Tesla Powerwall $350 / kwh Retail

Joseph C. said:
I wonder how long it can put out a peak of 3.3KW for? .....
.?? Where did that 3.3 kW figure come from ?
The bigger 10kWhr "back up". Unit is only rated for 2kW continuous output .

EDIT:...ok, I see on the spec sheet now , 2 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak ....for both 7 and 10 kW units .
So, definition of "peak" ?..... 30 secs ?..1 min ?
Presumably pre programmed into the BMS ?

But.. We know those cells are capable of much more output ?
 
Hillhater said:
.?? Where did that 3.3 kW figure come from ?
The bigger 10kWhr "back up". Unit is only rated for 2kW continuous output .

EDIT:...ok, I see on the spec sheet now , 2 kW continuous, 3.3 kW peak ....for both 7 and 10 kW units .
So, definition of "peak" ?..... 30 secs ?..1 min ?
Presumably pre programmed into the BMS ?

But.. We know those cells are capable of much more output ?

The thing to bear in mind is these packs have to last a minimum of ten years and the customer will really expect 15. The 7KW/hr pack has to be good for 5000 cycles or Tesla will lose money. Therefore, they are going to be ultra conservative until they have empirical data.

I haven't a clue how long the peak draw can be sustained for - Tesla were scant with information it was only a Musk tweet that gave us the 25000 figure for the powerpack.
 
Hillhater said:
So, definition of "peak" ?..... 30 secs ?..1 min ?
There are normally three ratings on inverter/chargers.
1. Continuous.
2. 30 minute (I think at a value of 3.3kW this would easy meet this rating)
3. Surge rating- seconds to allow for appliance motors, could be several kW in this case.
 
Yes , but this is a battery pack, not an inverter or charger .
Battery peak durations are normally quite short.
But Again, even the "peak" 3.3kW figure is only < 0.5C from a cell known to be capable , ( even rated continuously) , of many times that, so it's not going to be a " technical" limitation, but purely an arbitrary parameter set by Tesla for longevity or other reasons. .
 
Hillhater said:
Yes , but this is a battery pack, not an inverter or charger .
Are you sure it's not an inverter as well, as its stated that it connects with solar inverters and it must have an internal charger, obviously to charge the internal pack???
The standard connection between battery storage and a solar inverter is via ac coupling, this can only be done if the powerwall is an inverter/charger, if it's only 2kW, would expect it could be internal to the powerwall.

I'll try to explain 'ac coupling' (not the electronic variety)
What happens is a pseudo grid supply, ac output, that simulates the grid is generated by the inverter/charger when it's in 'off grid' mode, if its an off grid system or for grid failure, grid backup or bidirectional flow control, like Tesla.
It does this to both supply the home and to create a micro grid, that keeps the renewable energy generation, solar, wind etc, operating.and adding their output to the micro grid.
 
Hi,

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/ho...into-making-the-cheapest-rockets-ever-created
"In addition to building its own engines, rocket bodies, and capsules, SpaceX designs its own motherboards and circuits, sensors to detect vibrations, flight computers, and solar panels," Vance wrote. "The cost savings for a homemade radio are dramatic, dropping from between $50,000 to $100,000 for the industrial-grade equipment used by aerospace companies to $5,000 for SpaceX's unit."

We've discussed before what the vision is, short term: A reusable rocket that can fly over and over and over again, one that could quite literally make it impossible for anyone--including massive government contractors with deep pockets--to compete with Musk until they follow suit.

But, in the meantime, SpaceX has been going to crazy-seeming lengths to cut the costs of its Falcon 9 rocket, reusable or not.

"There are dozens if not hundreds of places where SpaceX has secured such savings," Vance wrote, referring to the $5,000 radio, which, like many SpaceX parts, was made out of consumer electronics-level equipment, not "space grade" stuff.

But how do you know if a $5,000 radio designed in-house is going to work against the tried-and-true legacy parts? How do you build the entire rocket's avionics computer system for just over $10,000, when standard rocket companies use systems that cost in the neighborhood of $10 million?

Well, you test both of them on the same flight. While we've been watching SpaceX try to land a rocket on a boat, Vance notes that the company has been performing dozens of experiments in secret. It'll load a rocket with both the legacy part and the one it's designed in house, and test them both without making a big deal out of it.

"Engineers then compare the performance characteristics of the devices. Once a SpaceX design equals or outperforms the commercial products, it becomes the de facto hardware," Vance wrote.

Musk did this type of thing with Tesla too, of course, but with SpaceX, he not only trusted people who had no hardware designing experience to make things that would fly on a real-life rocket, he demanded that they make something best-in-class for absurdly low prices on absurdly short deadlines.

Vance relays a story from 2004, in which Musk asked Steve Davis, now SpaceX's director of advanced projects, to source an actuator that would help the second stage of the Falcon 1 rocket steer itself.

"Naturally, [Davis] went out to find some suppliers who could make an electro-mechanical actuator for him. He got a quote back for $120,000," Vance wrote. "'Elon laughed,' Davis said. 'He said, 'That part is no more complicated than a garage door opener. Your budget is $5,000. Go make it work.''"

Davis spent nine months designing and building the thing for a grand total of $3,900.

Repeat that process hundreds of times, and you've got a rocket that's cheaper and, seemingly, just as reliable as anything that's ever been made.
 
Back of napkin calc shows Tesla paying 90 cents per cell from samsung or 75 bucks per kWh, which makes sense since you can get crappy new 18650 cells from China for less than 2 bux in qty. Gigafactory will drop cell cost 2-5X over buying

The enclosure, cooling system, converter, connectors, electronics, etc of the powerwall cost more than the raw cells. 220 pounds for 7 or 10kWh is actually pretty shitty. The cells only weigh may 80-90 pounds. This trend will continue until cells are totally safe and are temperature independent
 
flathill said:
Back of napkin calc shows Tesla paying 90 cents per cell from samsung or 75 bucks per kWh, which makes sense since you can get crappy new 18650 cells from China for less than 2 bux in qty. Gigafactory will drop cell cost 2-5X over buying

The enclosure, cooling system, converter, connectors, electronics, etc of the powerwall cost more than the raw cells. 220 pounds for 7 or 10kWh is actually pretty shitty. The cells only weigh may 80-90 pounds. This trend will continue until cells are totally safe and are temperature independent

You can even get LG cells for les than 2$ in large quantity.
 
flathill said:
Back of napkin calc shows Tesla paying 90 cents per cell from samsung or 75 bucks per kWh, which makes sense since you can get crappy new 18650 cells from China for less than 2 bux in qty. Gigafactory will drop cell cost 2-5X over buying

The enclosure, cooling system, converter, connectors, electronics, etc of the powerwall cost more than the raw cells. 220 pounds for 7 or 10kWh is actually pretty shitty. The cells only weigh may 80-90 pounds. This trend will continue until cells are totally safe and are temperature independent


I don't think so. They maybe paying below $150 KW/hr for the NCA but not by much. Credit Suisse put it at $165 per KW/hr in their incredibly detailed breakdown of the costs of Model S 60KW/hr and the Model 3. Now the NMC might be cheaper, I don't know but it won't be that much cheaper, if at all.

I think Tesla are either breaking even or making a small profit (single figure percentage) on the consumer packs and a bit more on the Powerpacks.
 
"
Davis spent nine months designing and building the thing for a grand total of $3,900.
.
.... :roll: really ! But what was his labour time and resource overhead costs for 9 months ??
..then all that flight testing to prove it ?
That would boost the cost of that part up a few hundred thousand !
Like most really wealthy people, Musk is making the most of tax benefits :wink:
 
Hillhater said:
"
Davis spent nine months designing and building the thing for a grand total of $3,900.
.
.... :roll: really ! But what was his labour time and resource overhead costs for 9 months ??
..then all that flight testing to prove it ?
That would boost the cost of that part up a few hundred thousand !
Like most really wealthy people, Musk is making the most of tax benefits :wink:

Well his wages would be more or less fixed. Machining costs would be the main expense - and they probably own a fair bit of the necessary machines already. Even if it does cost $100k - all in the next one will only cost $3,900 on the next launch and so on...

