This is Henrik's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Henrik's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
As a corporate shuttle I would say the Model X with plenty of space in the back and gull wings for easy entry and exit would be very good also. But the Model S is too small at the back seat. It is also more politically correct to drive a BEV like the Model X than a car with a polluting combustion engine. Corporations care more and more about being politically correct because it affects the public opinion and thereby their sales. --- Roger you can believe in whatever you want to but I will stick with Panasonic's official documentation that clearly says 300 deep cycles to about 80% of original capacity at 25 Celsius. That documentation also fits with Tesla's warranty on the battery. The link was Now it seems the link is gone from that location and I have no time to find it. Panasonic own documentation for the Tesla cell trumps your source that is BS. I gave a source for the 285k dollars. I checked it and saw it is Australian dollars at 0.9 USD so it is the price in Australia. I originally thought it was a US price my fault. It may be lower in the US I can't find a source for that however. Maybe you have it.
It is a horribly antiquated design for a 285,000 USD car. Benz should take on the Tesla approach and make a long-range performance BEV instead. They could make this car with a 110 kwh battery, 4 sec to 62 mph for about 140,000 USD. It would have much more trunk space, be more fun and pleasant to drive and it would not pollute the world for everybody provided that you use renewable electivity for its charging. Benz could have it ready for production by 2021 and buy cells from Tesla's gaga factory. There is a good chance Tesla will have the capacity to sell high energy 18650 cells to others when they get to 35GWh on that factory plus 15GWh for all of Panasonics other factories. Whit a few big deals for Tesla with other automakers like BMW, Audi and Benz another 50GWh factory could be announced by 2018 and be ready for full production by 2024. With the low cost production at that Giga factory there is a now a really good business case that all future performance cars should go long-range BEV as it would make better and less costly vehicles. And Roger as I have said multiple times to you the Tesla cells are not suited for PHEV or hybrid use as they can't do the necessary recharges and power draws. But you just don't get it or you refuses to leave your own flawed mindset.
You are clearly the one who is whining here, not me. I practice free speech. That you can't handle the truth is none of my concern. Nice try about "there was no attempt" but it is the second time in this thread that you distort the facts about what I say or what you have said (first being about Norwegian BEV sales). You just don't do this twice accidently.
Dave, there is a big difference between telling someone and explaining someone. You pretend to quote me but in fact you make the text up to make me look like the villain. That is dishonest and manipulative.
Dave you seem to have a short memory. Perhaps you should read your own post at 8:36 AM this thread. When you badmouth Tesla you better be prepared for some heat because Tesla of all companies does not deserved to be badmouthed.
Musk launched Model S in China before he launched in Japan because he knows it is politically important to show some respect in that market. He also cooperates with Chinese companies and wealthy Chinese individuals to get the supercharging infrastructure up ASAP in China. Your interpretation of the Norwegian EV statistics is ignorant and outright idiotic now that you have been explained how it works. You refuse to understand or perhaps you simply can't.
Dave so an order by one customer is canceled in the last minute meaning another customer with that specific choice of options gets lucky and obtain his/her order after one month instead of 6 months. Also Tesla may get a good price for 500 containers to Europe if they can fill it on a particular day which they just can by delaying US sales etc, etc. You see my point is that real life business is messy and complicated.
Tesla's production is continuous apart from factory shout downs needed for repairs or retooling. Delivery is largely a batch process in order to save costs. You can hire a car carrier for lees per car transported from the US to Europe or China than it cost to ship in containers. Problem is that a car carrier is typical 6000 cars for each load. Also ordering 500 containers for car shipping at a time cost less than ordering 20 containers at a time in a continuous flow. Transportation is a batch process when the volume is as low as it currently is for Tesla. That will not change until the Model III goes into production. This is also why Tesla does not report monthly sales as to many people without any understanding of how it works will come up with all kind of false interpretations for variations in monthly sales. When Tesla is above about 200,000 units per year the monthly sales will be more constant and then they will publish these statistics on a monthly basis.
