Imagine if GM owned ExxonMobil. That's a better example of what Tesla is (an energy storage company that sells a product that uses their core product).
First of Tesla stock is down because Detroit Auto Show has put a steady stream of EVs and PHEVs. At least in the immediate future Tesla is not going to own the low-end market. They are still executing their high-end. On battery side, LGChem and Samsung are doing great job and Tesla battery chemistry is neither that different or superior to them, so there is absolutely no differentiation there.
Tesla stock is over priced, once the German Luxuries esp. BMW arm themselves with batteries there is going to be stupendous completion that would not justify their market value. On top of this, you have Apple getting into the think of things, at least rumors of it.
5-10 ? When it comes to infrastructure Tesla is no way ahead by 5 years. Auto-pilot perhaps they may have deployment advantage given that they have only 2 models and (pre 2014 models of S wont get auto-pilot too). Greatly exaggerated, TSLA is a wonderful company and vision but their market cap is way way off, for what they do.
GM will be rolling out with Bolt EV, primarily that would be any GM dealership. I really do not know about the count, but it is interesting place to start. The way forward would be to rope in utilities like NRG(which already has lot of charging stations) to provide the backbone for the system. As days go by it looks like the major car companies are in agreement with their plug standards. The other aspect is free charging is not promised by Tesla on Model 3. So cannot take into consideration for Bolt EV infrastructure.
Right. No existing infrastructure, just cobbled together dealership charging stations. No autopilot in the Bolt. No OTA software updates (in the US, at least), as it violates the franchise agreement with dealerships. No high-voltage DC charging such that a Supercharger can offer (just the designed-by-committee CHAdeMO junk).
Tesla started putting out super chargers in 2011, even in 2013 it was anemic and nothing outside of their traditional bastions, from mid 2013 is when they ramped things up and have currently put out there. So 2 years. On Auto-Pilot front Audi, Volvo and Mercedes(these guys have a truck on auto-pilot) are out there and they are not lagging in pure technical terms, as I said deployment wise they have to do the ground work. It does not matter CHAdeMO is supercharger a 20-30 minute fast charging is NOT ideal(too much wait and too much screwing the battery), and people should be looking for better solutions.
Of course, but Chademo isn't designed for a Model S, it's designed for more affordable cars with smaller capacity batteries. The market requirement for both a Leaf and Model S DC fast-charge is the same: charge to roughly 80% capacity in 30 minutes.
As I said elsewhere, the Chademo connector can support higher currents when there is a need. When there are Leafs (and Souls? I think think those are the only two in the US on Chademo) with 200mi range batteries, I'm sure we'll see the existing chargers upgraded to the higher current capability.
You sure about that? When the model s chademo adapter came out Teslas were breaking chademo stations left & right because they weren't engineered to handle 25min @ 45kw.
I'm not aware of and chademos above 60kw today while Tesla has a while infrastructure deployed right now.
Nissan has tried this with the Leaf and hit hasn't worked well. Dealerships aren't incentivized to provide charging and I don't see that changing.
Also there is no currently deployed charging standard that comes closer to SuperCharger. Chademo is 60kW spec but usually 40 or 50 depending on how downrated the charger has been. I've never seen less than 118kW on a Supercharger and had multiple Chademo's that have throttled down to 35kW in some cases.
It's going to take years to build out that infrastructure while Telsa continues to deploy SuperChargers and Destination Charging.
> Also there is no currently deployed charging standard that comes closer to SuperCharger. Chademo is 60kW spec but usually 40 or 50 depending on how downrated the charger has been. I've never seen less than 118kW on a Supercharger and had multiple Chademo's that have throttled down to 35kW in some cases.
Chademo deliberately selected 50kW as being optimal given the cars using the charger and the infrastructure available; the connector is designed for up to 200A (up from 125A at present) which would yield 100kW.[0] My understanding is that the CCS connector is being deployed at 200A now. I don't know what you're definition of "close to" is, but I would consider 100kW and 118kW to be close.
Business model for a dealership involves buying a lot of cheap land on the outskirts to provide space for a giant parking lot, a service station, room for all the trucks to load and unload, etc. Space around them is usually bought by other dealers, so it can be branded as an auto mall. In most cities you usually have to go out of your usual route to visit a dealership.
Tesla superchargers require less real estate footprint and are next to freeways and frequently next to Starbucks and some casual restaurants.
