Musk endeavours

[BobbyD]

Car and Driver Handicap EPA driving comparison test at 75mph. (The handicap is in the last column).



Data from: https://insideevs.com/news/491021/vw-id ... hway-test/

[BobbyD]

Tesla Is Shifting All Standard Range EVs To LFP To Ensure Supply

- https://insideevs.com/news/490860/tesla ... e-evs-lfp/

[dspp]

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I really can't find a simpler way to explain to you that your statements are self-contradictory, and your inability to see that looks from the outside very much like a structural blindspot in your thinking.

BD,
We have quite clearly listened to a different investor presentation, and are observing parallel realities. Time will tell as to which of us needs to re-encounter reality. Good luck with your choices, and to me with mine.
regards,
dspp

[BobbyD]

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I really can't find a simpler way to explain to you that your statements are self-contradictory, and your inability to see that looks from the outside very much like a structural blindspot in your thinking.

BD,
We have quite clearly listened to a different investor presentation, and are observing parallel realities. Time will tell as to which of us needs to re-encounter reality. Good luck with your choices, and to me with mine.
regards,
dspp

I'm going on what you said.

You reported the CFO as saying something you claim you haven't heard... Whether you believe him, or choose an alternative interpretation is irrelevant.

[dspp]

I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record, but I really can't find a simpler way to explain to you that your statements are self-contradictory, and your inability to see that looks from the outside very much like a structural blindspot in your thinking.

BD,
We have quite clearly listened to a different investor presentation, and are observing parallel realities. Time will tell as to which of us needs to re-encounter reality. Good luck with your choices, and to me with mine.
regards,
dspp

I'm going on what you said.

You reported the CFO as saying something you claim you haven't heard... Whether you believe him, or choose an alternative interpretation is irrelevant.

To be precise BD I read the transcript, viewed the slides, and read an account of that particular piece of livestream. (That element was a particular discussion item on another forum which is why I paid attention). I cannot now recollect whether I have listened to that bit myself as I've listened to so much. I think my personal interpretation is quite clear. Like I said, time will tell.

regards, dspp

[BobbyD]

Like I said, time will tell.

Time has already told. I am talking about something already in the past.

[BobbyD]

Posted without comment for anybody who might find it of interest.



- https://twitter.com/ZennRoland/status/1 ... 7517709312

[odysseus2000]

I have tortured myself by watching videos put out by numerous supporters of Tesla.

The common feature I find is that everyone has a long term view and that some like to brag about how much they are down this month.

The missing feature I find is that no one is talking about having cash available to buy more.

A second missing feature is the low number of sites where folk have slavering at the mouth to short Tesla.

All of this feels like the late 90's, early 2000 when the cult of the equity was a dominant force that ended with the IPO of Last Minute Dot Com.

Will the markets follow the course of 2000 and sell off. I haven't a clue, but for tech to rally here we need a good injection of FOMO (Fear of missing out) and a good injection of FOMO on the downside, i.e. heavy shorting. Thank you Bill Gates for doing your bit, but we need more or we need some big announcement from Tesla to give us FOMO to the upside.

The obvious FOMO to the upside would be a legalisation of robotaxi somewhere and clear demonstrations that AI driving is far better than human driving.

This may or may not happen, but in the short term it will be what decides big moves imho.

Longer term it will be more basic business practices: Turnover, margins,....

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD Posted without comment for anybody who might find it of interest.

The nice graphic of battery production in Europe as posted suggests if all the maximum 338.5 GWh by about the mid roaring 20's.

By contrast Tesla giga factory 1 produced 20 GWh in 2018

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/gigafactory

If the predicted production does reach 338+ GWh, it would likely create a commoditisation of battery prices and potentially a big spike in the price of Nickel if energy density remains important, or a collapse in the Nickel speculative bubble if Nickel batteries are replace with Iron electrodes that offer more safety, but less energy density.

The question becomes how likely are the 20 proposed sites to become practical and able to deliver at the upper limit of what they proposed. There are 7 well know battery makers

Panasonic Norway, unknown
Northvolt VW 24 GWh
Northvolt Skelleftea (VW?) 40 GWh
Catl 24 GWh
BYD unknown
Samsung 15 GWh
LG 65 GWh
Tesla 20 GWh

Giving 166 GWh + two unknown which seems a probable lower limit.

Practical upper limit? No idea how well some of these new entrants will manage, but I doubt setting up to make large volumes of batteries will be easy.

