In the US, only if forced by local law, or at a profitable rate charged back to the tenant. There won't be a compelling reason otherwise, and it certainly won't be from the goodness of their hearts. 10% EVs is a drop in the bucket.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Fair question, TMC members, for the short answer. I'm also involved in a pending patent related to EV charging and we certainly have fun discussing these things!
Although you may be correct I wonder if that is the problem. I have read of L-Ion cells being charged without harm at 3C, which would mean we are no where near the charge capacity of the packs being shipped now. The connector and cables though, that's another matter. Also consider that Tesla Semi's will require, if they are to be commercially viable, the high rate of charge. I would not be surprised to see SC 3 implemented there first. But not like I haven't been wrong before!
I think this is a key factor: L2 (aka "destination charging") is most effective when deployed where you have a predictable schedule of long-term parking. This is on your garage at home, or where you work for most typical schedules. It typically means lodging locations when traveling. If you can count on 8+ hours of charge time, then typical L2 rates (~30 mph) make sense.
Especially as EV's are starting to get longer range, L2 at short-term parking locations seem to be less useful. The store, restaurant or movie theater I'm at is close enough to my house that the extra 10's of miles of charge I'll get doesn't make a big deal.
They are also activities of short or infrequent enough duration that it won't replace the need for home charging.
If I'm visiting one of those locations from out of town or during a road trip, then L2 also doesn't cut it... as I need much more charge, and therefore the best bet is hotel charging overnight, or hitting a supercharger.
There are some stores and theaters around here that offer L2 chargers. I never use them, as it doesn't fill any real need, and I'd prefer to leave the spots free for somebody who may be in a pinch.
I've also only ever used a L2 charging on a road trip twice.Once was because it was at a location 100 miles away from a supercharger with some elevation change, and I was able to deliberately plan to extend the stop so I could add 50 miles back to the pack and not have to white-knuckle it back to the supercharger. Thee second was before superchargers were on the highway here, and I had no choice but to hit a hotel and top off a bit.
If there was supercharger infrastructure built nearby, I would certainly have used it instead in both cases.
I think the usage of campgrounds for L2 charging early on, or in places where superchargers are not yet built out, provides some useful data to draw on. People have used them for road trips, but doing so typically involves spending the night, or planning to picnic/hang out there for 4-6 hours to get to the next hop. Neither very practical for regular store/restaurant type usage.
Nate,
First, thanks for reviving his old thread. It was fun to see it again. Second, well, with the model 3 only 2 months out I don't see much happening on the S/X in between that time.
Although I've changed my mind on a few of the thoughts that I put up what, six months ago now, I still think it's going to be another year before we see the 2170s in the S or X. Well, at least nine months. What the power walls and power packs don't eat up the Tesla Semi will. It'll be fun to see how this all works out! In the meantime I'm loving driving my S!
Giga Factory initial production target is 100GWh/year. Enough to make perhaps 2 million M3s/year.
Although this target will probably take another year, but for 2017 even 25GWh/year is likely enough for all Tesla vehicles plus stationary storage !
So I think and hope you're wrong. The bottleneck is fulfilling the old contract with Panasonic, which will be filled any month now. Also once the contract is filled, nothing forbids Tesla to negotiate that any outside purchases of battery cells must be filled using 2170 format with all of the tweaks. Additionally, I would expect the GF is already able to make more cells than Tesla can use right now, considering that old contract.
Instead of arguing, lets wait until years end and compare notes. Its all written down here on the board.
Cheers !
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
I have to mostly agree with this. L2 chargers at stores, movie theatres, etc. are nice for shorter range EVs, but Tesla's have enough range that they just aren't really of much use. There are a lot of them in my city, but I never use them, as there just doesn't seem to be much point to it. If Tesla is going to be spending money on destination chargers, perhaps better to focus on hotels and, just perhaps, maybe partial subsidies to apartment and condo complexes to install chargers for residents; this could be a nice first step towards beginning to solve the frequently brought up issue of people who don't have a place to charge at home.
It's been about 13 months since I posted this. And I'm willing to go out on a limb again! Aren't you excited?