Autopilot hardware costs under $1K. Of course its getting the required cameras and ultrasound sensors. Even if you don't pay for the autopilot feature, it contributes to the 40 million/miles/month of Autopilot data Tesla is collecting.
I think people greatly exaggerate how easy it is to catch up to Tesla for an established player. GM, Ford, BMW, Mercedes might have 100 years of deep knowledge in ICE engine design an manufacture. But that knowledge is worth nothing with an electric car which is completely different. Tesla is the company with the longest experience here. Not only that but they changed the fundamentals about how you build a car. They make most stuff in house and have very quick turn over times. They can do tweaks in 5 minutes which the competitors require a month to change due to the reliance large number of external suppliers. The competition is weighted down by legacy requirements. They need to build common platforms which can be used for both their ICE and electric cars. Tesla has no such concerns to worry about.
Tesla has a simple streamlined operation: They do almost everything in house and they only have to focus on electric cars. No other distractions.
They also have a sort of hidden weapon in the form of SpaceX. They have higher expertise than any other car maker on working aluminum from reusing the knowledge gained from SpaceX. Elon Musk can trickle down a lot of know how from his SpaceX operation. Most car companies are not using synergies from spaceship companies :-D
Tesla CEO Elon Musk seemingly confirmed on Tuesday that the company is working on a strategy for getting into transportation services.
During Tesla’s third-quarter earnings conference call, Musk was asked if the company was planning to get into an Uber-like business. Musk tried to keep mum, but when pressed he hinted that the company was at least entertaining the idea.
“There is a right time to make announcements and this is not that time,” Musk said during the call.
He added that the strategy for such a service was not yet “fully-baked,” which implies the company does in fact have some semblance of a strategy.
Tesla will be consuming 2013's entire world production of lithium batteries in ~2 years. Please, enlighten me, where is BMW going to source cells from?
Where will you find these youth drivers who don't want autopilot, and prefer "the ultimate driving experience"?
BMW will get "youth drivers" exactly the same place it currently gets them: nowhere, because those people don't buy BMWs.
BMW's goal in EVs is to hold on to the segment of the market that they have. Tesla's goal is to capture a market that they don't currently have - and that's harder. It's much harder when they have many legitimate competitors, and it is starting to look like they will have much more competition very soon.
This isn't the most correct analysis, the cares are comparable in price but not in the actual category the Tesla is anything but a Luxury car as far as the internals go, it is currently a hip status symbol just like the iPhone was (and is) but it could just as much turn out to be an iWatch down the line.
Tesla doesn't publish very detailed sales figures and there isn't that market research into it (at least public one) yet, currently it seems that many people are buying a Tesla as a second (or even 3rd, 4th etc ;)) car as people who can afford to buy a 100,000$ car usually will have more than 1.
From anecdotal experience I've also noticed that quite a few of the people who buy through finance / lease a Tesla really can't afford one but like many people who end up buying a 800$ phone do - simply because it makes them feel better.
Tesla owners currently enjoy quite a bit of perks that traditional car owners do not, the insurance rates tend to be quite preferable (most likely partially subsidized by Tesla it self), the finance options are also one of the best in the market (In the UK I can pretty much get a 100% finance on a Tesla which costs about my yearly pre-tax income, considering the cost of living and the taxes I pay I would technically will not be able to afford it, I can't get any thing close to this for other cars which cost 100K GBP for example), this is not that dissimilar than how Apple pushed a very expensive handset at the time through their partnered carriers but phones aren't cars so it yet to be seen how it will work out.
Most Tesla owners haven't owned the car for longer than a year atm, the average life span of a car in the US is still about 10 years, there isn't enough data currently to know how the Tesla secondary market will work out (the current "secondary" market sells cars that are usually couple of months in use for almost the same price as a new one), what will the end TCO of a Tesla be after say 5 years to both the end consumer and the company.
Luxury cars in the US have a very well established secondary market with buy backs and dealerships that specialize in reselling cars that tend to hold the value quite well (this is especially true to the more boutique cars like Jags).
Some cars are have also very specific markets in the US (and any where else) e.g. while pretty much anyone will want to drive a BMW 5/7 series or a high end Audi not that many people will go for a Jag or a range rover these days.
Tesla has had a very good market penetration but it's really too early to tell what it means, and with a large part of it's costumers buying it because it's cool and because of it's environment impact (or lack there off) could also quite likely look at other EV options when some actually arrive on the market.
