Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

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

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
This is still very expensive. For seasonal storage, let say you have a $8/kWh system. For convenience it's life is 32 cycles. Both the best case assumptions.

It still costs 25c per kWh. Solar and wind are still a small fraction of that.

Lithium ion economics make sense because of high (150x) cycle life even at 20x the upfront cost.
$8/kWh would be the material cost, not the total cost. On the other hand, the materials, which are all recyclable, have residual scrap value.

32 cycles of life is not even close to a best case assumption. That’s not even on the right order of magnitude for a worst case because:

1) That would be such a pathetic battery no reputable peer-reviewed journal would publish the paper without even a discussion by the authors about the degradation problem​
2) The test data for indicates that it was run to 32 cycles with 92% capacity remaining and no discernible downtrend from there, yet this was just a prototype without much optimization​
3) The battery design is basically just two sheets of metal foil and a woven fiberglass layer immersed in ordinary NaCl salt. The normal battery degradation mechanisms don’t exist in this design.​
Li-ion batteries like Megapack are great for daily stationary storage usage because they can act in milliseconds for grid stabilization and can charge/discharge at high rates, but this new molten salt battery design would have manufacturing and material costs even lower than Tesla’s LFP batteries possibly could as well as nearly zero time-based self-discharge when the salt is solid. So for longer storage duration this tech would be a great complement if it works well. PNNL is licensing the IP and now I’m wondering if Tesla will implement some version of this someday. It would fit perfectly with Autobidder and Tesla Virtual Power Plant.
 
Last edited:
$8/kWh would be the material cost, not the total cost. On the other hand, the materials, which are all recyclable, have residual scrap value.

32 cycles of life is not even close to a best case assumption. That’s not even on the right order of magnitude for a worst case because:

1) That would be such a pathetic battery no reputable peer-reviewed journal would publish the paper without even a discussion by the authors about the degradation problem​
2) The test data for indicates that it was run to 32 cycles with 92% capacity remaining and no discernible downtrend from there, yet this was just a prototype without much optimization​
3) The battery design is basically just two sheets of metal foil and a woven fiberglass layer immersed in ordinary NaCl salt. The normal battery degradation mechanisms don’t exist in this design.​
Li-ion batteries like Megapack are great for daily stationary storage usage because they can act in milliseconds for grid stabilization and can charge/discharge at high rates, but this new molten salt battery design would have manufacturing and material costs even lower than Tesla’s LFP batteries possibly could as well as nearly zero time-based self-discharge when the salt is solid. So for longer storage duration this tech would be a great complement if it works well. PNNL is licensing the IP and now I’m wondering if Tesla will implement some version of this someday. It would fit perfectly with Autobidder and Tesla Virtual Power Plant.
If you're charging and discharging twice a year on average, you get 16 years of life. It doesn't matter that it can function longer. The discounted value beyond that becomes negligible.

Due to low cycle count, any seasonal storage should have a marginal storage cost of close to zero.

think of H2 from an electrolyzer converted to ammonia, methane or longer hydrocarbons that can be stored for a few cents per kWh, with a closed loop for carbon.

@jhm has written a lot on this stuff. Just search for electrolyzer on this forum.
 
A few months ago Tesla applied for a grant to install CCS chargers in TX. Unfortunately, Tesla was not awarded any of the grant money.

This article from Forbes has some interesting numbers estimating the costs to install chargers based on the amount requested by each network.

The language in the article is also very favorable to Tesla (However, I disagree with the writer implying that chargers at Buc-ee's are bad idea :))

Here are the prices in the unaccepted grant applications of various operators, representing up to 70% of the actual cost.

  1. Chargepoint: $150K+ for 2-plex
  2. EVgo: $150K+ for pair, $126K for 4-plex
  3. Circle-K: $75K for 4-plex to $150K+ for 2-plex
  4. 7-11: $126K for 2-plex
  5. “Retail EV Charging North/South Texas” (Buc-ee’s) $100K/charger for 6-plex
  6. Various small players: $75K to $150K, averaging at least $133K/charger
  7. Accepted applications so far from various players average $123K+/charger
  8. Tesla: $29K for 17-plex, $42K for 9-plex
 
A few months ago Tesla applied for a grant to install CCS chargers in TX. Unfortunately, Tesla was not awarded any of the grant money.

This article from Forbes has some interesting numbers estimating the costs to install chargers based on the amount requested by each network.

The language in the article is also very favorable to Tesla (However, I disagree with the writer implying that chargers at Buc-ee's are bad idea :))

When it comes to DC fast charging, Tesla has another set of advantages over the other charging networks. All the charging equipment is made internally, rather than needing to be purchased from outside vendors. Compatibility isn't an issue - like EA experienced with four different charger vendors. Battery systems to mitigate demand charges are also made in house. (Perhaps the same with solar canopies - though one I looked at didn't appear to be using Solar City panels. I could be wrong on this.)
 
If Elon reads this post he will buy out TMC

;)
I'll buy that for a dollar.jpg
 
During the TED interview, Elon said he wasn't looking to maximize his ownership of Twitter and would retain as many shareholders as is legally allowable for a private corporation (he estimated about 2,000). Could that mean that he wouldn't be paying the full value of Twitter at $54.20 per share himself, and would be soliciting buy-in from those current large shareholders as well?

Exactly. Tesla is a public company. As such, if it were to become the majority shareholder of twitter (won't happen), that would exactly defeat Elon's stated purpose of buying Twitter and taking it private: to make necessary changes which aren't possible while it is publicly owned.

But as usual, people here panic when any incorrect reporting occurs, in this case IB brokerage listing TSLA as the purchaser in their click-bait email trying to get retail eyes on their investment note.

Elon made the bid, and filed the LEGALLY REQUIRED forms with the SEC. not Tesla. IB is full of *sugar* so don't panic, people!
 
ARK’s Expected Value For Tesla In 2026: $4,600 per Share

Bear $2900 25% probability
Bull $5800 25% probability

ARK's median expected TSLA share price for 2026 is $4,600 for a CAGR of 46%

Note that Elon says >50% growth (or more) during that period.

ARK's model excludes any revenue from Tesla Energy (claiming bty constraints while ignoring Lathrop Megapack goals and LFP patent expiries). Ark also exclused any revenue from AI-as-a-Service (Dojo), or TeslaBot in their 5-year model.

IMO, its pretty weak tea for a model update from last year, mainly by neglecting battery developments. ARK at a minimun should now be researching Tesla's long-term mining contracts. This is likely the best indicator of Tesla's 5-year production plans. CATL contracts too.

ARK's projections are about to become stale overnight. They really should have waited (like all of us) for Elon to publish "Master Plan Part 3".

Hint: massive scale
 
Last edited:
ARK's median expected TSLA share price for 2026 is $4,600 for a CAGR of 46%

Note that Elon says >50% growth (or more) during that period.

ARK's model excludes any revenue from Tesla Energy (claiming bty constraints while ignoring Lathrop Megapack goals and LFP patent expiries). Ark also exclused any revenue from AI-as-a-Service (Dojo), or TeslaBot in their 5-year model.

IMO, its pretty weak tea for a model update from last year, mainly by neglecting battery developments. ARK at a minimun should now be researching Tesla's long-term mining contracts. This is likely the best indicator of Tesla's 5-year production plans. CATL contracts too.

ARK's projections are about to become stale overnight. They really should have waited (like all of us) for Elon to publish "Master Plan Part 3".

Hint: massive scale
This is exactly what I was thinking when checking ARKs updated price targets.