Wait until battery day to order a new Tesla?

[ChadS]

I don't have a link to a quote, but I do recall more than one statement from Tesla over the years that they didn't think V2G made sense. I also recall the one kbecks13 noted about possibly "revisiting" V2G.

I always assumed they meant, V2G doesn't make sense for Tesla. Tesla provides a warranty on the batteries that would be used. Tomsax worked out some numbers on how much this costs here: Vehicle 2 Grid yet again

As Tom noted, that was using 2015 numbers. We know battery prices have come down a fair amount since then, and Tesla might (?) be announcing even lower prices in a couple of months. Even if the battery price is the same, it having a much longer life (i.e. million-mile battery) would greatly reduce the per-kWh costs. So, after the announcement maybe v2g will "make sense".

 

[ChadS]

And on another topic raised earlier in this thread...I bought a Model 3 LR RWD in May 2018. It was $55k plus tax and license, so about $59k (sales tax was lower than normal due to an EV sales tax waiver at the time). There was a $7,500 federal tax credit at the time, so my total cost for the car was $51,500. Later, when I wanted to upgrade to a P3D, I sold the LR RWD within a week for $51,500. Financially, it was as if the car never happened.

The production ramp was still underway, so resale values were awfully good. And of course the expiring federal tax credit and state sales tax waiver played a big role in making that work.

incidentally, I sold the car privately. But Tesla made me a pretty good trade-in offer, and my state reduces sales tax by the value of the trade-in. So if I had traded in, I would have ended up getting $51k and only ended up with $500 less.

 

[SergeyUser]

Can you link me to someone from Tesla saying that?

Tesla explains why EVs selling electricity to grid not as good as it sounds | RenewEconomy

 

[SergeyUser]

Ok but why not? Don't believe something just because someone says it without understanding the logic behind it - if they have a good reason then sure, but typically the argument against V2G is that consumers want to prioritize long battery life for vehicle usage and not "waste" it on storage and home use. That logic applies when a battery lasts for a few hundred thousand miles or so, but with the recent 3-4x rumored improvement in lifespan things could change tremendously.

Jeff Dahn (who works with Tesla) has published papers on single crystal cathodes which could lead to million mile batteries in the last year or so. Of course even with that i'm sure not everyone would want to use their battery on home usage - but it sure makes it a lot more compelling. From a financial perspective you've literally just 3-4x the revenue/savings that the battery pack can give you for roughly the same initial cost (of course time value of money applies, but still a big win).

Dug up an old Elon tweet on this from 2 years ago where he says V2G "may be worth revisiting"

Main reason is that the economics is not there. It is not about longevity/degradation of the battery (and therefore making it "1 million mile battery" will not fix that). RE: Elon's tweet, it says "Very early on, we had the ability to use the car as a battery outputting power. Maybe worth revisiting that."

Here, 'the car as a battery outputting power" does not mean the power will go back to the grid. You can probably charge your ATV from your Cybertruck, and possibly use your car as a backup power generator. But this is not V2G, as you will use the energy yourself, rather than making it available for others to use.

 

[kbecks13]

Main reason is that the economics is not there. It is not about longevity/degradation of the battery (and therefore making it "1 million mile battery" will not fix that).

Well no, he said the economics weren't there specifically because of degradation and also because of regulation for providing clean power to utilities. Also keep in mind that was back in 2016 when Tesla batteries were way more immature (and expensive) than they are today. For the utilities side, if only Tesla had some experience in dealing with that regulation and necessary hardware for grid tie ins...

“If we want to actually send energy back from the car to the electricity grid, this gets much more complex, and, you know, that’s something that I don’t see being a very economic or viable solution — perhaps ever, but certainly not in the near term. You know, the additional wear and tear and degradation on your vehicle battery has a fairly high cost, and many of the people and small businesses looking at this today, you know, don’t take into account fully that degradation cost, and also the additional interconnection cost, because if you interconnect your vehicle, you do have regulations that play a part — it has to interconnect in the same way that a solar system would on someone’s home or on a business, which have different standards so that they can protect line operators and people on the grid.”

Here, 'the car as a battery outputting power" does not mean the power will go back to the grid. You can probably charge your ATV from your Cybertruck, and possibly use your car as a backup power generator. But this is not V2G, as you will use the energy yourself, rather than making it available for others to use.