Model S can do 0 to 62 mph in 5.9 sec using a 60kWh pack so doing the same in a significantly less heavy car using a 55kWh pack is no problem. The performance edition Model III doing less than 4 sec will only be sold with a larger pack say 75 kWh and 300 miles range EPA rated. For Model III Tesla will use another battery cell than the 3.1Ah they currently use in the Model S. Model X and Model III will use either the Panasonic 3.4Ah cell or the 4Ah cell or a slightly modified version of these cells see You are also wrong about poor demand for Tesla. Tesla is so far only limited by their ability to ramp up production. For instance, order today and you need to wait 4 months for delivery in the US. Abroad the waiting list depend on when a shipload arrives. Tesla also needs to allocate more cars to countries where they just launched sales in order not to get too much bad press about long waiting lists. So right now China and Japan are the priority.
The 60kWh Model S is EPA rated at 208 miles. So a smaller Model III with a new generation motor and power electronics should be able to get at least 208 miles for its EPA rating using a 55kWh battery pack. However, I think Anderman is right about Tesla's price of 200 USD per kWh by 2020 at the pack level. My bet is that Tesla will be able launch the Model III in 2018 for about 40,000 USD for the 55kWh edition and more for a version with a bigger battery pack. It will be just as fast as the Model S, no more than 6 sec form 0 to 62mph and no more than 4 sec for the performance edition of Model III. Blistering acceleration is something that people really want and it costs much less to deliver that feature in an electric car than in a car that uses a combustion engine. This is why Tesla can offer a Model III that cost less than a comparable car with an equally fast acceleration for its size and quality. You can still buy a combustion based car for less that 40,000 USD, of cause, but it will not be luxury and doing 0 to 62 mph in 6 sec. Tesla will sell this car as fast as they can ramp up production as there will be no one else in the market in 2018 to 2021 with a long-range performance car at that price level that is zero emission. It is my hope that Tesla's success in selling the Model III will be an eye opener for the industry so that it starts focusing in earnest on BEVs instead of combustion based cars.
I am afraid that the middle east and much of the Muslim parts of Africa and Asia is about to become one huge war zone in the years ahead. Oil demand in these regions will go down with the destruction of their economies. The scale and the number of people affected is already so high that not even the US or the combined NATO forces can do much about it. Remember it took 250,000 US soldiers and 200 billion USD spend per year and about 1000 fatalities per year to keep things under control in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now that these soldiers are not there it is spinning out of control. Today the problem is even bigger because it has also spread to Syria, Yemen, Libya, Niger and northern Nigeria and other countries are about to be added to that list. The West does no longer have the resources or willingness to contain this evil in a human manner with small percentages of collateral damage. So we don't and there will be much more war as a result. We will see what will happen in the coming decades but I would not invest a penny in these regions as I find it most likely that they are going down in a very big way. Meanwhile I say full speed ahead with gas and oil fraking, Tesla's giga battery factories, wind power and solar power. The West does not need the middle east oil in the long-term and there should be time to become self-supplied with energy before that region falls completely apart.
Roger we could not be further apart in our respective opinions and judgments. Tesla is currently making the world's best car and they are about to make an even better one with the upcoming Model X and with battery upgrades and 4WD for the Model S. Their cars does not even cost more than their comparable combustion based vehicles. Yet they have better handling, better acceleration, less noise and vibration, more trunk space, far less operating cost and they fuel at the safety and the convenience of your home and they are pollution free. They do not give you or your children or your neighbors terminal diseases caused by air pollution. Therefore, Tesla should not change a single thing in what they do. They are executing their business plan perfectly and their vision and direction is the right one. Long-range performance BEVs is the future of the auto-industry and the sooner that other auto-makers realize that and start acting on it by cutting down investment in combustion related development and production (and scrap fuel cell RandD) and start announcing their own 50Gwh battery factories and their own developed Model S/X/III the shorter time it will take to get to a point where combustion engines are not needed at all anymore. Do not bother to convince me about the merits of the combustion engines (or fuel cells for that case). I have done my research and concluded that these technologies are becoming increasingly irrelevant and is a total waste of my time.