I don't think we'll see 2170s in the S or X for another 2 years. The grid Battery Systems, the Tesla semi, the model 3, these are going to eat up every 2170 cell for the next 5 years. Okay, maybe two. Remember, there is no advantage to the shape except for slightly better power density. The greatest change is in the chemistry, that can be put in any size cell.
Well, am I crazy?
I think the interior upgrade will come way before the battery change. And I think the battery will go up 15% easily, within probably 6 months, without changing from the 18650.
I don't think we'll see 2170s in the S or X for another 2 years. The grid Battery Systems, the Tesla semi, the model 3, these are going to eat up every 2170 cell for the next 5 years. Okay, maybe two. Remember, there is no advantage to the shape except for slightly better power density. The greatest change is in the chemistry, that can be put in any size cell.
Well, am I crazy?
I think the interior upgrade will come way before the battery change. And I think the battery will go up 15% easily, within probably 6 months, without changing from the 18650.
There's a wide range of Giga Factory production targets.
If they only manage the original 50GWh/yr its one thing, but if they manage the revised 150GW/yr target, its a whole different deal.
Besides, Tesla CAN switch to only using 2170 but getting some from its own GF and the balance from 3rd party supplier.
The issue with 18650 was that contract which likely has been fulfilled.
150GWh = 1.5 million 100kWh packs, considering the smaller M3 pack, it likely means 2 million packs !
50GWh is still around 3/4 million 70-75kWh average sized packs.
100k * 100kWh packs for MS/MX is just 10GWh.
So I think if 2170 cells are better for MS/MX packs, Tesla will migrate still in 2018, as soon as the GF reaches its initial 50GWh/year cell/pack production goal.
The news that Tesla is hiring lots of people for the GF shows production is ramping up substantially.
It certainly does - and it must!
I believe it was JB who said that the entire production of the gigafactory could be put into PowerPacks for use on the various grids of the world. The only thing that is keeping sales and installation of these down is availability. Even if production was at 300 - there won't be any "spare" cells. And we haven't even factored in the Tesla Semi or the new roadster (true, that will be a small number).
Sure they can, but why? Why throw out all the old equipment? (Both cell and pack manufacturing.) Could the cell production equipment be revamped to make 2170s? Don't know but, even if it could, where is the advantage? I repeat - the advances possible through Jeffrey Dahn's work will far outstrip that gained in changing the cell size for years to come. Expect a P115 before July - with 18650s. Well, let me hedge that one a bit. If sales falter a bit, expect ...
From a business standpoint this never made sense - except to insure that Panasonic's investment in equipment that makes 18650s get it's full ROI. Which means to change equipment requires a new investment, which equals greater cost, and for what gain? Not enough to be worth it.
It'll be fun to see who's right here! But I'm pretty confident - look for a switch no earlier than 2020. (Whoa, that sounds a lot further out when one says it that way!)
A minor update.
I believe we'll see 18650s in the model S and the model X until there's a new gigafactory built. I think the current gigafactorie's full capacity will be used up by the Tesla semi, power packs, and model 3.
The Fantastic success of those products means it will take a new Factory to have enough 2170s to put them in the Model S and X. And, as I've said before, there's so little value in changing.
I believe we'll see 18650s in the model S and the model X until there's a new gigafactory built. I think the current gigafactorie's full capacity will be used up by the Tesla semi, power packs, and model 3.
The Fantastic success of those products means it will take a new Factory to have enough 2170s to put them in the Model S and X. And, as I've said before, there's so little value in changing.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
From the Tesla Fourth Quarter & Full Year 2017 Update 
OUTLOOK
2018 will be a transformative year for Tesla, with a high level of operational scaling. As we ramp production of both Model 3 and our energy products while keeping tight control of operating expenses, our quarterly operating income should turn sustainably positive at some point in 2018.We expect Model S and Model X deliveries to be approximately 100,000 in total, constrained by the supply of cells with the old 18650 form factor.
As our sales network continues to expand to new markets in 2018, we believe orders should continue to grow. With demand outpacing production, we plan to optimize the options mix in order to maximize gross margin. As stated above, we continue to target a weekly Model 3 production rate of 2,500 by the end of Q1 and 5,000 by the end of Q2. Also, we are focused on achieving our target of 25% gross margin for Model 3 after our production stabilizes at 5,000 cars per week.
OUTLOOK
2018 will be a transformative year for Tesla, with a high level of operational scaling. As we ramp production of both Model 3 and our energy products while keeping tight control of operating expenses, our quarterly operating income should turn sustainably positive at some point in 2018.We expect Model S and Model X deliveries to be approximately 100,000 in total, constrained by the supply of cells with the old 18650 form factor.
As our sales network continues to expand to new markets in 2018, we believe orders should continue to grow. With demand outpacing production, we plan to optimize the options mix in order to maximize gross margin. As stated above, we continue to target a weekly Model 3 production rate of 2,500 by the end of Q1 and 5,000 by the end of Q2. Also, we are focused on achieving our target of 25% gross margin for Model 3 after our production stabilizes at 5,000 cars per week.
Yep. Much as some on this forum have maintained that moving S and X to 2170s was a magic bean which would make things a lot better, the business case has always been about leaving the S and X alone in order to meet the 18650 contract requirement and allow GF to spool up while supporting powerpacks and M3. The quarterly earnings report merely affirms that situation.
I think you may be reading too much into this, though. The other simple explanation is, 21-70 production is simply behind schedule and thus Tesla is not mixing them with Model S/X yet. I agree perhaps the plan never was to do this in Q1/2018 either (I guess a lot of us would have agreed with that already last year), but by Q4/2018 things may well be different.
21-70s may well come with significantly larger kWh batteries and performance (both speed and charging). This proves nothing in that regard either, as Tesla is careful to hide details of Model 3 so as to not Osborne Model S/X.
And the 18650 contract requirement by all accounts has already been met...
And then they go on to talk about the model 3. So the question is, are they going to allow the S and X to be constrained to that number or do they want to expand those sales? Not sure, but I think that they're going to go for the 3 and the Y as their primary volume, and maybe we'll see the update to the interior we've all been hoping for! Along, alas, with an increase in the S and X price if anything. Certainly not a dropping of the price. If they're going to keep that hundred thousand.
The problem is, if you really want to scale up S or X, you need to redo the production lines as they are very manual right now. There is a good argument that S and X are running pretty near at capacity right now. Changing/upgrading those lines requires (a) significant car redesign and (b) significant capital investment. Tesla already has a significant part of the luxury car market and how much more market share they can capture is debatable. Was I on the board and Elon came to me and said "things are going great, we're now going to redesign the S (or X), re-do the production lines and go forward, I'd really question his judgement. Yes, people on this forum want a newly designed car. They want new features. The problem is that there is only so much money to spend. Tesla is already burning a lot of cash and Model 3 is not yet a proven success (although I personally have confidence they will get there). You have to walk before you run and Tesla is still figuring out how to walk in the car making business.
I'm not a fortune teller and will be happy to be proven wrong, but I would be surprised if Tesla makes a significant change to S or X before 2020 (note I am not talking about changing the outside body (front fascia) or some interior changes). By significant, I mean the redesign necessary to go to a different form-factor powerpack (i.e., 2170) or a change to the production line.
I'm not a fortune teller and will be happy to be proven wrong, but I would be surprised if Tesla makes a significant change to S or X before 2020 (note I am not talking about changing the outside body (front fascia) or some interior changes). By significant, I mean the redesign necessary to go to a different form-factor powerpack (i.e., 2170) or a change to the production line.
I'll make an even bolder prediction: Model S and X will be discontinued within 2-3 years in favor of higher Model 3/Y production. Roadster will be their new cherry.
I know that idea gets floated around a bit and while I didn't think too much of it originally, it doesn't sound completely impossible to me. The reason not being that Tesla wouldn't want Model S/X in their lineup, but their legacy nature in both design and manufacturing.
It might make some sense for Tesla to kill Model S/X temporarily once Model 3/Y are running full steam and then re-introduce them as completely new products down the road with modern everything. A bit like happened with Roadster being killed for a number of years in-between, though that represented an extreme disconnect of course and not comparable at all...
Not finding this likely, but I can see the logic.