That's a fair point, but i still think the numbers for V2G definitely make sense. Some areas charge 10% of peak rates if you consume energy late at night, imagine being able to load shift your entire homes demand for a few years. Take a look at the current daily power curve for a place like SoCal and you will really see how badly we need grid scale load balancing as well, the utilities would definitely pay for that.

IMO the argument that it doesn't make sense reminds me of reusing a rocket. Fundamentally it makes a TON of sense, but there are short term challenges that need to be solved first.

 

[Jefsla]

And on another topic raised earlier in this thread...I bought a Model 3 LR RWD in May 2018. It was $55k plus tax and license, so about $59k (sales tax was lower than normal due to an EV sales tax waiver at the time). There was a $7,500 federal tax credit at the time, so my total cost for the car was $51,500. Later, when I wanted to upgrade to a P3D, I sold the LR RWD within a week for $51,500. Financially, it was as if the car never happened.

The production ramp was still underway, so resale values were awfully good. And of course the expiring federal tax credit and state sales tax waiver played a big role in making that work.

incidentally, I sold the car privately. But Tesla made me a pretty good trade-in offer, and my state reduces sales tax by the value of the trade-in. So if I had traded in, I would have ended up getting $51k and only ended up with $500 less.

Similar situation as mine. Great resale value.

 

[dgo3]

Getting back to the OP, no harm in waiting a couple months, especially considering the recent factory shutdown, the Y being a new vehicle, and ongoing COVID-related changes to manufacturing, all of which likely impact quality control.

But it's hard to imagine Tesla will say anything on battery day that will drive down sales of existing vehicles. I'm sure we'll hear about breakthroughs in longevity, chemistry, and price along with "in the future we'll be able to..." kind of phrasing. As others have said, the S and X are a bit long in the tooth, so those are the most likely to get any immediate upgrade, and I imagine it will be available to order immediately. Unlikely to see an update to the 3 or Y or any news that would dampen their sales.

 

[SergeyUser]

Well no, he said the economics weren't there specifically because of degradation and also because of regulation for providing clean power to utilities. Also keep in mind that was back in 2016 when Tesla batteries were way more immature (and expensive) than they are today. For the utilities side, if only Tesla had some experience in dealing with that regulation and necessary hardware for grid tie ins...

“If we want to actually send energy back from the car to the electricity grid, this gets much more complex, and, you know, that’s something that I don’t see being a very economic or viable solution — perhaps ever, but certainly not in the near term. You know, the additional wear and tear and degradation on your vehicle battery has a fairly high cost, and many of the people and small businesses looking at this today, you know, don’t take into account fully that degradation cost, and also the additional interconnection cost, because if you interconnect your vehicle, you do have regulations that play a part — it has to interconnect in the same way that a solar system would on someone’s home or on a business, which have different standards so that they can protect line operators and people on the grid.”



That's a fair point, but i still think the numbers for V2G definitely make sense. Some areas charge 10% of peak rates if you consume energy late at night, imagine being able to load shift your entire homes demand for a few years. Take a look at the current daily power curve for a place like SoCal and you will really see how badly we need grid scale load balancing as well, the utilities would definitely pay for that.

IMO the argument that it doesn't make sense reminds me of reusing a rocket. Fundamentally it makes a TON of sense, but there are short term challenges that need to be solved first.

There is no enough money to be paid to car owners to justify the hassle of connecting their cars to the grid. You can just have large battery storage instead, that is guaranteed and more competitive, price-wise.

 

[Battpower]

There is no enough money to be paid to car owners to justify the hassle of connecting their cars to the grid. You can just have large battery storage instead, that is guaranteed and more competitive, price-wise.

This is my opinion too. The nature of power generated by grid tied inverters is not the same as huge mechanical generators. There are technical reasons why the grid can become unstable if too high a percentage load is taken by inverters and there are already loads of those for solar PV and some wind turbines.

Also, the maintenance, control and predictability of v2g is not great. Once the volume of suitable vehicle connection points is high enough to have vehicles left connected most of the time, then agreeing to set aside 25% of your battery capacity to be managed by your energy Co in return for cheaper rates etc might work, bu I doubt it. Why drag around that 25% extra cost / weight / insurance liability if you don't need it for driving? Better just buy a stand alone battery system or invest in energy shares.

