This is Henrik's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Henrik's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Henrik
Recent Activity
Harvey I agree that the Kurds deserve our help in terms of arms, training and airpower. The Kurds do not hate us and they also have the will to fight for their own territory. Pretty much all other ethnic and religious groups in the middle east (apart from the dwindling number of Christians) either deeply hate the West and our culture of democracy and mutual respect for each other's differences or they have no will to fight for their own territory. So why should we fight for them? I am sorry to say it but I am unable to empathies with people who hate us and have no fighting spirit. They are simply not worthy of our help in any regard no matter how much they suffer from ISIS governance and terror. The only problem the West has with ISIS taking over the Arab peninsula is that we will have to do more drilling in our own shale, deep see and arctic at much higher global oil prices and to use much more renewable technology. I am fine with that. It is about time we do that. The oil price that will enable this development is 100 USD or more per barrel and we will get that as the war escalates in the Arab countries.
Harvey ISIS is not a real problem for the West as terror attacks in the West by ISIS or other islamist groups are causing no harm at any level that matters for our economy and our military is fully capable of stopping any attaks from ISIS territory. They have no airplanes and rokets that can reach us. If they conquer any nuclear facility or airport in the middle east we can drop some bombs on it to make sure they can't weaponise it. Trafic deaths and common day accidents are far more important for our welfare. ISIS is only effective at war. The areas they control are decaying into stoneage societies that cannot sustain the current population. Most people will dye of hunger and deseases. The more teritory they take the more obvious that fact will become and that will end their popularity among muslims all over the world. In the end it is back to the survival of the fittests and ISIS is not on the list of long-term survivors as they can only destroy. They cannot create and the latter is nessasary for long-term survival. Also the West and China only need to secure its own sources of energy. Once we have done that by converting to renewable energy and our own drilling at much higher oil prices we will not need to trade anything with the reast of the world for any economic reasons. Each country must solve their own problems including dealing with terror. The new world order is that the West no longer rule the world because it is too big with too many people and it was an error to think that we should rule it in the first place.
And even more wise would be to do both more renewable and more domestic drilling. We cannot deploy renewables fast enough to sequre the energy we need when the energy flows from the middel east is lost to ISIS's destruction of the civilizations in that area. For US, Canadian and Norwegian production to keep increasing we need 100 USD per barrel again otherwise it will fall rapidly as it currently does. In due time ISIS continued conquest will make sure oil will be back at 100 USD or more. They just need to destroy Libya's and Iraq's oil fields and move on to take the arab peninsula. What the West should not do is to waste more resources on the middle east by sending weapons at our expense, bombing at our expense and traning useless armies at our expense. The islamic world can't be saved because the West's constant interference has made the incumbent governments unfit for ruling themselves. Let it fall, let them them fight it out internally and we should focus our resources on making other ways to get our energy, that is, more renewables, more fraking, more deep see drilling and more arctic drilling. Renewables will eventually take over but that will take many decades. The middel east does not have a dacade. I think most of it will be destroyed in the next 10 years or so.
