The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Ali G said:
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ali G said:
It's Tesla's own site - if they can't be bothered to update it why are they expected to have much credibility - the 500,000 by 2018 was their claim which they failed to meet!
is that you saying you posted twaddle ? or admitting it could be wrong ?
You put it up there for all as 'evidence' of your cause
https://www.tesla.com/gigafactory
Obviously, the most likely reason is that a spoof Tesla website has been set up specifically to provide out of date news in order to humiliate and discredit.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
bad tradesman blames his tools.
Ali G - it would not be hard to read what you were going to post, before swearing an affidavit to it...
as I said - there seems not an obvious link to the site you showed via the Tesla homepage. Yes by Google. No by their own Homepage.
To slate Tesla for letting you take what they say as verbatim without yourself applying common sense to it, is the downfall of many.
Don't be too hard on yourself.
You have posted utter b
ks before, the difference is this time you sense a scape goat.
Bad website design then - wonder if there are any other backdoors?Ali G - it would not be hard to read what you were going to post, before swearing an affidavit to it...
as I said - there seems not an obvious link to the site you showed via the Tesla homepage. Yes by Google. No by their own Homepage.
To slate Tesla for letting you take what they say as verbatim without yourself applying common sense to it, is the downfall of many.
Don't be too hard on yourself.
You have posted utter b
ks before, the difference is this time you sense a scape goat. Paddy_N_Murphy said:
Ali G said:
Personally - I'm not that bothered......
You seemed quite giddy a few hours ago :Ali G said:
Barely scratching the surface of what will be required to solve intermittency on a global level.
Looking forward to upgrading to magic v2.0 next year - Hogwarts best get bizzy.
you 'personally' seemed to be Looking forward blah blah..Looking forward to upgrading to magic v2.0 next year - Hogwarts best get bizzy.
I'll leave that research to you..
Paddy,
Trusting what Tesla say without thinking about it is bad but trusting prices on a future deal that could be abandoned and claiming that as a current price fall is OK? Completely trustworthy? And financially viable?
Usually people wait for the results to be audited before making the claims.
So far as I know Tesla still make a large loss on each car they deliver. They may have been able to lop a some significant amount of dollars of the battery price, apparently, by improving manufacturing methods (as I recall the claim) but that improvement might not be as successful as they expected given the problems with the vaguely affordable model 3's slower than they hoped production ramp up.
They had originally claimed a target of 500k Model 3 builds in 2018 but the announced revised target seems to be about 120k. That's a big difference. With something like 400k deposit-paid buyers waiting for their bright and shiny new toy they might have a problem unless all of them are front rank Tesla fans who are prepared to live with the delay for the "greater good".
Such are the problems of accepting future forecasts at face value.
Trusting what Tesla say without thinking about it is bad but trusting prices on a future deal that could be abandoned and claiming that as a current price fall is OK? Completely trustworthy? And financially viable?
Usually people wait for the results to be audited before making the claims.
So far as I know Tesla still make a large loss on each car they deliver. They may have been able to lop a some significant amount of dollars of the battery price, apparently, by improving manufacturing methods (as I recall the claim) but that improvement might not be as successful as they expected given the problems with the vaguely affordable model 3's slower than they hoped production ramp up.
They had originally claimed a target of 500k Model 3 builds in 2018 but the announced revised target seems to be about 120k. That's a big difference. With something like 400k deposit-paid buyers waiting for their bright and shiny new toy they might have a problem unless all of them are front rank Tesla fans who are prepared to live with the delay for the "greater good".
Such are the problems of accepting future forecasts at face value.
RobDickinson said:
Tesla per vehicle production costs and gross margin is higher than BMW.
Including the investment capital in plant is silly, we should include the 80 bn euro vag are investing in ev on the cost of a golf?
Have you a source for the numbers on that Tesla vs BMW comment Rob?Including the investment capital in plant is silly, we should include the 80 bn euro vag are investing in ev on the cost of a golf?
How would you account for capital investment in plant and "R&D"?
LongQ said:
Have you a source for the numbers on that Tesla vs BMW comment Rob?
How would you account for capital investment in plant and "R&D"?
You can work it out from their accounts. Gross profit per vehicle is between 21 and 27 percent depending on when you take the numbers. There's a bunch of stuff if you want to Google.. How would you account for capital investment in plant and "R&D"?
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/17/what-tes...
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
LongQ said:
Paddy,
Trusting what Tesla say without thinking about it is bad but trusting prices on a future deal that could be abandoned and claiming that as a current price fall is OK? Completely trustworthy? And financially viable?
Umm what?Trusting what Tesla say without thinking about it is bad but trusting prices on a future deal that could be abandoned and claiming that as a current price fall is OK? Completely trustworthy? And financially viable?
You or others said batteries show no sign of advance.
Nothing has changed
Kindly rtfp rather than make exaggerated stuff up to argue against because you can't cope with what's actually said. Not the first time and surely not the last.
It was also pointed out that information available on incremental developments considers energy density but rarely if ever anything about the energy intensiveness of manufacture and commissioning. EROEI is still there even if people ignore it.
RobDickinson said:
LongQ said:
Have you a source for the numbers on that Tesla vs BMW comment Rob?
How would you account for capital investment in plant and "R&D"?
You can work it out from their accounts. Gross profit per vehicle is between 21 and 27 percent depending on when you take the numbers. There's a bunch of stuff if you want to Google.. How would you account for capital investment in plant and "R&D"?
https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/17/what-tes...
