Your assumption is that Tesla lied on an SEC-enforceable public analyst call in order to make a nonsensical financial decision.

Musk's specific line was:

Martin Viecha
Okay. Let's go to the next question, which is, if and when will Tesla switch Model S and X to 2170 battery cells? What percent range improvement do you expect?

Elon Musk
We have no plans to switch S and X to 2170 and can't comment on future product developments.

There are ways in which that isn't a lie. He said "no plans to switch S and X to 2170", not "no plans to switch S and X to GF1-produced cells". Could retain the current 18650 form factor but with production at GF1 with the modified cell architecture and chemistry. It's certainly a stretch, but a possibility with the way he worded that comment. That would also pretty much completely fill in the excess capacity. Again, it might not be that. But I would have an easier time believing that than believing they are going to start producing the equivalent of 10-12k Powerpacks per quarter specifically for Supercharger v3.

We just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[jpterpsfan]

The Panasonic exec could have been talking about maximum theoretical run rate not taking into account normal planned downtime for maintenance, calibration, etc. And unplanned downtime including supply shortages. And then you have take yield into account (no manufacturing line produces widgets with 100% yield). All this could easily knock 20% off his figure.

Why would Panasonic publicly state an installed capacity that they knew could not be achieved? I don't buy that at all.

 

[EVNow]

Tesla can make use of every single cell they can get their hands on.

This.

I tried getting a quote for power wall from Tesla. They wouldn't even do that, unless I also installed solar. Demand for storage is essentially unlimited - they have to now actively refuse work. If they had cells to spare, they'd be installing my Power Wall. They'd start actively marketing to utilities & consumers.

 

[KarenRei]

This.

I tried getting a quote for power wall from Tesla. They wouldn't even do that, unless I also installed solar. Demand for storage is essentially unlimited - they have to now actively refuse work. If they had cells to spare, they'd be installing my Power Wall. They'd start actively marketing to utilities & consumers.

I've heard this exact same story from a ton of people. They've been turning away business for a long time.

 

[jpterpsfan]

This.

I tried getting a quote for power wall from Tesla. They wouldn't even do that, unless I also installed solar. Demand for storage is essentially unlimited - they have to now actively refuse work. If they had cells to spare, they'd be installing my Power Wall. They'd start actively marketing to utilities & consumers.

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

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Badly written. e.g. look at the legend for the purple line, it has “Power from/to the battery (Whr)”. Is it energy, wrongly labeled, or power, in some other unit that measures power? Several errors like this.

It's just an attempt to convert energy to power, and applying it to the same energy chart instead of using a second y-axis dedicated to power. Doesn't change the explanation. You're welcome to contact the author to quibble about the details.

 

[EVNow]

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

Ok - lets see.
Your assumption is
- Panasonic has said they will make a lot of cells
- Tesla just can't use them, even though all these months they were basically cell constrained

You have to assume Tesla people are really dumb and can't even figure out before hand what to do with all these cells - and you are extraordinarily brilliant, right ?

 

[jpterpsfan]

Ok - lets see.
Your assumption is
- Panasonic has said they will make a lot of cells
- Tesla just can't use them, even though all these months they were basically cell constrained

You have to assume Tesla people are really dumb and can't even figure out before hand what to do with all these cells - and you are extraordinarily brilliant, right ?

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.

 

[Carl Raymond]

It's just an attempt to convert energy to power, and applying it to the same energy chart instead of using a second y-axis dedicated to power. Doesn't change the explanation. You're welcome to contact the author to quibble about the details.

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.

 

[mongo]

Can you dispute my numbers at all? You think they will install 1.5-2 GWh's of Powerpacks/Megapacks per quarter for Supercharger v3 while only 0.75 GWh's per quarter for Tesla Energy? And how would this possibly lower the capital costs of building Superchargers for Tesla? Doing this would make capital costs explode.

But as for Tesla Energy using a huge number of cells? Yes! That's the whole point. Guidance is 1,1 GWh just for powerpacks and powerwalls, and they talk up the potential for even more. Giving all of the current Supercharger stalls (let alone new ones built in 2019) 200kWh per stall would be 2,4GWh. Even if you want to say only 100kWh per stall and no new Superchargers this year, that'd still be 1,2GWh.

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.

 

[skitown]

I've heard this exact same story from a ton of people. They've been turning away business for a long time.

I was a first day Powerwall reserver. Still no Powerwalls at my house.

 

[mongo]

About an hour ago on CNBC new panelist Mark Tepper advised viewers to sell Tesla shares, because Model S & X test drives are down 50% year over year. I have no idea where he got that information, but if true:

A temporary dip could have been expected when tax credits were halved. Three more months of free Supercharging is now given to those who choose not to test drive. A car can now be returned for a refund within three days with no questions asked if no test drive was taken. Since most of those cars are made to order, one cannot easily test drive a particular car and then choose to buy it. There are now so many of those cars out there that a great many prospects can now test drive a friend’s car.

By incentivizing not to test drive, fewer employees and test cars are needed at Tesla stores. The business decision to discourage test drives is a sound one. It’s added reason to buy the stock, not sell it.

It's great marketing, who would return a Tesla after driving it 3 days (without really good reasons, like upgrading to a P)?