It is easy to verify Tesla's battery prices 350 USD per kwh for the 10kwh residential powerwall. 250 USD per kwh for the 100kwh industry/utility intended powerpacks. See http://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-ceo-elon-musk-unveils-line-of-home-and-industrial-battery-packs-1430461622 or http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Reporting-Live-From-the-Tesla-Mystery-Product-Unveiling These prices are the current 2015 price at the battery pack level including gross margins of at least 20% as Tesla does not sell anything at a loss. The prices does not include installation cost and items for connecting more packs into larger systems. Such costs could add up to 250 USD per kwh for residential installations and 50 to 100 USD per kwh for industrial instalations. In all likelihood Tesla buys the cells for the powerpacks from Panasonic and currently assemble the packs at Fremont, California. Tesla has sold hundreds of packs and powerwalls to initial pilot customers but Tesla will not be able to make severel hundreds of packs per months until 4Q, 2015 and true scaling for thousands of units per month will not beging until sometime in 2016 at the gigafactory. Tesla's 50GWh has the capacity to make 500,000 100kwh powerpacks per year in 2020 if that was the only thing it made or 5 million 10kwh powerwalls per year. In 2020 I expect Tesla's 250 USD pack level kwh price to drop to 165 USD per kwh in acordance with the estimated 33% price drop enabled by the unpresidented level of scaling and vertical integration at that factory. Hopefully, Tesla will get enough orders for their vehicles and powerpacks to start construction of another 50Gwh factory before 2020. We will see. One last thing. Forget about other battery manufactores being able to make batteries at less cost than Tesla. It will not happen unless they also start making 50Gwh factories and noboby apart from Tesla has plans for that. And forget about cutting cost from making battery factories in low income countries. The labor cost at teslas 50Ghw factory is less than 5% of total cost. It is far more important to produce in scale and at proximity to your end customers. Therefore I expect the next 50Gwh factory to be build in Europe and the third in China. The advantage of building in China is to avoid taxes and to be in proximity to customers (labor costs are insignificant).
The world will end its addition to oil when self-driving BEVs take over as they will because the economics is much better as shown below. Specifically, an autonomous BEV taxi will cost you 0.16 USD per mile to drive. A self-owned Camry will cost you 0.41 USD per mile or about 500 USD per month if you drive 15,000 miles per year (= ($0.41*15,000/12). Finally, a human operated taxi Camry will cost you 1.41 USD per mile which is representative of actual taxi rates. Reducing the cost of taxi driving from 1.41 USD to 0.16 USD per mile using an autonomous BEV taxi is simply revolutionary. The world will change for the better as a result. Fewer traffic accidents, no air pollution from land transportation, no import of oil for making transportation fuels, no wasted time by traffic congestion. Time spend for transportation can be used productively to sleep, eat, work or for entertainment or education. The average American household can reduce transportation expenses from 500 USD per month per car needed in household to 200 USD per car (= ($0.16*15,000/12). This is as big as it gets for the automotive industry. Documentation for costs to drive one mile: 1) Life cost to own Toyota Camry: 65,133 USD = (23,000 USD for Camry + 16,000 USD for life gasoline + 4,800 USD for life maintenance + 21,333 USD for life car insurance). Life cost per mile: 0.41 USD = $65,133/160,000 miles service life. 2) Life cost of Toyota Camry with human taxi driver: 225,133 USD = (23,000 USD for Camry + 16,000 USD for life gasoline + 4,800 USD for life maintenance + 21,333 USD for life car insurance + 160,000 USD for taxi driver). Life cost per mile: 1.41 USD = $225,133 /160,000 miles service life. Now consider a fully autonomous taxi with an ultra durable 24kwh lithium titanate battery (10,000 cycles) giving it about 85 miles of range and a service life of 850,000 miles. With autonomous driving the range issue and charging time issue no longer exists as you can change the vehicle in seconds to go an additional 85 miles and keep doing it until you reach your destination. This is the BEV conception that will wipe out any gasser on the market because its total cost per mile is unbeatable by any gasser. 3) Life cost of autonomous BEV taxi: 133,467 USD = (35,000 USD for BEV taxi + 28,800 USD for life electricity + 17,000 USD for life maintenance + 56,667 USD for life car insurance - 4000 USD scrap value of battery). Life cost per mile: 0.16 USD = $133,467/850,000 miles service life. ------ Add 1) Toyota Camry assumptions: 1) Service life is 160,000 miles. 2) Long-term price of gasoline is 3 USD. 3) It gets 30 mpg so 16,000 USD spend on gasoline = (160,000/30)*$3. 