I see now why the Model S has had so many iterations. They must be changing bits every week.
 
Joseph C. said:
flathill said:
Back of napkin calc shows Tesla paying 90 cents per cell from samsung or 75 bucks per kWh, which makes sense since you can get crappy new 18650 cells from China for less than 2 bux in qty. Gigafactory will drop cell cost 2-5X over buying

The enclosure, cooling system, converter, connectors, electronics, etc of the powerwall cost more than the raw cells. 220 pounds for 7 or 10kWh is actually pretty shitty. The cells only weigh may 80-90 pounds. This trend will continue until cells are totally safe and are temperature independent


I don't think so. They maybe paying below $150 KW/hr for the NCA but not by much. Credit Suisse put it at $165 per KW/hr in their incredibly detailed breakdown of the costs of Model S 60KW/hr and the Model 3. Now the NMC might be cheaper, I don't know but it won't be that much cheaper, if at all.

I think Tesla are either breaking even or making a small profit (single figure percentage) on the consumer packs and a bit more on the Powerpacks.

Yeah that analysis might have been right back in 2012 when the Model S was shipping, or back in 2008 with the cells with the same specs were first available. We are half way through 2015 now man. The cells haven't gotten much better energy density wise, but the economies of scale are starting to kick in. The cells are only worth about 10 cents a piece in raw material cost. Think about it...you can buy large non rechargeable Alkaline C cells for about 25 cents each wholesale or about 75 cents retail, and those cells weigh almost 70g. That is because they make trillions of em. An 18650 cells weighs only 45g. There is nothing special about lithium cells. Just as simple to make. The main cost is aluminum which is currently 80 cents a pound. Every financial analyst has gotten it wrong over and over because their masters want you to believe the day when electric vehicles reach price parity with combustion vehicles is still far off. They keep changing the goal line. You see the same story with the powerwall and solar and all the analysts saying what price it must drop to before reaching grid price parity and how we are far off from that day. We are already there in Hawaii, but yeah not quite in Texas where it is 4-5 times cheaper, but note solar (not including storage) is now cheaper in Texas than the grid and doesn't use any water. When water prices increase in California for commercial users it is going to be game over for the grid. California already will pay for half of any storage battery (installed cost).


-----
ccording to researchers at the Virginia Water Resources Research Center, in Blacksburg, Va., fossil-fuel-fired thermoelectric power plants consume more than 500 billion L of fresh water per day in the United States alone.

”That translates to an average of 95 L of water to produce 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity,” says Tamim Younos, associate director of the center and a professor of water resources at Virginia Tech, where the center is housed.

25 fcuking gallons of water per kWh and I'm not even including how much water is wasted during the fracking or mining step or transport steps. Completely idiotic when we now have dirt cheap photo-voltaic panels Yeah they can bring that figure down by "modernizing" but we need to build a national water system (solar pumped of course) in any case
 
Isn't that like saying the latest iPhone only contains £0.50 worth of plastic, and I can buy a new 10-year-old design, no-name phone for £20, so there's no way that iPhone costs £600 - the analysts are wrong and part of a global conspiracy to delay the usage of new technology phones?

I'm sure cell costs will come down, but FFS there's more to the cost of a high-tech item than the bulk material price of it's casing!

MitchJi said:
referring to the $5,000 radio, which, like many SpaceX parts, was made out of consumer electronics-level equipment, not "space grade" stuff.
...
Musk did this type of thing with Tesla too, of course, but with SpaceX, he not only trusted people who had no hardware designing experience to make things that would fly on a real-life rocket, he demanded that they make something best-in-class for absurdly low prices on absurdly short deadlines.

Sounds like a recipe for disaster. I'd like to think Musk was better than that, but the above sounds like typical technically-clueless management speak: I want it to be so, so it must be true and I'll bang the table till someone tells me the sky isn't blue".