I urge you to price a similar car from a luxury brand (so Acura, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, Lexus, Nissan, Infiniti and maybe Cadillac) with similar feature set (specifically all safety packages, lane-tracking and self-parking packages where available) and see what you come up with.
Fully loaded versions are very expensive because luxury manufacturers feel they can charge whatever they want and get away with it. Those things cost a pretty penny - a navigation system add-on in BMW, for example, is just under $2k (as if you'd buy a luxury vehicle without navigation system in 2016). A backup camera from Mercedes is optional even in "luxury" edition of their vehicle, and is $770. Blind Spot Monitor is another $750.
And we excluded ultra-luxury sporty manufacturers like Maserati, Ferrari and Lamborghini, as they represent comparatively tiny segment of the luxury market. However, "performance" versions of Acura, Lexus, BMW, Mercedes and even Nissan (GT-R) and Chevrolet (Corvette), if that's what you're after, are priced above "performance" versions of Model S.
Then there're the maintenance costs, more or less mandatory at dealer prices if you ever want to sell your car for decent resale value. Then subscriptions for things like maps, navigation and XM real-time traffic. Then, of course, the cost of gas - even if you assume oil falls down to $0 (perhaps a free tank of gas with a purchase of a hot dog at the gas station, if current price trends persist), you're still getting pretty close on the TCO front for 4-5 years.
Samsung SDI is providing BMW with Battery. GM is getting it from LGChem. The whole myth of Tesla being the Apple of Car Battery supplies is just that myth.
It doesn't seem like a myth at all - tesla could be the Apple in that its vertically integrated w/ a tightly controlled supply chain and an ecosystem producing lock-in (superchargers), capturing the high end of the market and most of the profit in the industry.
GM and BWM would be the android device manufacturers - assembling 3rd party components, poorly differentiated, initially not competitive on quality but eventually catching up, while competition w/ each other prevents any of them from achieving profits comparable to Tesla.
Tesla buys its cells from Panasonic. Panasonic owns half the gigafactory (the Lithium Ion half). Tesla only buys Li-Ion cells from Panasonic and then assembles them into batteries. I can agree that there is some efficiency in this arrangement (cells and batteries made inside the same facility), but don't get ahead of yourself. Tesla is only assembling batteries.
Panasonic makes the 18650 cells.
GM and Ford build their own batteries too for their own fleet of vehicles, supplied from LG Chem. The benefits of scale seem to benefit the joint effort between GM + Ford + LG Chem, and the topology of Detroit (which has tons of railroads and shipyards that GM / Ford / LG Chem can leverage).
I bet you Bolt EV hits consumer market before TSLA Model 3.
But yeah, GM owns its own battery factory. Is it the same size as Tesla's?? No. But I think its a smarter move to build the factories after demand has proven itself.
Tesla expects the Model 3 to sell out. Anything less than "amazing" will make the Gigafactory not worth its billions-upon-billions of dollars of investment.
I don't disagree the Bolt gets here first. The Leaf got here first too. I don't see the Leaf selling out. I don't see the Bolt selling out either.
> Tesla expects the Model 3 to sell out. Anything less than "amazing" will make the Gigafactory not worth its billions-upon-billions of dollars of investment.
Even if the Model 3 doesn't sell out, there are utility customers clamoring for stationary storage, first to replace peaking plant capacity, and then down the value chain as more utility scale wind and solar come online.
Why the hell should we use Lithium Ion batteries for energy storage when Pumped Hydro is cheaper?
Do you even know what the energy storage market looks like in the US? You ain't gonna build a 30 GIGAWATT-hour plant on $3 Billion (1.6 Billion initially, another 1.5 billion in upgrades a few decades later) like the Bath County pumped storage station.
Because you can't drop pumped hydro onto a substation anywhere in the world in cargo containers. Batteries, you can (Hawaii is already doing so in tandem with utility scale solar).
Pumped hydro is restricted by geography. That's like arguing, "Why not build dams everywhere! Hydro power is so clean!". You need someplace to actually pump water around.
Okay, so TSLA can go ahead and capture the Hawaii and Alaska energy storage market.
Virtually everywhere else has dams they can take advantage of. The places that don't have abandoned mines for Compressed-Air energy storage. Continental US has a ton of natural resources at its disposal that can be built up to significantly cheaper solutions than Lithium Ion.
> Okay, so TSLA can go ahead and capture the Hawaii and Alaska energy storage market.
And Australia. And Europe. And anywhere that is placing a premium on renewable energy. Tesla's market for batteries increases each time they're able to lower their price as volume increases.