4) Maintenance cost for oil change, tires, brakes, coolant, etc is 300 USD per 10,000 miles so 4,800 USD = (160,000/10,000)*300 USD. 5) Insurance cost is 2000 USD per 15000 miles so life car insurance is 21,333 USD = (160,000/15,000)*$2000. Add 2) Toyota Camry taxi assumptions: 1) Service life is 160,000 miles. 2) Long-term price of gasoline is 3 USD. 3) It gets 30 mpg so 16,000 USD spend on gasoline = (160,000/30)*$3. 4) Maintenance cost for oil change, tires, brakes, coolant, etc is 300 USD per 10,000 miles so 4,800 USD = (160,000/10,000)*300 USD. 5) Insurance cost is 2000 USD per 15000 miles so life car insurance is 21,333 USD = (160,000/15,000)*$2000. 6) Hourly pay to chauffeur is 20 USD and hourly markup for time wasted and taxi company overhead is another 20 USD. Operating hours in service for life of car assuming 40 mph is 4000 hours =(160,000/40) so total life cost of chauffeur and taxi company overhead is 160,000 USD = (4000*($20+$20)). Add 3) Fully autonomous BEV taxi assumptions: 1) Service life is 850,000 miles (= 85 miles battery range*10,000 deep cycles) which corresponds favorably to warranty for Toshibas lithium titanate batteries (see http://www.scib.jp/en/product/detail.htm). 2) 0.28kwh is used to drive one mile (=24kwh battery/85miles range), 3) electricity cost is 28,800 USD = (12 cents per kwh * 0.28kwh* 850,000 miles) which could be much lower off peak, 4) maintenance cost for tires, brakes, coolant, etc is 200 USD per 10,000 miles so 17,000 USD = (850,000/10,000)*200 USD, 5) scrap value of battery after 850,000 miles is 4000 USD. 6) Insurance cost is 1000 USD per 15000 miles so life car insurance is 56,667 USD = (850,000/15,000)*$1000. The lower car insurance for autonomous vehicles assumes that they are twice as good as human drivers to avoid accidents. 7) The Leaf sized vehicle costs 35,000 USD with a 24kwh battery. It is assumed 12000 USD (=24kwh*$500) can be attributed to the battery pack, 6,000 USD for autonomous technology (computers, sensors and redundancy of critical systems) and 17,000 USD for other car expenses. All costs are including gross margins.
The Volt owners are doing 63% of their miles as electric miles on an EPA rated range of 35 miles and 18kWh. So for BMW or others to get to over 80% electric miles in a PHEV they need a bigger battery possibly 30kwh. Small range extenders have not been a succes as in the i3 where the underpowered range extender is too noisy and simply cannot operate the car in comfort on a depleted battery. My point is if we need a full size motor or 200 to 300 hp for a proper range extender and a 30kwh battery then maybe Tesla can make it at less cost using a 70 to 85 kwh battery without the range extender. We how know that right now Tesla is at 250 USD per kwh as that is the price for their industrial powerpacks. In 2020 when that 50Gwh factory is at full speed we should expect 150 to 200 USD per kwh everything included gross margin, insurance allowance etc. And an electric motor at 300 hp is 1/3 the price of a similar powerfull gasengine with transmission. I hope BMW start to focus on BEVs instead. See http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jun/0617-volt.html
Harvey you can only save pennies by locating that 50Gwh factory in a country with low labor cost as labor cost is less that 5% of the cost associated with the production in that factory. It produces 50GWh at 200 USD per kwh or 10 billion USD worth of battery packs per year. It employs 6000 people that will be paid 80k USD each in the USA or 480 million USD per year so 4.8% of total production value. Use a low income country and you may save a few percentage on those 4.8% in labor cost. The largest cost reductions is about vertical integration, scale of prouction, process development and product development not about the labor cost which are unimportant in this field of production. So Tesla can't follow Apple as their situation is uncomparable.
@Alain, good point about saving driver sleeping time to be used instead for charging in an low cost short-range battery electric self-driving container hauling truck (flat skateboard). So a long-distance transport of, say, a container for 1000 miles could be done by 20 short-distance drives of 30 to 70 miles each lasting an average of 1 hour at 50 miles per hour stopping 20 times for recharging lasting 30 minutes each. Total time speand 30 hours on the same battery electric truck to go 1000 miles. A human driver in a long-range diesel truck could not have done it any faster. The electic truck would not cost much to produce because it has a small short range battery and no need for onboard off and onloading mechanism for the container. Harwey you can only save pennies by locating that 50Gwh factory in a country with low labor cost as labor cost is less that 5% of the cost associated with the production in that factory. It produces 50GWh at 200 USD per kwh or 10 billion USD woth of battery packs per year. It employs 6000 people that will be paid 80k USD each in the USA or 480 million USD per year so 4.8% of total production value. Use a low income value and you may save a few percentage on those 4.8% in laber cost. The largest cost reductions is about vertical integrating and scale of prouction and process and product development not the labor cost which are unimportant in this type of production.