That article points out the differences in the product mix for the comparisons and also hints at the challenge of comparing apparent Gross margins.
Of course it also pre-dates the challenges they have have ramping up Model 3 production.
Recent info from the company also points out the constraints of the "old" battery cell size manufacturing line and that those limitations are expected to restrict the Model S and Model X deliveries to something about the same as last year. Around 100k units. All with "old" battery technology too if the statement is taken at face value and has been accurately relayed to print.
But who knows, those are future projections and things could take a different path in any direction.
The VAG investment is over several years and probably reflects more of a re-allocation of publically announced investment strategy as a PR exercise as much as anything. To be entirely "new money" would mean they would need to continue spending on ICE technology to keep up with legislation around the world.
If legistative changes stop appearing because the entire world gets up and chases towards an electric dream goal one would assume that they would be foolish to spend the cash on products that lack future support and, absent legislation driven changes, may as well label the investment as "green" come what may.
If the world suddenly makes a U turn from diesel - VAG's underpinning technology for several decades - they can make some form of escape from their recent woes and virtue signal at the same time. In terms of politics and PR is would be foolish not make a song and dance about the proposal. I suppose we will discover what they actually account for related to the investment over the next decade and a half.
I guess that for scoping purposes with reference to the title of the thread, that at production levels currently proposed (50 GWh - others are available) the entire annual output of a Tesla Gigafactory represents 1 hour of storage for UK average generation of 50 GW.
The arithmetic is simple to extrapolate to 24 hours or a week.
Btw - the current Tesla/Panasonic cell scheduled for Model 3 is 2170 announced in 2016 and an evolution of Panasonic's 18650.
The other relevant point is that manufacture of suitable Li-ion cells is likely to be fully deployed in meeting demand for EVs.
The arithmetic is simple to extrapolate to 24 hours or a week.
Btw - the current Tesla/Panasonic cell scheduled for Model 3 is 2170 announced in 2016 and an evolution of Panasonic's 18650.
The other relevant point is that manufacture of suitable Li-ion cells is likely to be fully deployed in meeting demand for EVs.
Apparently Powerwall uses 2170 which would be unsurprising given delays in model 3 production.
The scale of storage requirements for UK should not be underestimated is the aspect under consideration.
Whether it is appropriate that tech designed for light weight and size for mobile applications where cost is of less concern, should be deployed for static applications where size and weight is not a concern but due to scale - cost is - is open to debate.
The scale of storage requirements for UK should not be underestimated is the aspect under consideration.
Whether it is appropriate that tech designed for light weight and size for mobile applications where cost is of less concern, should be deployed for static applications where size and weight is not a concern but due to scale - cost is - is open to debate.
In general terms the anticipated demands are different and so different chemistry and battery management requirements come into play.
How that then fits with the concepts of re-using old car batteries for more general "grid type" storage and even the concepts of V2G as a regular part of a vehicle battery deployment is not not so clear. It must confuse the massed public. Or rather the two jobs must be confused by the mass public. Perhaps that is what some people hope.
The Tesla battery installation in SA so far are not for major extended storage. The design is intended partly to provide grid stabilisation in terms of frequency fluctuation and partly to provide relatively short term supplies of locally significant amounts of power to provide what is hoped to be enough time to fix anything that has tripped or, if that is not possible, re-route supply where such an option exists.
It might also offer just enough power up time to allow people to shut down operations in a controlled way - rather like a reasonably well specified UPS.
Or at least that is how the technical assessments have presented what has been provided.
How the Puerto Rico offer might be used is less clear - at least in so far as anything I have read to date.
Such options have been around for a while but the price tag has been seen as unsupportable for deployment in a tradition generation mix where the solutions offered were rarely if ever required.
Renewables change that situation and make the stabilisation support a requirement rather than an option.
Musk seems to have managed to manipulate perception to make the battery storage "solution" a requirement rather than an option. More by moral pressure than by convincing the mass of population about the economics of the proposal. Sales by emotion are always so much more productive than sales by financial logic. Especially if it someone else's emotion and, most importantly, appears to be someone else's money.
That sales model will no doubt be played for all it is worth in the UK "policy" planning as well.
How that then fits with the concepts of re-using old car batteries for more general "grid type" storage and even the concepts of V2G as a regular part of a vehicle battery deployment is not not so clear. It must confuse the massed public. Or rather the two jobs must be confused by the mass public. Perhaps that is what some people hope.
The Tesla battery installation in SA so far are not for major extended storage. The design is intended partly to provide grid stabilisation in terms of frequency fluctuation and partly to provide relatively short term supplies of locally significant amounts of power to provide what is hoped to be enough time to fix anything that has tripped or, if that is not possible, re-route supply where such an option exists.
It might also offer just enough power up time to allow people to shut down operations in a controlled way - rather like a reasonably well specified UPS.
Or at least that is how the technical assessments have presented what has been provided.
How the Puerto Rico offer might be used is less clear - at least in so far as anything I have read to date.
Such options have been around for a while but the price tag has been seen as unsupportable for deployment in a tradition generation mix where the solutions offered were rarely if ever required.
Renewables change that situation and make the stabilisation support a requirement rather than an option.
Musk seems to have managed to manipulate perception to make the battery storage "solution" a requirement rather than an option. More by moral pressure than by convincing the mass of population about the economics of the proposal. Sales by emotion are always so much more productive than sales by financial logic. Especially if it someone else's emotion and, most importantly, appears to be someone else's money.
That sales model will no doubt be played for all it is worth in the UK "policy" planning as well.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff