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.
The one major exception to this is their new “bipolar” battery design, which they say has secretly been in production already for the Aqua and Crown hybrids. That is an interesting shift in battery cell design and I’m still trying to get a sense of the trade offs compared with normal (monopolar in Toyota’s nomenclature) cell design. I’m really hoping someone who knows more on this topic will pick it up and present some analysis to the EV community.
Bipolar NiMH batteries have been in development for at least 20 years. IIRC that included low volume production. Here is an article about the NiMH battery in the Aqua:


From the above link, this diagram shows the construction of a bipolar battery, vs. the normal construction of individual cells wired together to make the battery:

1686788501442.png


I am not aware of any efforts to develop a bipolar Li-ion battery. Li-ion batteries use copper for anode current collectors, and aluminum for the cathode current collector. This might make bipolar construction more challenging for Li-ion.

GSP
 
Bipolar NiMH batteries have been in development for at least 20 years. IIRC that included low volume production. Here is an article about the NiMH battery in the Aqua:


From the above link, this diagram shows the construction of a bipolar battery, vs. the normal construction of individual cells wired together to make the battery:

View attachment 947079

I am not aware of any efforts to develop a bipolar Li-ion battery. Li-ion batteries use copper for anode current collectors, and aluminum for the cathode current collector. This might make bipolar construction more challenging for Li-ion.

GSP
Interesting, thanks.

Toyota’s press release specifically says that they’re now trying to make bipolar Li-ion batteries with production of the iron-phosphate type targeted for ‘26-27 and nickel type in ‘27-28. I wonder how much technological carryover there actually is from legacy NiMH bipolar cells.
 
Interesting, thanks.

Toyota’s press release specifically says that they’re now trying to make bipolar Li-ion batteries with production of the iron-phosphate type targeted for ‘26-27 and nickel type in ‘27-28. I wonder how much technological carryover there actually is from legacy NiMH bipolar cells.
My take on these types of announcements is that Toyota is still in what I call the "looking for the magic battery" phase of their grappling with the transition to EV’s.

This is an early phase that some other legacy automakers have moved beyond (and sometimes reverted back to). It reflects a kind of organizational wishful thinking that the heavy lifting of comprehensively redesigning both their vehicles and the manufacturing of those vehicles can be avoided.
 
Interesting, thanks.

Toyota’s press release specifically says that they’re now trying to make bipolar Li-ion batteries with production of the iron-phosphate type targeted for ‘26-27 and nickel type in ‘27-28. I wonder how much technological carryover there actually is from legacy NiMH bipolar cells.
And will they have to take medication for their condition...
 
My take on these types of announcements is that Toyota is still in what I call the "looking for the magic battery" phase of their grappling with the transition to EV’s.

This is an early phase that some other legacy automakers have moved beyond (and sometimes reverted back to). It reflects a kind of organizational wishful thinking that the heavy lifting of comprehensively redesigning both their vehicles and the manufacturing of those vehicles can be avoided.
Bingo. IIRC GM invested in some battery startup five years ago - didn't amount to anything.
 
Interesting, thanks.

Toyota’s press release specifically says that they’re now trying to make bipolar Li-ion batteries with production of the iron-phosphate type targeted for ‘26-27 and nickel type in ‘27-28. I wonder how much technological carryover there actually is from legacy NiMH bipolar cells.

Yep. Back in 2017 (five years ago) Toyota announced they would have solid state batteries for their EV's in 2022. For reference, that was last year, and no solid state batteries in Toyota EV's.

This current statement released recently is, coincidentally again, five years out from now. Who wants to bet it will be true this time? 🤔
 
Bipolar NiMH batteries have been in development for at least 20 years. IIRC that included low volume production. Here is an article about the NiMH battery in the Aqua:


From the above link, this diagram shows the construction of a bipolar battery, vs. the normal construction of individual cells wired together to make the battery:

View attachment 947079

I am not aware of any efforts to develop a bipolar Li-ion battery. Li-ion batteries use copper for anode current collectors, and aluminum for the cathode current collector. This might make bipolar construction more challenging for Li-ion.

GSP

From a thermal management perspective this seems a big step in the wrong direction

You will essentially have a really big layer numbers and area cell to achieve the pack voltage you need for an EV, but with tiny capacity since you essentially have a single layer, so you need to make a huge area, imagine a Tesla pack in which you have a lasagna spanning the whole bottom of the car 96 layer thick to be equivalent to a current gen pack

Now the center of the pack has really poor heat conduction to any cooling system that might surround the cells

You could split the cell into smaller cells, but then why go that way in the first place? And on top of that, you would need to connect each layer of adjacent cells to each other and to a BMS, or have multiple BMSs per pack

On a first principles thinking this makes no sense for me, thermal management is the key to a long life pack, it has to have as little thermal delta as possible between all cells and regions within the same cell

And you are right on not being possible to current lithium ion batteries due to the different potentials of the anode and cathode, but for sodium-ion you can use aluminum on both due to the lower potential difference (lower voltage)

If one day a sodium ion cell is developed in which thermal delta inside a pack doesn't matter for it's aging and it doesn't need much thermal conditioning, as in, can perform in really cold temperatures and can get really hot without issues or unbalanced degradation, then it might work, but I don't see if happening because it goes against how the basic laws of chemistry work
 
This seems like a smart and inexpensive way for Tesla to do an incentive. Seems like a great deal to the buyer, but I bet most people save less than a couple hundred bucks from free supercharging for 3 months.


FWIW the inventory discount on Model 3 appears to have shrunk $200 at the same time this was announced, so it's only free for certain values of free :)
 
@TrendTrader007, please please please take your own advice posted just moments ago and "better to just buy and hold and trade every few years rather than trying to time every ST price fluctuation." This is financial advice. You will thank me for it later.
100% agree. i thank you now. i have learned my lesson. i needed that rather unique experience of having my entire portfolio in TSLL to know what it feels like to be in TSLA without actually being in TSLA. i was single handedly holding quite a significant % of entire TSLL float out there as an individual investor and was terrified out of my mind of counter-party swap risks, liquidity concerns etc. i could not exit my entire TSLL position fast enough when i got a chance after Fed announcement this afternoon and tried to sell one of my accounts by putting in a market order. nothing happened! i kid you not. i checked to make sure that my brokerage had TSLL sell order at market and sure enough it did. yet, nothing happened for what seemed like 2 to 3 minutes. so i canceled the entire order and had to break it down in smaller pieces to finally sell it at market. took me about 10 minutes to exit. made a profit, but would never do it again.
bought back into TSLA in the last 30 minutes of market session. so easy to buy TSLA. liquidity is amazing although price manipulation by pirates is extremely strong. all is well that ends well and i have zero desire to trade TSLA for a very long time. it would be so ridiculously stupid to know exactly that TSLA at some point in future will be worth at least $2000 a share, yet to lose my entire position because of ST market timing gone bad.
i have been doing this long enough to know my own limitations. nobody, absolutely no one can ever predict short term price movement with any degree of certainty and certainly not on a consistent basis. those of us who got lucky with TSLA got rewarded due to our ability to handle years of sideways/down TSLA rather than any kind of brilliant market timing.
 
This seems like a smart and inexpensive way for Tesla to do an incentive. Seems like a great deal to the buyer, but I bet most people save less than a couple hundred bucks from free supercharging for 3 months.


This is just the beginning of the end of quarter push. I expect Tesla to also boost inventory discounts. There are a lot of inventory Model 3 units across the country, mostly the Standard Range.
 
Has anyone begun estimates for Q2 earnings?

I am assuming ~ 450k deliveries. (Berlin production seems good but Austin stuck around 3500 / wk according to Troy).

I am assuming a 3k price cut in ASP ($47k to $44k) compared to Q1 (Model Y drop $4k in U.S. in April, $3-4k price cuts in Europe in April etc...). This is hard to model, maybe it is only $2k cut.

I assume auto COGs are flat QoQ even with deliveries going up 6%. I assume 300m in both regulatory credits and FSD revenue recognition.

With this I have auto gross margin going up to 22.9% from 21% (this includes reg credits and FSD rev).

With this an some optimism on Energy margins / growth, I have non-GAAP EPS at $0.94, vs the actual $0.8 from Q1.

ASP at $43k brings EPS to $0.8, ASP at $45 k brings EPS to $1.08. These seem to be upper and lower bounds of potential ASPs, and such a big difference to earnings it makes (duh).

Interest rates continue to be a drag on loan affordability. 2 yr treasury yields have marched back up to 4.7%, there is no clear signal of any near term pressure for FED to cut rates so I don't think we'll be seeing lower interest rates until well into 2024.
 
Has anyone begun estimates for Q2 earnings?

I am assuming ~ 450k deliveries. (Berlin production seems good but Austin stuck around 3500 / wk according to Troy).