I'm sure there are some instances where "space-grade" equipment is over-spec'ed, but to universally reject the idea of using the highest grade components in conservative designs supported by extensive testing sounds foolish. I wouldn't fly in an airliner building using "consumer-grade" electronics, or ones subject to "consumer" levels of product testing, which quite often seems to use the consumer as beta testers. A handful of back-to-back tests on flight with an established unit? I'd sincerely hope that's done only to see whether it's worth pursuing a full test program or not. If not, if that's all the testing that new unit ever receives then I don't want to be anywhere near one of those rockets. I really hope that article has severely misconstrued Tesla's engineering practices...
 
flathill said:
... Gigafactory will drop cell cost 2-5X over buying ....

It is estimated that 60% of an actual Panasonic NCR cost is material cost.

There is very little economies of scale for the gigafactory, because it uses similar manufacturing lines compared to existing Japanese plants and those are already highly paralleled systems...

I fail to see a massive(!) cost reduction potential if you run 100 lines instead of 10 lines...

Yo may save a bit on energy costs, etc...

For me Tesla is (just?) a huge hype...

Making batteries seems to be a plan b for the gigafactory (I assume investors will want to see such a plan b, before spending 3 billion US$) because there is already way to much battery production capacity for the actual (very low) demand on electric vehicles...
 
Cephalotus said:
[

For me Tesla is (just?) a huge hype...

Making batteries seems to be a plan b for the gigafactory (I assume investors will want to see such a plan b, before spending 3 billion US$) because there is already way to much battery production capacity for the actual (very low) demand on electric vehicles...
You must live under a rock...

All tesla model S are pre-sold 3-6 months down the road.
The Kia Soul EV is pre sold by 6 months at least. All these cars need batteries. And the rate of electric car sales is going up at an exponential rate every month.
The Nissan leaf out sells it self every month and tesla is over 2x the model S sales they were this time last year as well as over 20,000 pre sales on the model X
and I bet when they take orders on the Model 3 it will be 50,000 pre orders with in months. I know I will be on that list!

This thing is sky rocketing as we speak and we need more batteries to keep up!
 
Punx0r said:
Isn't that like saying the latest iPhone only contains £0.50 worth of plastic, and I can buy a new 10-year-old design, no-name phone for £20, so there's no way that iPhone costs £600 - the analysts are wrong and part of a global conspiracy to delay the usage of new technology phones?

I'm sure cell costs will come down, but FFS there's more to the cost of a high-tech item than the bulk material price of it's casing!

Who said anything about the casing. That is just a cheap can of trivial value. This is Apple outsource everything vs old school Henry Ford vertical-integration.

Lithium cells are not high tech manufacturing. We have been stuffing jelly rolls in cans for decades now. The Gigafactory is going to recycle aluminum cans and use it as feed stock on-site and Tesla is buying 20 year contracts for North American mined lithium and cobalt. They won't be paying spot price. Long term the Gigafactory is going to recycle cells/batteries using the same robots that put them together. The long-term goal of the Fremont factory is to melt down old Telsa's and spit out new ones.

No matter what the future holds....aluminum ion, magnesium ion, solid state, whatever...the cells will still be simple jelly rolls in a can. As energy density increases the cells will get more dangerous, solid state or not. Soft pouch prismatic solid state cells may appear to have an edge for a while, but in the long-term you are going to want the safety of a can (division), not to mention the second-life advantage.

The reason analysts have it wrong is because they are still fully vested in the status quo, not any sort of grand conspiracy (although some players do conspire of course as is human nature). Look to university endowments to see what is really happening. They are all starting to fully divest from fossil fuels. Pension funds will follow. Exxon and all the rest will be dropped from the S&P 500 (about 50 out 500 are classified under Oil & Gas). Then suddenly all the analysts will change their tune. This has to happen slowly to stop a stampede.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_River_Rouge_Complex

The Rouge measures 1.5 miles (2.4 km) wide by 1 mile (1.6 km) long, including 93 buildings with nearly 16 million square feet (1.5 km²) of factory floor space. With its own docks in the dredged Rouge River, 100 miles (160 km) of interior railroad track, its own electricity plant, and integrated steel mill, the titanic Rouge was able to turn raw materials into running vehicles within this single complex, a prime example of vertical-integration production. Over 100,000 workers were employed there in the 1930s.

