Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Gigafactory Investor Thread

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
If I was Panasonic I'd be bending over backwards to be involved with the GF. Tesla is a big customer and a giant future customer they are going to lose if they don't figure out how to stay involved. If Tesla does this gigafactory without Panasonic, Panasonic is royally screwed.

I see it as much more symbiotic than that due to mutual interest. Tesla thinks the factory can deliver 30% cost reduction, but they still want Panasonic to keep improving their cells, just as Panasonic wants Tesla to hit target.

If I were Panasonic I'd be keen, but wary. Tesla has delivered, but delivered late and above price target with both generations. Tesla is asking for a massive investment with a return that depends on the price Tesla can get to with Gen 3.
 
What a horrible article.



Musk speculates that an iPhone is thicker than 18mm. Not a big revelation. And this is newsworthy?


you got that backwards, Musk says iphone is thinner than 18mm + packaging thus wouldn't want to make their product thicker by switching to 18650 cells.

For example

iPhone 5 is 7.6 mm thick
iPhone 4 is 9.4 mm thick
iPad 4 is 9.4 mm thick
iPhone 3GS is 12.3 mm thick
Macbook Pro is 18mm thick but couldn't fit a 18650 inside it
18650 cell is 18mm thick and you'd have to put a phone/tablet/laptop case around that meaning the device would be well thicker than any recent iPhone and in fact even thicker than a Macbook Pro.

The significance of the whole exchange is that super thin phones / tablets can't use cheaper batteries like a thick laptop or Tesla can.
 
Last edited:
I see this whole Tesla/Panasonic thing as a very delicate negotiation. Tesla is Panasonic's customer, and partner, and investment. Now Tesla is bringing on internal supply, in essence becoming a competitor too. So I think the conversation is:

1) Tesla will keep buying Panasonic's output now and forever essentially, thus allaying fears that Panasonic factory investment is a loss or not worth pursuing. Panasonic should be rewarded with sales and encouraged to keep investing and innovating.
2) Tesla will bring on internal supply to try to meet some fraction of it's need, but not 100%. Even if they build another factory(s) they will not aim for 100%. They will negotiate some mix.
3) Tesla does not currently know how to make a battery or battery factory. They need Panasonic to partner with them to help them become their own competitor, with the stated purpose of bringing down the cost of batteries.

This is a complex deal. It must be done such that it is a win-win. I tend to see some theories on this thread about how Tesla has all the bargaining power, but really it is a delicate interdependence. I think it will be a simple two party deal with requirements that Tesla take Panasonic's output for a price set now for about 5 years, and in exchange Panasonic goes in making the factory knowing that their mix is guaranteed for a while even if the factory is a success in bringing down the price. In other words, Panasonic is needed to make the factory, and Panasonic will require guarantees that the factory doesn't put them out of business.
 
I see this whole Tesla/Panasonic thing as a very delicate negotiation. Tesla is Panasonic's customer, and partner, and investment. Now Tesla is bringing on internal supply, in essence becoming a competitor too. So I think the conversation is:

1) Tesla will keep buying Panasonic's output now and forever essentially, thus allaying fears that Panasonic factory investment is a loss or not worth pursuing. Panasonic should be rewarded with sales and encouraged to keep investing and innovating.
2) Tesla will bring on internal supply to try to meet some fraction of it's need, but not 100%. Even if they build another factory(s) they will not aim for 100%. They will negotiate some mix.
3) Tesla does not currently know how to make a battery or battery factory. They need Panasonic to partner with them to help them become their own competitor, with the stated purpose of bringing down the cost of batteries.

This is a complex deal. It must be done such that it is a win-win. I tend to see some theories on this thread about how Tesla has all the bargaining power, but really it is a delicate interdependence. I think it will be a simple two party deal with requirements that Tesla take Panasonic's output for a price set now for about 5 years, and in exchange Panasonic goes in making the factory knowing that their mix is guaranteed for a while even if the factory is a success in bringing down the price. In other words, Panasonic is needed to make the factory, and Panasonic will require guarantees that the factory doesn't put them out of business.

I was having similar thoughts- another aspect might revolve around Tesla licensing of the (no-doubt)large set of Panasonic cell level patents that Tesla would have to obviate somehow without Panasonic. I can see that being a part of the symbiotic relationship as well.
 
I see it as much more symbiotic than that due to mutual interest. Tesla thinks the factory can deliver 30% cost reduction, but they still want Panasonic to keep improving their cells, just as Panasonic wants Tesla to hit target.

If I were Panasonic I'd be keen, but wary. Tesla has delivered, but delivered late and above price target with both generations. Tesla is asking for a massive investment with a return that depends on the price Tesla can get to with Gen 3.

I need to go somewhat off topic to explain my whole train of though, sorry for the long post. In the end it's totally about the Giga factory.

Except that a 30% cost reduction enables much more than Tesla Gen 3 vehicles.

Actually the issue is today there is zero over production of li-ion for other huge scale usages. That's the real issue.
Consider the China Solar PV dump enabled the Germany mass installation of Solar. We actually need the same to enable mass adoption of grid storage with li-ion packs.