Herman my apology for writng orders. I am fully avare it is just reservations. However, Tesla does not hide the price for that powerwall. People who make reservations knows what it costs and that Tesla's prices for the powerwall is the one they charge installers. Tesla will not sell their energy product directly to consumers but only to properly authorized installers, like solarcity. Nevertheless, Herman, you got to admit that the number of reservations is phenomenal. Tesla probably only has the production capacity to deliver a few hundred per months starting in July so like with the Model S this is another product where Tesla will be supply constrained not demand constrained as are most other companies. This is why Tesla can approch growth growth rates of about 50% per year. IMO 50% is the limit for how fast you can grow a manufactoring company. Software companies can grow faster but not manufactoring companies that need physical factories in order to expand sales. Tesla is doing it in an industry that barely exist globally. There are no other suppliers for batteries in the volume that Tesla needs other than the factories that Tesla and Panasonic are building themselves. Tesla is by far the lagest global consumer of automotive grade batteries representing 41% of the global market in Q1, 2015 see link below. You got to admit that 50% growth in this manufactoring field is extreamely impressive. I expect Tesla to reach about 120k sales in 2017 of Model S and X and about 500k sales in 2020 for model S, X and III. I also expect Tesla to announce the construction of another 50Gwh before 2020. Even more importantly I expect Tesla to make a fully autonomous car by 2020 that subsequently need to go through millions of miles of testing and approval before Tesla is allowed to use it launching a transportation service division selling transportation by a global fleet of autonomous Tesla taxies that are also able to charge themselves at Tesla's superchargers. http://ev-sales.blogspot.dk/2015/05/battery-makers-march-2015.html
The news are comming in about what was said during Teslas shareholder meeting. I quote " Musk says response to the Powerwall battery system is just “nutty,” with 38,000 reservations for home customers, and 2,500 for utilities." see http://www.hybridcars.com/teslas-q1-announcement-raises-big-hopes-amidst-big-concerns/ So in a few day Tesla got orders for 120 million USD for the powerwall (40,000*3,000USD) and 62.5 million for their industrial powerpacks (2500*25000USD). It will be very interesting to follow in the comming years how fast Tesla can ramp up sales and deliveries of these backup batteries for renewable energy. It could perhaps one day make more money for Tesla than its automobile division.
I can highly recommend reading Tesla's shareholders letter at http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/ABEA-4CW8X0/2971201500x0x827135/90332B15-F6AE-4F44-B634-624BE548291E/Tesla_Motors_Q1_15_Shareholder_Letter.pdf Some of the interesting information is that they announce the price of their 100kWh industial power packs (the one that is is not wallmountable and is a 1000 kg rackcabinet that stands on a concreate floor. This system cost only 250USD/kwh and includes controls, cooling and DC/DC power electronics. That is insanely inexpensive. Also Tesla say they will start deliveries of these systems in both the US, Europe and Australia in Q4, 2015. I did not expect to see these systems outside Califormia and Hawaii until late 2016. Tesla also say that it is far more easy to expand sales of these systems than it is with Tesla's vehicles that require dealers, service centers and fastcharger infrastructure. So global rampup will be faster than for the Model S. The 250 USD /kwh that Tesla charges for these systems is the best evidence yet I have seen that anyone have reached 200 USD /kwh at the cell level including profits, insurance allwance etc on an automotive grade litium battery cell. And Tesla can do it in Q4, 2015. Moreover, this price should be expected to drop considerably when the 50Gwh factory is operating at full capacity in 2020. Very exiting IMO.