@Herman I may understand your worries about Tesla's stock price. Perhaps it is too high (or perhaps it is too low) but it is extremely difficult to price a growth stock like Tesla because it is unique and its potential future earnings is so hard to predict with any accuracy. However, I do not understand your worries about Tesla's ability to secure enough capital for their projected growth. Sure they will need more capital to get to 500,000 cars per year by 2020. They will probably need 5 to 10 billion USD more for a new factory making the Model III, its drive train and its power electronics etc. However, they have at least enough capital currently to ramp up to 8,000 model S and X per month by December 2015 and to finish RandD on the Model X and to nearly finish making an extensive supercharger network spanning most of North America, Europe and China/Japan Korea. My point is that by December 2015 Tesla will be in a much better competitive situation than they are today because of that global charging network, their global distribution and service network and because they have two attractive cars for sale by 8,000 units times 100,000 USD per months. IMO they can issue corporate bonds at a fairly low interest to finance the few billion USD that they may need to get to 500,000 units in sales per year by 2020. Also assume Tesla make a profit of 20,000 USD per car they sell that is nearly 2 billion in profits per year starting January 2016 (8000*20,000 USD*12=1920 million USD per year). Tesla may actually be able to fund themselves to a very high degree if they do not pay any shareholder dividends between now and 2020.
This is probably going the be the most important factory of the century. Without factories this large with so much vertical production integration it will be impossible to make affordable and attractive long-range BEVs. 200 more of these factories and the world could make 100 million BEVs per year with a 100kWh battery each or about 300 miles range. That would be the end of the polluting and noisy combustion engines that has serve so many so well. Of cause, it will take several decades to get to that point but the first factory is always the hardest to make. If anyone can succeed in doing this I trust that Tesla, Panasonic and Nevada is an excellent constellation to make it happen.
Very good news indeed. Poet has worked to make this happen for over 10 years. I am excited they have finally started up a commercial scale facility. The next 20 months or so will show whether it can yield enough to be profitable at existing prices for raw materials and end products. If it can USA will be able to add several million barrels of ethanol production per day in a few decades. It all counts in ending our dependency on imported energy.
People in general are hysterical about oil leaks from land based pipelines. Very few people or animals are ever hurt from those leaks and they are relatively simple to clean up. Even if you did not clean up mother nature would do it in less than 10 years through evaporation and naturally occurring microbes that eats the non-evaporated oil. The US badly needs more oil and gas pipeline infrastructure. It typically cost 15 USD to ship a barrel of oil a 1000 miles by rail and only 5 USD to do the same by pipes. North Dakota could produce 2 or even 3 million barrels per day if there was enough pipeline out of the state but there is not and it will take many years to get the necessary approvals to build these pipelines. I also think the rail system is beginning to reach its maximum capacity in ND and thereby greatly slowing down further oil production increases in ND. The oil industry is reacting by ramping up production in areas that does not have serious problems in transporting the oil. This is why you see an explosion of production in the Texas Permian oil shale. It is one of the least productive oil shales in the US but there are no serious problem getting the oil to the nearby oil refineries so this is where most money goes right now plus Eagle Ford. For the productivity of oil shales in the US see For production and production growth see I expect that the US will become a net oil exporter before 2020 and that Texas will be the big winner in this oil boom that has been unleashed by the new shale fracking technology. Texas is winning because they can solve the transportation issues faster than other shale areas in the US.
No, I think these guys would have done quite enough to qualify for a Nobel prize in chemistry if they could do 150 Wh/g <=> 150000Wh/kg ;-) Anyway 150Wh/kg at the cell level for a lithium manganese iron phosphate type of battery is a significant improvement. I think A123 had the previous record with about 120 Wh/kg in this area.