I am not sure if any of these are attractive investment opportunities as commodity products usually have no margin strength. Still from a global warming and BEV perspective, having many more batteries available is a plus.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

If the predicted production does reach 338+ GWh, it would likely create a commoditisation of battery prices...

This has been suggested once or twice in this thread...

A mere 8 fabs in Germany though. Disappointing!

[dspp]

BobbyD Posted without comment for anybody who might find it of interest.

The nice graphic of battery production in Europe as posted suggests if all the maximum 338.5 GWh by about the mid roaring 20's.

By contrast Tesla giga factory 1 produced 20 GWh in 2018

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/gigafactory

If the predicted production does reach 338+ GWh, it would likely create a commoditisation of battery prices and potentially a big spike in the price of Nickel if energy density remains important, or a collapse in the Nickel speculative bubble if Nickel batteries are replace with Iron electrodes that offer more safety, but less energy density.

The question becomes how likely are the 20 proposed sites to become practical and able to deliver at the upper limit of what they proposed. There are 7 well know battery makers

Panasonic Norway, unknown
Northvolt VW 24 GWh
Northvolt Skelleftea (VW?) 40 GWh
Catl 24 GWh
BYD unknown
Samsung 15 GWh
LG 65 GWh
Tesla 20 GWh

Giving 166 GWh + two unknown which seems a probable lower limit.

Practical upper limit? No idea how well some of these new entrants will manage, but I doubt setting up to make large volumes of batteries will be easy.

I am not sure if any of these are attractive investment opportunities as commodity products usually have no margin strength. Still from a global warming and BEV perspective, having many more batteries available is a plus.

Regards,

By 2025 if Tesla remain on target for 20m cars/yr in 2030 then Tesla will be requiring 344 GWh/yr globally (for 3.3m/yr, with approx 22% in a sldestream to stationary storage), so say 100+ GWh/yr in Europe. If the total predicted Europe production is 338 GWh/yr then Tesla will have one third market share.

Basically those battery numbers look about correct provided that all the other manufacturers are able to accelerate to the same growth rate as Tesla and then hold it steadily. And even if that were to be the case it would simply be Tesla continuing to hold about 1/3 global market share.

How likely do you think that is ? And if it is unlikely, looking at that list who do you think will and will not deliver ?

regards, dspp

[odysseus2000]

By 2025 if Tesla remain on target for 20m cars/yr in 2030 then Tesla will be requiring 344 GWh/yr globally (for 3.3m/yr, with approx 22% in a sldestream to stationary storage), so say 100+ GWh/yr in Europe. If the total predicted Europe production is 338 GWh/yr then Tesla will have one third market share.

Basically those battery numbers look about correct provided that all the other manufacturers are able to accelerate to the same growth rate as Tesla and then hold it steadily. And even if that were to be the case it would simply be Tesla continuing to hold about 1/3 global market share.

How likely do you think that is ? And if it is unlikely, looking at that list who do you think will and will not deliver ?

regards, dspp

What I am finding difficult to be confident about is the amount of Nickel in the mix. At one time it was all about energy density, but as everything improves it begins to look like iron electrodes with their lower energy density, but more stability might be good enough for all but the high end sports models. The precedent from cobalt is that nickel will become unfashionable too.

It is difficult to get a clear perspective on how much range matters. Certainly in somewhere like Texas one imagines that range is much more important than somewhere like the UK and if so, lower range BEV might do fine. As things now are I do not see a lot of folk driving distances that would be compromised if the BEV range was 300 miles, for many 200 miles if plenty.

If iron turns out to be good enough for a wide range of vehicles it seems likely to me that the production targets are more achievable, whereas if nickel remains the electrode of choice it becomes more difficult as the price of nickel is likely to rise and there can be supply interruptions either by design or hostile action.

Iron electrodes would lead to lower cost vehicles and longer pack life that would also suit the Tesla ideas to make batteries part of the structure of the vehicle as is done with fuel tanks in wings in jet liners.

Trying to work out who will deliver I would put the existing makers as most likely, but the history of technology is that once the basics are ironed out the ideas spread quickly via new business poaching important workers via larger salaries from the legacy makers. However, it is not that simple as Tesla hold patents for their most advanced batteries and that will make copying more dangerous and in the meantime other makers may develop new methods that's that they too can patent.

Regards,

[dspp]

By 2025 if Tesla remain on target for 20m cars/yr in 2030 then Tesla will be requiring 344 GWh/yr globally (for 3.3m/yr, with approx 22% in a sldestream to stationary storage), so say 100+ GWh/yr in Europe. If the total predicted Europe production is 338 GWh/yr then Tesla will have one third market share.