I am assuming a 3k price cut in ASP ($47k to $44k) compared to Q1 (Model Y drop $4k in U.S. in April, $3-4k price cuts in Europe in April etc...). This is hard to model, maybe it is only $2k cut.

I assume auto COGs are flat QoQ even with deliveries going up 6%. I assume 300m in both regulatory credits and FSD revenue recognition.

With this I have auto gross margin going up to 22.9% from 21% (this includes reg credits and FSD rev).

With this an some optimism on Energy margins / growth, I have non-GAAP EPS at $0.94, vs the actual $0.8 from Q1.

ASP at $43k brings EPS to $0.8, ASP at $45 k brings EPS to $1.08. These seem to be upper and lower bounds of potential ASPs, and such a big difference to earnings it makes (duh).

Interest rates continue to be a drag on loan affordability. 2 yr treasury yields have marched back up to 4.7%, there is no clear signal of any near term pressure for FED to cut rates so I don't think we'll be seeing lower interest rates until well into 2024.

If you assume a $3k average price cut and 450k units delivered, then gross margins go down by $1.35B, offset by the $300M you mentioned. How did you deduce improved auto margins on flat COGS?
 
Has anyone begun estimates for Q2 earnings?

I am assuming ~ 450k deliveries. (Berlin production seems good but Austin stuck around 3500 / wk according to Troy).

I am assuming a 3k price cut in ASP ($47k to $44k) compared to Q1 (Model Y drop $4k in U.S. in April, $3-4k price cuts in Europe in April etc...). This is hard to model, maybe it is only $2k cut.

I assume auto COGs are flat QoQ even with deliveries going up 6%. I assume 300m in both regulatory credits and FSD revenue recognition.

With this I have auto gross margin going up to 22.9% from 21% (this includes reg credits and FSD rev).

With this an some optimism on Energy margins / growth, I have non-GAAP EPS at $0.94, vs the actual $0.8 from Q1.

ASP at $43k brings EPS to $0.8, ASP at $45 k brings EPS to $1.08. These seem to be upper and lower bounds of potential ASPs, and such a big difference to earnings it makes (duh).

Interest rates continue to be a drag on loan affordability. 2 yr treasury yields have marched back up to 4.7%, there is no clear signal of any near term pressure for FED to cut rates so I don't think we'll be seeing lower interest rates until well into 2024.

Here's the place to look...

 
Are you cashflow positive on a monthly basis and/or have other avenues to generate cash down the road?

Why not just buy at the money LEAPS for Dec 2025 for the equivalent number of shares you want to own today. You have the LEAPS then that you can exercise if the stock goes much higher between now and 2 and a half years from now and if there's a significant pullback, with the rest of the cash you have left over from not buying all outright stock today, you can buy actual stock then (or buy more at the money LEAPS).
sure, makes sense. thanks!
buying DITM dec 2025 leaps is a great strategy as best as i can tell. i was actually considering buying $25 strike price or so Dec 2025 Leaps last week.
i have done it before. i like buying straight TSLA common stock where i have access to amazing liquidity, tight bid-ask spread, ability to trade pre-market, ability to margin, ability to sell weekly covered calls with zero risk of time decay. the way i look at it, if i went to sleep for next 5 to 10 years, my TSLA stock will continue compounding with zero intervention required ( other than the accounts on margin). on the other hand, if TSLA went parabolic like October 2019 through February 4, 2020, which i actually suspect is what is likely to happen in very near future, then i can quickly exit my position and reenter after a few days or weeks at a much lower price point. if i am wrong, well i can always buy it back at a higher price and only lose 5 to 10% tops. long term makes no difference. only those who are naive enough to permanently stay out of TSLA and focus on what price they sold at instead of focus on where TSLA could end up down the road, lose
 
Is everyone tired of hearing about Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from me yet?

Too bad, here's some more from Boeing's 2022 sustainability report as well as the United Arab Emirates Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure's 2022 Power to Liquid Roadmap which was developed in consultation with Boeing. Please note that this is the freaking UAE. Oil & gas is their largest economic sector and they're an OPEC member, and even they are saying this is coming. The report also gets into some of the efforts occurring in other countries. This is not just a greenwashing propaganda publication; it's legitimate technical and economic feasibility analysis and is accurate, as far as I can tell.

