Almost everyone active in putting together utility-scale projects is already doing this and has the necessary relationships & knowledge. (And in fact the international standards increasingly require this stuff). Sometimes utility-scale stuff is led by the utility itself using in-house project teams; sometimes there are commercial developers who then (often) flip all or part of the completed project; and in some instances a project development team might be led by the turbine manufacturer. (Often these projects are consortia, and the members bring knowledge & skills to the table as well as capital). So even where (say) RES might be the developer (for a consortium) they would still solicit 'autobidder' bids from the other vendors to evaluate on a level playing field basis against their own in-house 'autobidder', so as to be able to justify the autobidder product selection in exactly the same way as they would need to justify the turbine make/model/etc selection, etc. And the project development lead might not be the operations lead partner and that might also have an influence on these matters. But bottom line, whilst Tesla is a big player in utility scale storage it is by no means the only player.
==========
In my opinion (i.e. experience) this is actually very well explored territory, but not very fruitful at small scale. Fantastically interesting, but the real usefulness is acting as pilots and model validation for much larger stuff.
==============
Tesla produced 493,701 vehicles in Q4-2022 plus an unknown number of Semis. Just doing 4x this is 1,758,804 for a full year of steady-state, and that would necessitate zero inventory build beyond the existing 13d, so all production would flow through to become sales. That was a quarter that was not 100% uptime as far as I could see given the month-to-month variability in some of the production data out of China, plus the known ramping volumes in Austin and Berlin, i.e. they exited Q4 at a higher rate than they started.
The Q4-2022 experience corresponds to the slideset's stated
capacity that adds to >1,900,000 so this is understandable as the starting point for 2023, minus some capacity factor, although the text below the table suggests that uotime etc are already taken into account in that capacity number.
View attachment 899951
Then in the Outlook slide it guides for
production of 1.8m in 2023.
View attachment 899952
And then in the Q&A there were the following responses which are a teensy weeny more candid at the 2.0m level.
....... Q&A .......
Rod Lache -- Wolfe Research -- Analyst
OK. Thank you. Firstly, it sounds like your 1.8 million unit volume indication for this year is somewhat more supply constrained than demand-constrained. Then I have a follow-up on cost.
Is that an accurate statement?
Elon Musk -- Chief Executive Officer and Product Architect
Well -- OK. I mean, our internal production potential is actually closer to 2 million vehicles, but we were saying 1.8 million because, I don't know, there just always seems to be some freaking force majeure thing that happens somewhere on earth. And we don't control if there's like earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, pandemics, etc. So if it's a smooth year, actually, without some big supply chain interruption or massive problem, we actually have the potential to do 2 million cars this year.
........ then Q&A later .......
William Stein -- Truist Securities -- Analyst
Yes. It sounds like the 1.8 million units you expect this year is supply, not demand-limited supply, it sounds like, by the lithium batteries. If you were to become demand-limited, can you talk to us about your propensity to use price and your relatively high industry margins to grow units and share?
Zach Kirkhorn -- Chief Financial Officer
Yes. To be clear, the 1.8 million is not cell supply limited. And yes, I mean, we did address that number earlier in the call. Elon, do you want to answer?
Elon Musk -- Chief Executive Officer and Product Architect
Yes. It's roughly -- cell supply is roughly matched with that. And the 1.8 million cars, if we get lucky, it could be more. And then, the rest would go into stationary storage, the Powerwall and Megapack.
============
But overall I really don't get this - there is serious sandbagging going on, or (unlikely) there is a serious production constraint that is not being explained or even mentioned. This is a business that grows as fast as it can and that we know has three production facilities in-ramp during 2023 (Berlin, Austin, and the Nevada Semi pilot facility), and they expect us to believe in all seriousness that they are going to sit there and just crank out Q4 for four times over. And they've deliberately lowered prices to maximise fill of the ramp whilst maintaining an adequate operating margin. That guidance for 1.8m is just not plausible in my eyes.
Here is what I had been mulling over and firming up prior to this call. That is for production of 2.279m in 2023. Now I'm beginning to doubt myself. I know I tend to be about 10% high on my forecasts, but this would be more like 27% high. And in a year when Berlin and Austin are supposed to be ramping hard ? And as I've pointed out on the Near Future Quarterly thread, if they miss a ramp in any one year it sets up bigger callenges in subsequent years.
View attachment 899953
As I said I am beginning to doubt myself. Am I missing anything here ? What do others think ?
)