There are many positive implications of higher US natural gas export. 1) Higher US natural gas prices (over 6 USD per million BTU) will make US wind power competitive with natural gas combined cycle without subsidies. If the price rises to about 8 USD per million BTU wind power would grow fast enough to replace much use of natural gas in the US. Provided new coal power is banned. 2) The Marcellus shale is already profitable to drill at 4 USD per million BTU. Any higher price in the US will accelerate growth in production of natural gas and thereby slow the price increases in the US. It takes decades to build significant LNG export capacity and US production of natural gas will easily pick up to supply any export. My point is that it is going to take a long time or at least 15 years for US gas prices to reach 8 USD per million BTU as a result of LNG exports. Consumers will not notice. 3) Exporting US natural gas for 10 to 15 USD per million BTU at production cost of 3 USD is probably the most easy money that can be made in any US industry. The US could/should tax the profits from natural gas exports in order to lower income taxes for all Americans. 4) Important US allies in Europe, Japan and South Korea need to buy their gas from dependable suppliers. It is strategically the right thing to do for the US and its allies.
VW became the best selling EV on the important Norwegian market in July selling nearly 700 cars of which 400 where e-golf and 300 where the VW Up!. That was nearly half of all EVs sold in Norway for July. See Tesla did not sell many cars that month in Norway because they need to prioritize their limited production for the newly opened Chinese market. The Leaf is in trouble their sales is clearly going down in Norway now as a result of the new VW BEVs. In Norway the Leaf only get a battery warranty of 5 years and 100,000 km whereas VW offers 8 years and 160,000 km. I think Nissan is going to get a hard time maintaining current global sales of 5000 Leafs per months when the e-golf and Up hit all the global markets. I read elsewhere that Tesla plans to raise monthly production to 8000 Model S/X by December 2015. At that time they will most likely also become the volumetric leader globally with highest global EV sales ahead of Nissan. Tesla is already the world leader of automotive batteries most kwh used for EVs by any EV maker in the world.
@EP Tesla has announced that battery recycling will be an integral part of this factory. It is also shown in the production flow diagram above. Elsewhere I read Musk has said their RandD expenses were high also because they were developing yet unannounced things. I believe they are developing a scalable backup-power, load leverage system that can be installed both in small homeowner environments as well as large industrial facilities. I believe it will be cloud controlled and that they will market it as a leased service that they maintain and service but that it is installed locally near the power producing / consuming sources. There is a huge future market for such systems in relation to solar and wind power that is going to get less costly in the future but also contribute more to total power production and therefore the increased need for these backup power / power leverage systems. At some point it would have to become a legal requirement that such backup is provided in connection with every new solar power and wind power installation simply to secure the stability of the grid. Tesla will have the lowest cost batteries in the world for that task so they will take this market as well until others start making 50Gwh factories as well. Tesla already has a Tesla produced backup system for their California assembly factory. I believe it is about 2000 kwh and it only provides partial bacup load leverage. The back-up power system for the 50Gwh factory will have to be much larger but it too will be partial. You still need a powerful grid connection but a significantly smaller one than would be needed without this load leverage system. And that is the point.