"The Rouge was the largest single manufacturing complex in the United States, with peak employment of about 120,000 during World War II. Here Henry Ford achieved self-sufficiency and vertical integration in automobile production, a continuous work flow from iron ore and other raw materials to finished automobiles. The complex included dock facilities, blast furnaces, open-hearth steel mills, foundries, a rolling mill, metal stamping facilities, an engine plant, a glass manufacturing building, a tire plant, and its own power house supplying steam and electricity."
 
flathill said:
....... This is Apple outsource everything vs old school Henry Ford vertical-integration......."
I guess you are arguing that Tesla is following Fords model ?
But Apples approach of outsourcing ,..( which is actually how most successful modern car makers operate also!). Seems to be quite profitable.
Tesla only have a backlog of orders because they have very limited production capacity.
Some might suspect that is a controlled situation, to minimise WIP and stock costs, whilst maintaining an appearance of exclusivity and avoiding the image killing " price cut" sales promotions that excess capacity and stock levels force.
Employee head count is not necessarily the sign of a successful organisation.
 
flathill said:
Lithium cells are not high tech manufacturing.

You are mistaken. Just blending and testing each batch of slurry is already complex and high-tech IMHO. Coating and die-cutting and rolling or stacking and sealing isn't super high-tech at any step, but by the time you design automated equipment to do it proficiently you're looking at millions of dollars and many rooms filled with automation equipment, but I agree that manufacturing aspect is not 'high-tech' to some standards. You would be hard pressed to find a field more high-tech right now than the development and testing of new battery materials. Anything you do that regularly requires electron-microscopes and XRF machines and precision test equipment custom made to be more precise than anything available off-the-shelf is pretty high-tech IMHO, I don't even know what you would do to get more high-tech.
 
Hillhater said:
flathill said:
....... This is Apple outsource everything vs old school Henry Ford vertical-integration......."
I guess you are arguing that Tesla is following Fords model ?
But Apples approach of outsourcing ,..( which is actually how most successful modern car makers operate also!). Seems to be quite profitable.
Tesla only have a backlog of orders because they have very limited production capacity.
Some might suspect that is a controlled situation, to minimise WIP and stock costs, whilst maintaining an appearance of exclusivity and avoiding the image killing " price cut" sales promotions that excess capacity and stock levels force.
Employee head count is not necessarily the sign of a successful organisation.

Apple has not outsourced critical engineering, but they have outsourced the manufacture, which is going come back to haunt them now that the Chinese can make phones just as good. Even Samsung is getting their ass kicked by the new Chinese phones. The iPhone is going to be next which is why the are desperately seeking a new market. They are too dependent on the iPhone. Apple did invest heavily in making unibody macbook chassis which are pretty nice but by no means is the process high tech or unique. Apple also financed the company making sapphire screen (but GT recently went bankrupt anyways). I do have to give credit to Steve for bring chip design in-house again (by acquiring companies that design ARM chips), but they still don't make the chips themselves. If Apple built a chip fab, started making their own batteries, and started making their own displays, I would be impressed, and they would increase profits in the long run (harder to copy), but it is a huge risk and requires a lot of capital. Look at HP, the company is dead because they started just buying components instead of making them. Their only hope is they get their next gen memristor/photonic computer working. It requires all new thinking and an all new operating system (there is not memory and storage only memristors). If all your company does is assemble components China is going to eat it.
 
liveforphysics said:
flathill said:
Lithium cells are not high tech manufacturing.

You are mistaken. Just blending and testing each batch of slurry is already complex and high-tech IMHO. Coating and die-cutting and rolling or stacking and sealing isn't super high-tech at any step, but by the time you design automated equipment to do it proficiently you're looking at millions of dollars and many rooms filled with automation equipment, but I agree that manufacturing aspect is not 'high-tech' to some standards. You would be hard pressed to find a field more high-tech right now than the development and testing of new battery materials. Anything you do that regularly requires electron-microscopes and XRF machines and precision test equipment custom made to be more precise than anything available off-the-shelf is pretty high-tech IMHO, I don't even know what you would do to get more high-tech.