In 2010 Bill Gates stated that if we scavenged all chemical batteries in the world for grid storage, it wouldn't last 10 minutes storing 100% of electricity production, let's say we need to store 5% of production for 24 hrs, those 10 minutes at 100% are now just 200 minutes for 5%, we still need 7x more. So maybe today it would last 20 minutes. We need 24 hours just to get started with a grid running on 50% solar PV + wind.
Even with 2 Giga factories operating at full capacity before Gen 3 hits the market, the world would find good economical use for those batteries, considering all PV+Wind subsidies and tax breaks in play, easy peasy. Ok, maybe I'm going overboard, but I don't think I'm too far from the mark.
I believe we can put 10TWh worth of li-ion battery packs to good use for large scale grid storage. Quickly.

The Giga won't come to full production overnight, it's a 3+ year project after than plant begins to produce until peak capacity is reached, many levers that can be fine tuned.

If we could obtain huge li-ion battery packs, let's say 10GWh for US$ 100/KWh, that's US$ one billion for 10GWh. That should be enough to stabilize electricity production for 100GW worth of Solar PV or 1TW worth of nameplate Wind capacity.

The real pressing problem isn't storing Solar PV produced in the day and use it in the night. The real problem isn't storing wind electrons today for usage tomorrow. The real problem is high efficiency natural gas / coal plants want to run at 100% output, and hydro doesn't have hyper agility in throttling second by second. If wind and solar could have a 3 hour buffer, instead of using very low efficiency load following thermals, we could use high efficiency baseload fossil plants instead (60% efficiency instead of 20-30%).

That's the main reason why I prefer nuclear to solar and wind. The main reason is we're being lied to. There is no economical solution right now to even run a grid with 50% solar PV + wind, because of the lack of battery pack production capacity (regardless of price). That's the reason the German renewables plan has been seriously scaled back.

With 2 Giga factories running at full capacity then we can do the experiment of migrating Hawaii to zero fossil fuels, since their oil thermal plants are very low efficiency, and installing 50GWh worth of batteries plus lots of extra solar PV capacity would make long term economical sense there.

Same for Puerto Rico. And other islands close to the equator (where Solar have negligible discrepancy between the summer and winter solstice in output). What you need is about 300% of peak electricity demand in installed Solar PV (if peak demand is 1GW, then you need 3GW worth of solar PV installed). Add wind turbines if wind is regular enough, could be done without a single wind turbine if wind is too low. Blanket all buildings with good solar view with solar PV. Cover every parking space with a PV canopy, heck, cover streets, roads, highways with PV.

Got it ? Great for solving climate change. Whatever capacity Tesla will actually use is just a bonus.
In actuality I firmly believe Tesla will come through, and before we know it another 2 Gigas will be announced.
I'm solely showing there is zero reason for Panasonic to be concerned. Those in the Li-Ion business are safe until the next gen chemistry enters the market.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear is the only true chance for high efficiency on demand power generation. Maybe that's just me and my nuclear bias. There is good reason to still have other forms of power generation even if you had a heavy favoring toward one technology. Problem with grid storage is the sheer amount of power you will lose in Ineffiencies in the lines, dumping the power into the batteries and then draining it back out.
 
How quickly can nukes respond? I know older types were strictly baseload but I think newer designs use different control rods I believe that can change the output, but not that quickly as I understand it. I'm also not sure of the demand response of potential LFTR designs, which to me seems like the only rational way to do nuclear power.
 
How quickly can nukes respond? I know older types were strictly baseload but I think newer designs use different control rods I believe that can change the output, but not that quickly as I understand it. I'm also not sure of the demand response of potential LFTR designs, which to me seems like the only rational way to do nuclear power.

Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that was one of the selling points for LFTR was it could be more of an on demand power source.
 
How quickly can nukes respond? I know older types were strictly baseload but I think newer designs use different control rods I believe that can change the output, but not that quickly as I understand it. I'm also not sure of the demand response of potential LFTR designs, which to me seems like the only rational way to do nuclear power.
I heard a quote that on CANDU (Canada Heavy Water reactors) the reactor itself can throttle faster than the turbines. This doesn't mean all CANDU's have that feature. I'm sure you need one of the latest ones to have this feature.
Studies have been done that show proposed Thorium LFTR reactors would have the same characteristics.
We know the newest French Areva reactors have this feature as well (it's in operation right now in France).
Meaning that they both are perfect for load following consumer consumption patterns.
The problem is Solar PV + wind generate far more extreme power transients on the grid than consumers themselves do.
You see, Solar PV + wind creates lots of trouble to be 20% of grid power, in a sane world, it would only be used on smaller islands that are too small for nuclear power plants.
The current Solar PV and wind frenzy is 2/3 a jobs program, 1/3 a energy source.
 
The problem is Solar PV + wind generate far more extreme power transients on the grid than consumers themselves do.
The grid stability problem is being solved with mathematics. The papers should be published this year. Don't worry about it. (I should really get on my friends to publish that ASAP.)

The overnight problem is a bigger one. Huge batteries will just solve it, though. The other obvious solution is transmission lines which cross time zones. There's going to be a general decline in electricity usage for a few years: LEDs will eliminate lighting demand and superinsulation will eliminate heating and cooling demand. So the overall needed energy storage may be a lot smaller than people think.