@msevoir You are quite right. I think this factory is going to make three types of battery packs. 500,000, 60kWh packs for the Model III equals 30Gwh. 120,000, 90kWh packs for the Model S/X equals 10.8GWh. and probably 920,000, 10 kWh packs for backup power and load leverage for home owners and businesses with solar cell installations. That is the remaining 9.2 Gwh. (a 10kW unit is about 50 kg and very compact. Two men can install it anywhere. A 10 kWh lead acid system would cost the same to make but it will be much more costly to install as it will weight 250 kg and be quite large. It would also wear out pretty fast after 2 years whereas the Tesla pack probably will last 4 years). I would estimate Tesla's total cost at the factory roughly as: 6500 employees at 100,000 = 650 million per year. 5 billion at 10% (high risk factory loans not treasury bonds) = 500 million per year. Capital depreciation 1 billion per year Cost for upgrades repairs and production interruptions 500 million per year Raw materials 500 million per year (highly uncertain I really do not know but expect it is very low because of the extreme degree of vertical integration). It could also be a billion or two per year. Insurance allowances 1 billion per year. (battery recalls defect production etc). The factory will buy 15GWh of finished cells from Panasonic for 200 USD per kWh (higher costs for Panasonic's smaller factories) Total cost 3 billion USD. Total annual factory costs (650+500+1000+500+1000+3000)= 6.65 billion USD per year. Total earnings per year 50GWh at 200 USD per kwh = 10 billion. Total taxable profits per year 3.35 billion USD. Note that if raw materials is higher than the assumed 500 million it will reduce the taxable profits.
We seem to agree about a lot as I did not say Tesla would be producing 100 million cars per year, I did also not say that 100 million BEVs will be produced in the foreseeable future and I did also not say that the 100 million cars per year will be made with today's battery chemistry. Tesla estimates they 50Gwh factory (50Gwh battery packs and 35Ghw cells to be exact) can reduce the cost at the pack level by more than 30%. If they could build 10 identical factories the cost would go further down of cause. But currently they can't. As I said every 5 year or so they will retool the factory for new and improved battery technology just as it happens everywhere else in the world today. Large battery factories have numerous of parallel and identical production lines. They each break down frequently but not all at the same time. The only time where all production is stopped is for complete retooling every 5 years as I said. The important risk that I see Tesla and Panasonic are running here is the case of mayor fire, flooding or earthquake or even a terrorist attack. I am sure they are working hard to eliminate or reduce the probability of such incidents because they could bankrupt Tesla when they only have one factory.
SJC Smaller factories will also have to be stopped for 40 days or so every 5 year for retooling and upgrades. No savings on that account by going small. But I guess your argument is more about the need for redundancy. That would be nice but also too costly. Fortunately, Tesla does not intend to stop at 50Gwh in 2020. If they can sell the cars they will break ground on another nearly identical 50GWh factory at around 2018 with production startup in 2020 and full production by 2023. More 50Gwh factories will follow. You see in order to make the 100 million BEVs per year that this world need we also need about 200 of these 50Gwh factories. So you will eventually get your redundancy.
SJC Problem is this. One 50Gwh factory cost 5 billion USD needs 6500 employees to operate whereas 10 5Gwh factories would cost say 10 billion USD to build and would need a combined 10,000 employees to operate. Consequently the 50Gwh factory can make cells at 200 USD per kWh and the 10, 5GWh factories can do cells at 250 USD per kWh. The numbers are proxies of cause. Moreover, Tesla and Panasonic probably plan to retool their factory every 5 year anyway to accommodate better battery technology. They do not stop production to retool for upgrading just one technology like the part of the plant that make anode powder. They wait until they can replace the machinery for making both anode, cathode and separator films. That process may take 40 days and cost 1 billion USD in new machinery. The factory make 10 billion worth of batteries (50GWh * 200 USD per kwh) per year so shutting down in 40 days will cost another 1 billion USD in lost revenue. Note also another thing about the 50GWh factory. It produces nearly everything to make a 18650 cell apart from a few raw materials. This factory will buy raw aluminum bars, cobber bars, lithium carbonate, steel bars and inexpensive bulk chemicals for the separator films and a few other things. The electricity used will be produced by an associated wind farm and solar park. This is an extreme an unprecedented degree of vertical production integration and the reason that this factory will probably house at least 15 other companies besides Tesla and Panasonic as different companies are responsible for different aspects of the production and have proprietary rights to the applied technology. The raw materials this factory uses probably cost less than 500 million per year because they are so basic. Out comes 10 billion USD worth of batteries.