There is also the depreciation angle. An energy investment can be researched based on its merits, but v2g having extra value held in a depreciating asset, complications with Supercharging and shifting energy from one place to another inefficiently or going against charging charging policies make it less attractive.

 

[kbecks13]

You can just have large battery storage instead, that is guaranteed and more competitive, price-wise.

But that's my point - why would you pay 20-30K for a Tesla powerwall system when you have a car sitting in your garage that can do the same thing? The only real limitation was battery degradation and assuming the million mile battery becomes a real thing, that changes quite a bit.

There is also the depreciation angle. An energy investment can be researched based on its merits, but v2g having extra value held in a depreciating asset, complications with Supercharging and shifting energy from one place to another inefficiently or going against charging charging policies make it less attractive.

But its not an energy investment, you're literally just buying the same car that we have all bought already but it can also provide additional functionality. If the grid integration hardware ends up costing a significant premium then yes i could see what you're saying, but i don't think it would (i.e it shouldn't cost more than what a powerwall would require).

We could certainly debate this all day haha either way i think it would make sense to wait the 2 months for battery day and if nothing gets announced then you can order confidently (and hey maybe it will be cheaper by then).

 

[SergeyUser]

But that's my point - why would you pay 20-30K for a Tesla powerwall system when you have a car sitting in your garage that can do the same thing? The only real limitation was battery degradation and assuming the million mile battery becomes a real thing, that changes quite a bit.



But its not an energy investment, you're literally just buying the same car that we have all bought already but it can also provide additional functionality. If the grid integration hardware ends up costing a significant premium then yes i could see what you're saying, but i don't think it would (i.e it shouldn't cost more than what a powerwall would require).

We could certainly debate this all day haha either way i think it would make sense to wait the 2 months for battery day and if nothing gets announced then you can order confidently (and hey maybe it will be cheaper by then).

What you are describing is not V2G. This is my only point. I’m sure there will be some ways to access energy stored in a car’s battery eventually. Just not to other users to use.

 

[Battpower]

i think it would make sense to wait the 2 months for battery day

Sure, makes sense! Might learn something that makes it worth waiting a little longer.

I've tried to make v2g make sense and still can't, but I suppose if you are going to spend 20k extra on batteries and don't mind dragging the extra weight around with you in your car to get extra range if you need it, then it might work for some but I really doubt there is a wide-scale opertunity.

The value of any v2g system depends on the available connected capacity both to dump energy off the grid as well as pull from storage to support the grid. While relatively low power self-use might work, for it to make sense at a grid level is not obvious imo.

 

[SergeyUser]

What I think is possible, and apparently this is considered ‘unidirectional’ V2G, is what Tesla’s past CTO JB called ‘smart charging’. So say Tesla creates virtual power company, which uses home solar + industrial battery. Now, Tesla can optimize excess energy use by not storing it to the industrial battery, but rather by dynamically allowing currently connected Tesla cars to charge, and only if there is not enough cars to charge now, store excess energy to industrial battery.

This will reduce amount of industrial battery storage required, and ultimately optimize the grid.

 

[Battpower]

What I think is possible, and apparently this is considered ‘unidirectional’ V2G, is what Tesla’s past CTO JB called ‘smart charging’. So say Tesla creates virtual power company, which uses home solar + industrial battery. Now, Tesla can optimize excess energy use by not storing it to the industrial battery, but rather by dynamically allowing currently connected Tesla cars to charge, and only if there is not enough cars to charge now, store excess energy to industrial battery.

This will reduce amount of industrial battery storage required, and ultimately optimize the grid.

That totally makes sense. I'm surprised some industry-wide protocol has not already beed agreed. If your car is plugged in and available to charge at the convenience and under the control of the network, that is a big benefit for all.

 

[AdamVIP]

If you don't need it just wait. That said if you can get it I would wait even further for the S redesign. An S size and drive train with a more Model 3 user interface (hope they still keep the IP screen though) would be great.

 

[one2many]

OK this sort of goes into the basket of when my wife asks me
if I need new socks or underware. My guess is battery day will be interesting
but not ground breaking. Should I wait on the Texas factory? Also interesting.
Do what you need to do, do not wait for your better half to ask.