> Virtually everywhere else has dams they can take advantage of. The places that don't have abandoned mines for Compressed-Air energy storage. Continental US has a ton of natural resources at its disposal that can be built up to significantly cheaper solutions than Lithium Ion.
There is no point in us arguing further when you don't base your argument on reality. You can't put dams anywhere. You can't build salt caverns anywhere. You can put batteries anywhere.
Good luck competing against Redox Flow. Its a miracle that Elon Musk has been able to get so much done with Laptop-batteries (18650 Cells). But the new chemistries actually designed for grid-storage are coming, and they crush laptop-batteries in cost and capacity.
The Gigafactory is designed to make Electric car batteries, and the 26650 (successor to the 18650 laptop cells) aren't even being produced yet. How long before TSLA / Panasonic can tweak the gigafactory to make a cell optimized for grid energy-storage?
Your turn. Show me a 1MegaWatt-hr or larger TSLA installation. kw-installations (Power Wall) are small money, I don't care about that. I care about hundreds-of-million $$ installations.
The only things I see for TSLA are planned projects and/or demos.
Redox Flow is a bit newer technology than Lithium Ion, but small-scale installations already exist all over the world.
Yes. And TSLA doesn't have any utility scale projects except the hypothetical 1MW plant in Ireland until sometime later this year.
Small-scale deployments of Lithium Ion are not going to be as efficient as large-scale deployments of Redox Flow. Period. I don't think TSLA has bet on the right technology at the utility scale. Lithium Ion is great for cars, but better technologies simply exist in other niches.
-----------
Look, Redox Flow batteries are ahead of TSLA. They exist right now at the "small scale" of 2.2MWhr.
These are the numbers for a utility-scale level company... currently mass producing Redox Flow batteries. TSLA power wall just doesn't compete. Not by a long shot.
The Bath County Hydro Station was built in 1970. I'm comparing TSLA technology to literally 40 year old technology here.
The 40-year old technology is cheaper, more well known, widely deployed, 100% green, non-toxic and extremely reliable. Its both a short-term and long-term solution.
TSLA batteries don't even beat the status-quo in the energy field, let alone the new technologies that are coming (Supercapacitors, Redox Flow, Compressed Air...)
Hydro is cheaper, but requires permits, construction, multi-year timeframes, contractors, etc. Battery packs require NONE of these.
Look, this is just like the PC revolution vs mainframes. Mainframes were cheaper and better on ANY axis relative to PC's in the 1980's.
However, a PC didn't require a multi-year allocation in the capital budget. A PC didn't require buy-in from multiple players. A PC was locally controlled.
So, PCs won. And the money expended on PCs eventually made them better than the mainframes they were displacing.
Okay. So why are PowerWalls going to beat the current state-of-the-art in battery technology?
Look, for areas with resources, Pumped Hydro / Compressed Air is straight up superior. For areas without resources, getting a shipping container for a Redox Flow battery is more efficient.
Hydroelectric dams are bad for the environment, and a huge risk in areas prone to earthquakes. They're also a big terrorism risk (ever watched "The Dambusters" about the WWII dam-busting operations?)
Plus, you are ignoring the biggest advantages of the PowerWall concept-- the decentralization and small-scale aspect. I don't think homeowners in my town are going to be building hydroelectric dams in their back yard, even if it weren't an earthquake zone (and it is...)
With regard to new battery chemistries... sure, there are probably things out there much better or stabler than lithium-ion. But posting some marketing copy about a not-yet-shipped new battery product proves nothing. I'm surprised you didn't latch on to the "ultracapacitor" hype since that is also a year away from taking the world by storm (and has been for the last 5 years, at least). As a layman, none of us have any idea whether these physics breakthroughs are 5 months away or 5 years, and none of the people who do know are going to talk about it.
If new battery chemistries do take the world by storm. I don't see why Tesla wouldn't just license them, much like they are licensing lithium-ion now. Tesla has the high-current charging network that a better battery would need anyway. Traditional car manufacturers have a spotty and low-wattage charging network that might not even benefit from a better battery chemistry.
You seem to be grasping at any possible reason to be negative about Tesla. I agree they're overvalued right now, but the idea of building a big factory for batteries, and focusing on a high-end electric car is smart, and the next few years will show that. There are strong network effects in building a charging network, and major economies of scale in building the gigafactory.