Basically those battery numbers look about correct provided that all the other manufacturers are able to accelerate to the same growth rate as Tesla and then hold it steadily. And even if that were to be the case it would simply be Tesla continuing to hold about 1/3 global market share.

How likely do you think that is ? And if it is unlikely, looking at that list who do you think will and will not deliver ?

regards, dspp

What I am finding difficult to be confident about is the amount of Nickel in the mix. At one time it was all about energy density, but as everything improves it begins to look like iron electrodes with their lower energy density, but more stability might be good enough for all but the high end sports models. The precedent from cobalt is that nickel will become unfashionable too.

It is difficult to get a clear perspective on how much range matters. Certainly in somewhere like Texas one imagines that range is much more important than somewhere like the UK and if so, lower range BEV might do fine. As things now are I do not see a lot of folk driving distances that would be compromised if the BEV range was 300 miles, for many 200 miles if plenty.

If iron turns out to be good enough for a wide range of vehicles it seems likely to me that the production targets are more achievable, whereas if nickel remains the electrode of choice it becomes more difficult as the price of nickel is likely to rise and there can be supply interruptions either by design or hostile action.

Iron electrodes would lead to lower cost vehicles and longer pack life that would also suit the Tesla ideas to make batteries part of the structure of the vehicle as is done with fuel tanks in wings in jet liners.

Trying to work out who will deliver I would put the existing makers as most likely, but the history of technology is that once the basics are ironed out the ideas spread quickly via new business poaching important workers via larger salaries from the legacy makers. However, it is not that simple as Tesla hold patents for their most advanced batteries and that will make copying more dangerous and in the meantime other makers may develop new methods that's that they too can patent.

Regards,

Ody, you might find it worth looking at some of the numbers in viewtopic.php?f=16&t=14745. Directionally I think there is a fairly clear signal that LFP will take the bulk of the passenger car market, with the nickel going primarily into HGVs. I am unsure what cell chemistry will go into stationary but I suspect not nickel. regards, dspp

[odysseus2000]

According to this, Musk has noted in a recent tweet that LFP will be used in all standard range cars

https://insideevs.com/news/490860/tesla ... e-evs-lfp/

According to:
https://blog.epectec.com/lithium-iron-p ... advantages

the specific energy density of Lithium ion is 150/200 Wh/kg

that of LifePo4 is 90 to 120.

So if we take the bottom figures, Lithium nickel has an energy density of 150/90 = 1.7x higher

If we take the top figure, Lithium nickel has an energy density of is 200/120 = 1.7x higher.

So for a given mass of battery, the range of Fe-phosphate is 1/1.7 = 58% that of Lithium nickel.

The standard model 3 (now not available for on-line order) has a range of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_3

220 miles.

If it is a straight swap of Fe for Ni then that range would reduce to 220x0.58 = 127 miles, effectively one would swap a 54 kWh battery for a 54x0.58 = 31.3 kWh battery, to recover the range one would need to put in a battery that is 1/0.58 = 1.7x as large.

The model 3 battery variants are 54 kWh, 62 or 75, or 1x, 1.15x & 1.38x

Given these numbers it seems unlikely that Fe electrodes will ever give comparable ranges to Nickel electrodes unless there is some re-design that allows more battery space in the 3. However, on the plus side, Fe electrodes will give much longer life and are safer with much reduced risk of fires and better low temperature performance.

Presumably Tesla have run their slide rule over the numbers and decided that Fe electrodes will be good enough for most cars.

In many ways this is all forced on Tesla due to the limited availability of Nickel and although a negative for stored energy density it makes for a more sustainable and resource unlimited battery which has to be a plus.

It will be interesting to see what range numbers the EPA measure for these Fe electrode batteries.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

It is difficult to get a clear perspective on how much range matters. Certainly in somewhere like Texas one imagines that range is much more important than somewhere like the UK and if so, lower range BEV might do fine. As things now are I do not see a lot of folk driving distances that would be compromised if the BEV range was 300 miles, for many 200 miles if plenty.

It's quite easy, The reason it's only Tesla which is obsessed with range is that VW, and I assume other manufacturers actually bothered to do the customer research before they started designing BEV's. We covered this at some length when the 'POS Frankenstein Shopping Trolley which was going to bankrupt Audi' was revealed.

The answer VW got is that 50 miles would cover a very healthy slice of the European market's everyday requirement. Given a market where 2 cars per household is common 200 miles is a perfectly viable range to sell and leaves a healthy margin before the effects of weather and aging bring it down anywhere close to the most which is likely to be asked of it.