Just found out that trucks that can on and off load containers by an onboard crane mechanisms are commonplace. So an infrastructure with independent off and on loading craines for containers on self-driving electric trucks is not nessasarily needed. However, the cost of deliving containers should be lower if there is such an infrastructure along highways and at the factories and werehouses that use containers for goods delivery. Harvay fuel cell vehicles does not exist in real life and they will never reach commercial viability. They cannot offer anything that battery electric self-driving vehicles cannot do better and at less cost. You seem to miss my point that a selfdriving heavy duty truck does not need an expensive long-range battery. It needs a short-range highly durable (say litium titaniun battery) and the ability to automatically change cargo so that another and fully charged truch takes over and so on for long-distanse haul of containers.
Nice to see that Daimler Trucks are at full speed developing autonomous trucks. The way I now see the development of self-driving vehicles is that we will get level III autonomous vehicles in most new vehicles sold during the next 5 years. The main benefit will be safety related. Far less accidents. The other benefit is that the driver can spend time doing other things and therefore it would become less tiring to drive. After 2020 I expect the first fully autonomos vehicles to appear. However, we may not see such vehicles autohrized for general public roads until 2025. After 2025 it will only take a few more years before all vehicles sold are fully autonomous. When the autonomous software is done it is done and the needed camera sensors and prossessors only cost pennies thanks to the global smartphone industry so it is a no brainer to outfit all vehicles with this tehnology. Expensive radars are not needed unless you want to be able to drive in compleate darkness and any kind of weather that humans can't drive in because of zero visibility. The main benefit of fully autonomos vehicles are economic. Ordering transport for people or goods using fully autonomous vehicles is going to be much cheaper without the expense for the driver. Such autonomous taxis are also going to compete with trains and airplaines. You could order an autonomous car with a bed and bathroom so you could do a 600 miles trip during the night when you sleep. This is going to take a toll on short distance air travel and train travel. I imagine the first level IV trucks will be flat skatebords that can fit a standard 20 or 40 foot container. After a crain has placed the container on the autonomos skatebord a robotic arm shouts up containing the nessasary sensors for navigation and the board is on its way. It will be battery electric and for long distance transport the container will be shifted to another skateboard with fully charged batteries etc. It will require an infrastructure of container lifting craines both at wherehouses and along highways.
A found a link to a news peace confirming that the batery chemistry used in Tesla's powerwalls and powerpacks is not the same as the one used in the Model S. However, no specifics about what type of chemistry and who delivers them. I can only speculate that Tesla sticks with the 18650 form factor and perhaps is still using Panasonic for those other types of cells. The prices that Tesla charges for the batteries is the best evidence yet that Tesla's costs at the cell level must be in the 200 to 250 USD range per kwh which is much better than all of Tesla's potential competitors for energy backup. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/05/01/teslas-new-powerwall-home-battery-will-cost-3500-for-10kwh-units/ Teslas backup batteries are already sound economic business in places where electricity prices are high or where there are large fluctuations in prices from peak to non-peak demand such as Hawaii, Califormia, Italy and Germany. As renewable energy is expanding further globally there will be even more daily fluctuations in elctricity prices on the grid in more places and this will drive the sales of Teslas backup batteries. This year 50 GW of solar power will come online globally costing 150 billion USD or 3 USD per installed watt. Practically none of this capacity is delivered with energy storage which would add about 1 USD per Watt to the cost of solar power. By 2030 we can expect solar and battery backup to cost 50% less so about 2 USD for solarpower and daily battery backup per installed watt and therefore a total cost of residential electricity at about 10 cents per kWh (as each installed watt delivers about 20kWh during its 20 year life). In 2030 I expect the global solarpower and battery backup business to be a 500Gw per year business or 1000 billion USD per year. For comparison the global oil industry at 90 million barrels per day at 55 USD per berrel is a 1800 billion USD per year industry. However, in 2030 I expect this oil industry to be in rapid decline as self-driving battery electric taxis and trucks are at full speed replacing the globel fleet of vehicles that operate on gasoline and diesel. We simply do not need to burn fossils in the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics
Harey the average residential cost per kwh in the USD is 12.29 cents so solar power is still too costly for many who cannot afford the luxury to pay extra for clean power. However, the 12.3 cents is an average. In Hawaii they pay 31 cents per kwh so solar power will save you money. With Tesla's backup power system solar power for Hawaiians is simply a no brainer. Expect Tesla to do extreamly well in Hawaii when they are able to mass produce their Powerwalls next year. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_6_a
@mahonj In the equatorial belt there are probably 2 billion people and probably 500 million have no electricity at all and are extremely poor. There may be 500 million of those 2 billion who are connected to a well functioning and stable grid. The last 1 billion that have electricity is on an extremely unstable grid that is on and off multiple times per day and the grid downtime is perhaps 2 to 4 hours on average per day. If you can afford it you supplement your grid power with a diesel generator. I expect there are 10s of millions among the 1 billion that depend on an unstable grid that can afford a solar cell roof and a Tesla backup solution even though we are talking 30k USD for the solar cells (10kW installation) and 10k USD for a Tesla backup system. These people could say goodbye to a grid that is hopeless anyway and save them the cost of buying diesel for that generator and a new generator for every 3000 hours of operation which may be as much as every 4th year. In the northern hemisphere there are many more wealthy customers for Tesla's energy systems. They already have a stable grid so the main motivation for going off grid during spring and summer will be a genuine concern for the environment and a willingness to do the right thing for our planet. I still do not see any important savings. Going off grid for most of the year will not save you any money. We need lower prices for solar power and battery backup before that happens. Today it will cost you about 40k USD to get a proper solar power roof (10kW peak power) with a Tesla battery backup system. This system may last 20 years and produce about 200,000 kWh over those 20 years so the cost per kwh is 20 cents per kwh. For everybody to order solar power with battery backup we need a 50% price reduction which is achievable within the next 15 years. The global solar power and battery backup industry could become a bigger industry than the global oil and gas industry by 2030. So yes Tesla IMO is definitely in a high growth industry and they are leading it.
After reading and thinking a little more I think that both the 7kwh daily cycle pack and the 10kwh weekly cycle pack may actually use the same cells as the Model S. Both systems weight 100 kg and are identically dimensioned. The only difference may be in the control software. Each battery pack could contain 10kWh of standard Model S cells. The reason that the nominally rated 7kwh unit can do 365, 7kwh cycles per year for at least 10 years is that it is limited to 70% SOC at the cell level so that the cells will last much longer. Therefore, most house owners with solar power will probably just need to install one 10 kwh and one 7 kwh unit in order to go completely off-grid most of the year. The grid is dirty and always will be as long as it contains nuclear and fossil fuel burning power plants. Therefore, the more people that can go off-grid for a longer time during the year the better for everybody on our planet.
@Mahonj in Musk's presentation he actually say that he imagines that people living in the equatorial belt will forgo ever building a grid and central power plants because it is cheaper and fully sufficient using solar cells and battery backup power just like those countries have skipped laying telephone lines and gone directly to wireless smart phones. As you know very well the sun shines equally much every day during the year in the equatorial belt so this is possible. In the Northern and Southern hemisphere the sun have seasons so we either need a grid with central power plants or we could start building small scale underground heat sinks storing 100 of kWh of energy per cubic meter of heated sand in insulated containers for storing seasonal energy. The heat sinks are heated up during summer with excess solar power and the energy is subsequently used during winter for electricity and heat production. Really for security reasons we should not have central power plants and a grid as it can easily be sabotaged and we cannot afford just a little downtime on our power systems. They need to be running all of the time especially during natural disasters and terror attacks.
Also nice that up to nine Powerwalls can be connected giving the owner of a large house a 90kWh storage with 18kW of continuous power and 30kW of peak power. That should cover the needs of 98% of all house owners (including Davemart who need 4 Powerwalls) and for those 2% with more need than 9 Powerwalls Tesla's Powerpacks will be applicable. There are already several million homeowners globally with solar roof power and many more millions are coming on line in the future so Tesla's power systems will have a very large market especially since Tesla's systems are the most affordable and practical that currently is on the market.
