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).
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.
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'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.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/01/15/1-large-luxury-car-in-us...
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.
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.
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.
Their competencies are in Software and the Supercharger/Battery Infra. No one is going to come close to that in 5-10 years at a minimum.
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.
> 595 Supercharger stations with 3,465 Superchargers
https://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger
This doesn't include destination chargers at hotels, restaurants, and other establishments.
That's why Tesla is 5 years ahead.
One is 1/3rd the speed of the other in real-world usage.
I can tell you charging chademo on a Model S is much slower.
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.
I'm not aware of and chademos above 60kw today while Tesla has a while infrastructure deployed right now.
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.
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.
Tesla superchargers require less real estate footprint and are next to freeways and frequently next to Starbucks and some casual restaurants.
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 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'll be worried as soon as I see legacy automakers building their own battery factories. Until then, good luck!
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.
> 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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...
Lithium Ion will cost you significantly more.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/new-type-flow-battery...
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?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/08/hecate-...
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.
http://www.energy-storage-online.com/cipp/md_energy/custom/p...
"Slated for commissioning in 2016, ViZn's ZnFe redox flow battery system will be the largest of its type in North America and Europe."
"The first of these projects is expected to be brought online by the end of Q316."
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.
http://www.uetechnologies.com/product.htm
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.
There are many things which are more cost-effective long-term, which lose to something which costs less short term.
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...)
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.
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 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.
Tesla has no plans to make their own cells. This is a simple fact.
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/panasonic-backs-teslas-gigafac...
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.
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.
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.