I agree the development of battery materials is relatively high tech (although it seems like it is mostly a shotgun approach besides the few companies using computational shotgun approaches). I'm sure we considered making telephones and radios and glass and metal high tech at one point also, and then suddenly they are commodities. The point I was trying to make the difficulty making battery cells is completely overblown. You have a shit ton of companies doing it and they have been doing it for decades (alkaline, nimh, nicad, etc). Just because it requires automation and good quality control doesn't mean much. A jelly roll in a can is already a commodity no matter how many incremental improvements we make ever year. Tesla cells are nothing special. They have admitted that themselves. The only way to gain advantage long-term is to have no middle man. In the short term you can increase profits by outsourcing. By short term I mean 10-20 years. The way to outsource successfully is to only use "partners" which actually only gives the appearance of outsourcing. Vertical integration is the endgame. The USA is probably only going to have 1-2 large car companies left in 20 years. In the future I see 1-2 car companies per advanced country competing globally. It will be China car vs USA car vs Euro vs car. Pure capitalism (which has never existed) is going to stop working. We are going to need to team up to compete for fun kind of like the Olympics. There will always be smaller niche players hopefully, but the regulations make it more and more onerous. Even entering the electric motorcycle market as a small time self funded start-up is almost impossible due to mandatory ABS regulations just introduced this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sogo_shosha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keiretsu

Now the all electron battery, that is high tech :wink:
 
....Just because it requires automation and good quality control doesn't mean much. A jelly roll in a can is already a commodity no matter how many incremental improvements we make ever year......

Wow ! I thought you had an understanding of how successful business work !
High speed, high quality, low cost production, is life or death in manufacturing.and that is the difficult part,..consistent quality. Remember a lithium battery failure can be business critical (Fisker ?)
You can have the best technical product, but if you cannot make it reliable (quality) and cost effective , you will not succeed. (A123 ?)
That is why we may only have a few car manufacturers in 20 yrs time...and possibly likewise for cell manufacturers !
 
I just do not buy the argument that a latest-generation LiCo cell should cost the same as a ZnC primary cell, because they're both batteries and weigh a similar amount. That's just not apples V. apples.

Anyways, researching a year or so ago, experts were claiming ~$200/Kwh for batteries was the point at which electric cars became lifetime cost competitive with ICE cars (may have been biased towards non-US economics). That point was predicted to be at least 5 years away, but it seems we're already just about there.
 
Punx0r said:
Anyways, researching a year or so ago, experts were claiming ~$200/Kwh for batteries was the point at which electric cars became lifetime cost competitive with ICE cars (may have been biased towards non-US economics). That point was predicted to be at least 5 years away, but it seems we're already just about there.

Prices are already there for Tesla. They are selling the Powerpack for $250 kWh, with they said a profit margin of about 20%, for packs produced in Fremont . When the gigafactory gets rolling they will cost Tesla less than $150 per kWh.
 
Hillhater said:
....Just because it requires automation and good quality control doesn't mean much. A jelly roll in a can is already a commodity no matter how many incremental improvements we make ever year......

Wow ! I thought you had an understanding of how successful business work !
High speed, high quality, low cost production, is life or death in manufacturing.and that is the difficult part,..consistent quality. Remember a lithium battery failure can be business critical (Fisker ?)
You can have the best technical product, but if you cannot make it reliable (quality) and cost effective , you will not succeed. (A123 ?)
That is why we may only have a few car manufacturers in 20 yrs time...and possibly likewise for cell manufacturers !

A123 makes awesome jelly roll in can cells. They only have issues with their pouch cells which use their "custom" high speed low cost equipment. Thanks for proving my point. Can cells are commodities made by hundreds of producers worldwide. This because you can buy somewhat standardized off the shelf equipment to make them.
 
flathill said:
A123 makes awesome jelly roll in can cells. They only have issues with their pouch cells which use their "custom" high speed low cost equipment. Thanks for proving my point. Can cells are commodities made by hundreds of producers worldwide. This because you can buy somewhat standardized off the shelf equipment to make them.

Had issues and that was because only one of the welding machines, on a US line, was welding the tabs wrong and they slipped through.
The Korean plant had no problems and notice how A123 cell manufacture was snapped up by Wanxiang Group.
 
Back
Top