Here is a link to Musk's presentation of the Tesla power systems. One commentator called it the best tech keynote presentation by any CEO ever in history even better than Steve Jobs presentations of the iPhones. I agree. It is really good. Musk have you convinced that Tesla has a product you can order now that you can afford and that can make a real difference for a better future for all of us. Now homeowners in the Northern hemisphere will have an option to become pollution free during summer and spring using Tesla Powerwalls, solar cells, a geothermal heat pump and battery electric cars. http://www.theverge.com/2015/5/1/8527543/elon-musk-tesla-battery-feels I noted that musk during the presentation said Tesla was in talk with a utility to deliver a 250MW backup system based on the Powerpack! So it is truly scalable. Also good to see that Tesla can deliver 10kwh for only 3500 USD at the pack level. That is the lowest price 350 USD per kWh I have ever seen for such a battery backup system. The powerwall weights 100 kg so 100wh/kg which is not much. For that reason and also because the cycle life of the Model S batteries is not high enough to support a 10 year warranty on a battery that will see daily deep cycles for ten years I am convinced Tesla uses another battery cell for those Powerwalls and Powerpacks than they for the Model S. May still be a 18650 cell though.
The ultimate goal is sustainability which can only be achieved by a 100% reduction of greenhouse gases not 80% by 2050. The power sector can easily drop CO2 emitting fuels by 2050. The entire land based transportation sector can be based on battery electric propulsion easily by 2060 and aviation and shipping can use carbon neutral bio fuels for long-distance transport and batteries for short-distance transport. So 100% is the ultimate goal hopefully before 2060.
The future is fully autonomous cars and trucks that transport people and goods automatically. They will all be battery electric because those are many times more durable than gassers and because autonomous cars and trucks will come with the battery size fit for the transportation job in mind. So if you live in the city and need a 20 mile drive for two persons you will get a short range BEV for two within 30 seconds of ordering that drive on your Smartphone. If you need to go 300 miles non-stop for one person you may have to order it 30 minutes in advance etc. You get the vehicle for the job and that is what will make the transportation service very affordable apart from not having to pay a driver of cause. People living in thinly populated areas will prefer to own their own autonomous car simply to save time ordering that transportation that would otherwise take longer to arrive. I bet Tesla will be the first automaker to launch a global transportation service with autonomous Tesla's that can also fuel themselves at Tesla's supercharger stations. Each Tesla should easily be able to do about 100,000 miles per year operated as such an autonomous taxi service.
If the old automakers got OTA (over the air) updates like Tesla the time to market could be reduced seriously.
A breakdown on vehicle type would be useful. I am sure that Tesla owners are not unhappy with their BEV.
Of the 103 Gw of renewable power capacity that was installed in 2014 about 40Gw was solar panels and another 51Gw came from wind turbines leaving 14Gw for other kinds of renewables. Also note that the average cost of renewable energy in 2014 was about 2.7 billion USD per GW capacity. For comparison new coal power is about 3 billion USD per Gw, new nuclear about 7 billion per Gw and new gas power about 1 billion per Gw. For renewable energy to take over completely we need to cut the cost for solar to about 1 billion USD per Gw and the cost for wind power to 2 billion USD per Gw. Today both wind and solar cost about 2.7 billion per installed Gw but the capacity factor for solar is only 10 to 18% whereas it is 25 to 45% for new wind turbines. By 2035 we could achieve the necessary cost reductions for solar and wind power to make all other energy sources become prohibitively expensive. After that we need another 20 to 30 years to completely transform the global energy systems into renewable solar and wind with all the necessary backup systems to deal with the daily and seasonal intermittencies. Whether this is fast enough to prevent catastrophic global warming from fossils fuel burning I don't know. Hopefully it is. Solar power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics Wind power http://www.gwec.net/global-figures/graphs/