Tesla's focus on range is understandable as an attempt to shape the market to their advantage, and in America it might work but in Europe it was never going to hold. BEV's had to make it to market, unlike in the states, price is an issue, and other companies were able to offer cars with ranges Tesla considered beneath them but customers were quite happy to buy ensuring a healthy market for 'unsellable' vehicles with less than 300 mile range.

Tesla's 'jeez this is cool whose bothered about what people think?' method of design is a major thorn in the side of a company which wants to move from boutique to mainstream, but as I said we've covered this before.

What as the market develops will become more important than absolute range is reliable range vs expected range. In a competitive market the value of a marque isn't made on spec sheets, it's made on customer experience. Promise a customer 200 and deliver 220 all day every day and they'll love you, promise a customer 300 and deliver 250 half the time and they'll shop elsewhere next time. An obsession with range figures, and over optimising or gaming the tests is short-sighted.

...and that's just Europe. Apparently China has a person or two, and some of them would like to own electric cars. I'm sure they'd love 600 miles of range from a 15 minute charge, and there are those who could afford such a car, but for most the Wuling HongGuang Mini EV is far more accessible. It's selling by the bucket load, and it's range is a whopping 75 miles.

Most people don't drive a removal van because they move house every 8 years. Most people can't afford a car with 500 mile range for that one time every three years when Christmas is at Granny's, who for some reason unknown to anybody else decided to move from the home counties where her family live to Scotland.

No single car will 'solve' the BEV market. A portfolio of solutions in a competitive market will allow people to select the best option for them based on a number of variables of which range is only one. For a small part of the market range will be the defining element in the decision, for many it might influence which of the household's cars is electrified first, and for most it'll be a case of 'good enough for most things' and we'll make do on the odd occasion it isn't. The market over runneth with different customer profiles, and a single approach in 4 flavours isn't going to cover it.

According to:
https://blog.epectec.com/lithium-iron-p ... advantages

the specific energy density of Lithium ion is 150/200 Wh/kg

that of LifePo4 is 90 to 120.

Technology doesn't stand still. As well as getting more capable technologies current technologies become more capable.

Guoxuan (26% VW, third biggest supplier of batteries by volume to the Wuling HongGuang Mini EV) is pushing lead acid towards 200 Wh/kg.

Moneyball

@DKurac

#Guoxuan presents its 212 Wh/kg #LFP pouch cell that uses silicon based anode/pre-lithation tech, #China media citing company.
Capacity: 55 Ah
Weight: 830 g
Cathode gram capacity: 150 mAh/g
Cathode compaction density: 2.4 g/cc
2021 Guoxuan target is 230 Wh/kg.

- https://twitter.com/DKurac/status/1347734659187183619

Again, there isn't going to be one battery which solves electrification. Different priorities will see different technologies triumph in different sectors of different markets.

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
Tesla's 'jeez this is cool whose bothered about what people think?' method of design is a major thorn in the side of a company which wants to move from boutique to mainstream, but as I said we've covered this before.

Tesla is not interested in building a mainstream auto business, they want to build an Apple like business of high margins based upon giving users the best possible experience, often providing things that the customer didn't even know they wanted.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

BobbyD
Tesla's 'jeez this is cool whose bothered about what people think?' method of design is a major thorn in the side of a company which wants to move from boutique to mainstream, but as I said we've covered this before.

Tesla is not interested in building a mainstream auto business, they want to build an Apple like business of high margins based upon giving users the best possible experience, often providing things that the customer didn't even know they wanted.

Regards,

20 million cars a year is mainstream. Delusional, but mainstream. Apple? Couldn't be more mainstream. Even bloody kids are buying them...

[odysseus2000]

Kia apparently subject to ransom ware attack, attacker wants $20 million in bitcoin:

https://www.motor1.com/news/488963/kia- ... ack-rumor/

No idea if this is true.

Regards,

[odysseus2000]

BobbyD
20 million cars a year is mainstream. Delusional, but mainstream. Apple? Couldn't be more mainstream. Even bloody kids are buying them...

Yes, that's the point. Apple by their engineering and marketing skills have created a high margin product in a low margin industry. This is exactly what Tesla are intent upon.

Regards,

[BobbyD]

BobbyD
20 million cars a year is mainstream. Delusional, but mainstream. Apple? Couldn't be more mainstream. Even bloody kids are buying them...

Yes, that's the point. Apple by their engineering and marketing skills have created a high margin product in a low margin industry. This is exactly what Tesla are intent upon.

Regards,

You're arguing against the point you started out making again.