And it has nothing to do with "better". Lithium Ion has more energy per watt, but Redox Flow is just so much cheaper and also has a 20+ year life expectancy. It will be very hard for Tesla to compete when they're making car batteries and trying to apply it to utility scale.
Who cares about energy density when you're just going to bury the battery into the ground? The ground can support a lot more weight than the lighter Lithium Ion batteries. The Redox Flow's heavier weight is not a disadvantage in the utility space.
Tesla’s not the only company producing electric vehicles.
Globally, demand for Li-Ion cells and batteries is going to increase, even if Tesla will stop making cars.
Yes, but that only puts Panasonic in a good position.
Tesla Batteries can only be used inside of Tesla cars and Powerwalls right now. All the other companies build their own batteries (out of LG Chem cells or Samsung cells).
Tesla only assembles Panasonic cells into batteries. They are not poised to actually benefit from increased global demand of Lithium Ion.
Currently yes, only assembling Panasonic cells.
They’re building the factory to change that, by making their own cells.
Panasonic only owns about 35% of the factory, the rest is TSLA.
Panasonic invested $1.6B while the total project cost is about $5B.
E.g. here: http://mashable.com/2016/01/16/panasonic-tesla-gigafactory-i...
While 32% if significant share, it’s less then half.
I don’t see how the cells manufactured by a Tesla-branded factory, where TSLA owns more than 50% of the factory, aren’t Tesla’s own.
You've never been in an office building with more than two different companies inside?
I mean, serious question. In the office building I work in, my company only owns two floors. The next floor is another company, and the floor above that is yet another company. My company owns more than half the building (the bottom floors has more space for various reasons), but the stuff made upstairs isn't made by my company.
Different modes of co-ownership.
In the building you’re talking about, each company has/rents some distinctive piece of real estate.
Not the case with gigafactory.
E.g. read there: http://fortune.com/2015/11/03/tesla-grid-batteries-gigafacto... As you see, Tesla’s saying they will be producing cells, not Panasonic.
Tesla has their own battery technology. But the chemistry belongs to Panasonic, who creates cells.
You combine cells (like the 18650) together to create batteries. The Gigafactory is trying to make 26650 cells, which should be more efficient in cars than the 18650 cells (which were originally designed for laptops)
Tesla's use of 18650 was highly innovative. They "hacked" growth into their company by taking advantage of the scale and scope of laptop manufacturers. But now that TSLA is one of the largest users of Lithium Ion in the world, they need to come up with a more efficient, car-specific cell design now.
I don't believe that's true. Could you please paste the pertinent text from the 10-K? I was not able to find it.
As far as I know the cell chemistry in use was developed jointly and I believe Tesla holds patent although I'm not able to find a source at the moment.
> “Being selected by Tesla to provide cells for their current and next- generation EV battery pack is a tremendous validation of Panasonic’s nickel-based chemistry and the extensive investments Panasonic continues to make in lithium ion R&D and production,” said Naoto Noguchi, President of Panasonic Energy Company.
TSLA patents are in regards to batteries: collections of cells working together. But the Lithium needs to be turned into a cell... before collections of cells can turn into a battery.
The link you posted is from 2010--roadster days. The cells used in the roadster are not the same as those in the Model S. And Model 3 will be using new cells as well.
There's been immense R&D by both parties since 2010, and the latest supply agreement was finalized July 2014.
I'm hoping for something a little more formal than a PR blurb--like an SEC filing as grandparent alluded to.
But considering the $1.6 Billion investment from Panasonic, it looks like Panasonic owns at least half of the gigafactory. This suggests that Panasonic still owns the cell technology / chemistry.
18650 refers to the cell form factor--the size and shape--and has nothing to do with the chemistry inside. It's like saying two PC motherboards are the same because they're both ATX.
The cells in the original roadster were 3.7 V / 2100 mAh vs. 3.6 V / 3100 mAh for the latest. They're both 18650 cells--completely different chemistry.
More specifically, Tesla's shipping Panasonic NCR16850A cells with Panasonic's newish LiNiCoO2 chemistry - same as in a lot of more modern laptop batteries. The Roadster was presumably one of their older cells like the CGR18650.
> an energy storage company that sells a product that uses their core product
That's that TSLA wants you to think they have the potential of being because they havr to be known as something more than a car company to keep the stock price up.
ExxonMobil isn't quite an energy storage company. It is an energy retailer. Tesla's batteries are more similar to a gas tank, which GM already produces.