Battery- and hydrogen-powered aviation technologies are in development, of course, but sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) will be of critical importance for two reasons:

1) There are thousands of kerosene-fueled jets in the global fleet that will remain operational for decades to come​
2) Long-haul intercontinental flights will be unlikely to be viable with battery or H2 propulsion architectures for *at least* 20-30 years at present rates of improvement (even if we're optimistic about the progress of suitable batteries reaching let's say 500 Wh/kg energy density, it takes approximately a decade to design, certify, and ramp up production of a new large commercial aircraft design)​

SAF will probably comes from many sources including biomass waste from other economic sectors, but that won't be sufficient to meet the overall need. A lot of SAF is planned to come from power-to-liquids (PtL) processes which are powered by renewables. That's where FT synthesis comes in, as Tesla noted in Master Plan Part 3.

Here’s how it’s made:
• Electricity is applied to the water (H2O). The hydrogen is collected and the oxygen is set aside.
• The hydrogen is mixed with the carbon dioxide in a reactor until it matures.
• The liquid is removed from the reactor, which results in PtL jet fuel.

Resources needed: This PtL relies on two things in the UAE: tapping into the UAE’s abundant sources of renewable energy (intense sunshine and sustained winds), as well as its ability to capture carbon dioxide from the air or from point sources such as industrial waste gases
The UAE report shows that it would be ambitious but feasible for the country to produce as much as 11 million tons of PtL SAF by 2050 — equivalent to approximately 70% of national jet fuel consumption.

Excerpts from the UAE PtL report:
The aviation industry will need to use alternative approaches to decarbonize the remaining emissions, and the power-to-liquid approach will be crucial. PtL is a broad term used to refer to the production of liquid fuels using renewable energy. There are several ways this can be done. It generally includes using renewable electricity to produce hydrogen and capturing carbon from a source that is already part of the carbon cycle. The hydrogen and carbon are processed into syngas [mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen] and then used to produce liquid fuels. The resulting products must then be converted, upgraded, and separated into jet fuel (SAF), with a portion of naphtha and diesel also produced. The SAF can be blended with conventional jet fuel and be used in aircraft without modification.

There are several strong tailwinds for PtL development. The cost of renewable energy has decreased at an astonishing rate over the last decade, with International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimating that solar photovoltaic (PV) and onshore wind have reduced in levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by 85% and 56%, respectively. Both are now less expensive than fossil fuels. Investments over $500 billion into developing a clean hydrogen industry were announced in 2021, and the United Arab Emirates has pioneered developments, with an ambitious Hydrogen Leadership Roadmap to capture 25% of the global clean hydrogen market by 2030. The same technologies currently being developed and deployed to convert biomass into SAF can be used to convert PtL feedstocks into SAF, de-risking and reducing the cost of the conversion process.

1686799567054.png

Renewable energy is typically the single largest cost for PtL production. The energy is primarily used for green hydrogen production through electrolysis, with further use for desalination before electrolysis and for carbon capture. The United Arab Emirates has led the rise in renewable energy capacity in the Middle East over the last 15 years through research and development (R&D), policies, investment and deployment. The United Arab Emirates has over half (58%) of the market share of the operational and in-the-pipeline solar projects in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Supported by the abundant and intense solar radiation, the Emirates has one of the lowest auction prices for a single project in the world at $0.135 per kilowatt hour (kWh).

This is going to drive a lot of demand for solar, wind and battery power (Tesla estimated 5 PWh/year of incremental electricity for SAF in the Master Plan) while also further contributing to accelerating the demise of the mine-and-burn oil economy. Jet fuel will be synthesized from nothing more than CO2, H20, and clean electricity.

1686801038872.png
 
Last edited:
If you assume a $3k average price cut and 450k units delivered, then gross margins go down by $1.35B, offset by the $300M you mentioned. How did you deduce improved auto margins on flat COGS?

I don't think my gross margin can be compared to Tesla's directly (even though I did) because I don't consider leasing. My revenues are flat QoQ.

450k x $44k ~ = 422k x $47k.

I'm assuming total COGs are flat (so down $ / vehicle). So revenue & costs flat = same gross profit.

So yeah I'm basically assuming no change QoQ, outside of FSD revenue recognition and Energy progress...
 
I don't think my gross margin can be compared to Tesla's directly (even though I did) because I don't consider leasing. My revenues are flat QoQ.

450k x $44k ~ = 422k x $47k.

I'm assuming total COGs are flat (so down $ / vehicle). So revenue & costs flat = same gross profit.

So yeah I'm basically assuming no change QoQ, outside of FSD revenue recognition and Energy progress...

Ah I see. So you assume that COGS go down around 6% per unit, as deliveries are estimated to be up 6%. So around $2.5k lower per-unit cost of production. Interesting approach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zaddy Daddy