If you mean autonomous forklifts, those exist (central vs self guided). Some are even electric.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla, TSLA & the Investment World: the Perpetual Investors' Roundtable
- Thread starter AudubonB
- Start date
There is a huge amount of competition in electric forklifts already, Hyster in particular, really wouldn't make sense for Tesla. I would be surprised if Tesla wasn't already using them in Fremont and all 3 GF's.
StealthP3D
Well-Known Member
My mistake, I was crossing synapses with Rivian.
Carl Raymond
Active Member
Here's why you should buy Tesla Model 3 SR+ instead of Toyota Camry. - ProVsCons
On the surface it says “buy a Tesla, not a Camry”. Think deeper and it says “buy TSLA, short oil”.
On the surface it says “buy a Tesla, not a Camry”. Think deeper and it says “buy TSLA, short oil”.
So, this is the sort of reason why I have trouble taking Gali too seriously
Why? Nickel is plentiful. Tesla mining it seems quite stupid to me. All that cash sunk into something so far from their core business and adding so little value...
I think that Galis point is that if you are going start mining then of all minerals and metals used in batteries why nickel? Instead of "lol he does not know nickel is used in batteries".
Last edited:
EV batteries don't just use "nickel", they use battery-grade nickel sulphate - and the production process is not "first produce ferronickel, then make it into battery-grade nickel sulphate". You start with targeted feedstocks and process them with processes specifically designed for battery-grade nickel sulphate production.
Even if that wasn't the case, there's about half a kilogram of nickel per kWh in 811 NMC/NCA, and growing. 2TWh/yr = 1 million tonnes (and growing), just for Tesla. Total production of nickel in the world (read: overwhelmingly ferronickel, not nickel sulphate) is 2 million tonnes. 2TWh/yr was to be 1TWh/yr for automotive and 1TWh/yr for stationary. How big do you think the average pack will be in the future - maybe 125kWh? Then that's 8 million cars - a tenth of global demand. 10x Tesla's figure for meeting all of global car demand. Now meet all stationary power storage demand, shipping demand, air travel demand, etc. Future nickel sulfate requirements are going to dramatically exceed even all global ferronickel production. The only thing that might hold it down somewhat would be an increase in kWh per unit nickel mass.
Limonitic nickel laterites are common around the world. Plants for economically processing then into nickel sulphate are not. Nickel sulphide ore deposits are not sufficient to meet future battery demands.
Why nickel? Because the largest component of the batteries by mass is nickel.
High-purity lithium chloride would be the next most likely, even though it's vastly outmassed by nickel. Batteries have now finally gotten to be a majority of the usage for lithium globally, although in the future it'll be overwhelmingly the predominant usage. Not only will the global requirement increase due to the increased volume of batteries, but increasing battery energy densities almost inherently correspond with increased lithium content, since lithium is the positive charge carrier. Not precisely - the amount of inactive lithium also has to be taken into account - but as a general rule...
Graphite is a solid "maybe" for third, although it's hard to say. Like nickel, it comprises a large portion of battery mass, but it's faster and cheaper to scale up mining and processing. There's also serious questions as to how much of a future natural graphite will have in batteries. You can also use synthetic amorphous carbon anodes, and everyone is trying to move to (graphite-free) lithium metal anodes.
Alumium = Irrelevant
Manganese = Irrelevant
Cobalt = On the way out (also, limonitic nickel laterites have can give a fairly high cobalt yield when producing nickel sulphate)
Electrolytes (possibly some day phased out via solid state, although I'm not holding my breath):
- Phosphorus: Irrelevant
- Boron: Relevant but not limiting
- Fluorine: Relevant but not limiting
- General hydrocarbon compounds: Irrelevant
Last edited:
Thats a well done Analysis.
If you factor in a price for the carbon emissions you create with the Camry and you should do that for all purchases you do in your life, you realize that the Model 3 is TCO - wise way earlier equal in costs including priceless features like having the safest car in the world - stay alive and healthy while others may be severely injured or dead in an accident, AP - stay fresh and relaxed and more safe than anybody to name just two.
pyromatter
Member
Great view of the test track rumble strips and the Superchargers (incl. planned additions)
Building arches?
Power facility closing off:
Painted lines at the docks:
Not a lot of trucks, but at least one:
Model 3 being pushed around outside on a dolly.
Model 3 driving the test track (not parked).
Cargo vans making deliveries:
More "trucks with stuff", although possibly construction related:
Ventilation units for the power building?
This is all as of Friday.
Building arches?
Power facility closing off:
Painted lines at the docks:
Not a lot of trucks, but at least one:
Model 3 being pushed around outside on a dolly.
Model 3 driving the test track (not parked).
Cargo vans making deliveries:
More "trucks with stuff", although possibly construction related:
Ventilation units for the power building?
This is all as of Friday.
Last edited:
Coming up on today's Ride the Lightning podcast: an interview with Franz von Holzhausen. Something sure to be of interest to many investors...
Ryan McCaffrey on Twitter
The episode should drop in about two hours. And on the last day of my 3,000+ mile road trip. How considerate of Ryan.
Ryan McCaffrey on Twitter
The episode should drop in about two hours. And on the last day of my 3,000+ mile road trip. How considerate of Ryan.
Also, offtopic, but Scan My Tesla looks really freaking awesome for dignosing any limits / general weirdness / battery health. I totally need to get me an adapter.
Last edited:
Fact Checking
Well-Known Member
Also, to spell it out why Tesla must get into mining: 90%+ of the required battery grade nickel sulphide extraction and refinery capacity simply does not exist today.
Tesla has two main choices:
- 1) Pay other companies to do this, who will use Tesla's multi-year purchase guarantees to gain financing from banks, expand their capacity on their own schedule and sell the output to Tesla. The disadvantages:
- Tesla will be exposed to the financing and schedule risks of others,
- There's 2-3 financing and investment middlemen who'll all want their cut,
- Tesla will have no control over the mining output, exposing themselves to the likes of the 2017 cobalt shenanigans: when the leading cobalt producer cornered the market and speculators (including prominent Tesla shorts...) drove up world cobalt prices,
- as Tesla learned it the hard way with Panasonic: synchronizing expansion of battery capacity creates friction and constant pricing risk. Panasonic actually toured competing car company representatives at the Gigafactory, in the summer of 2018, should Tesla fail ...
- Tesla's competitors will gain access to the developed output: Tesla will have paid for the expansion that then goes to competitors...
- even with long term purchase contracts Tesla will be exposed to the volatility of world nickel sulphide prices.
- 2) Or Tesla can develop the nickel sulphide output themselves. Higher upfront financing costs, but vastly lower downstream risks and perfectly synchronized growth. No CoGs volatility risks other than energy and labor costs.
Nickel sulphide is not such a commodity, and it's the primary long term driving factor of battery kWh costs.
Last edited:
Minor corr: I think it's almost certain that Tesla would pursue HPAL-processed limonitic laterites rather than nickel sulfide as a source of nickel sulphate, despite the latter dominating today. Good nickel sulfide deposits are just too uncommon and geographically isolated. Nickel laterites** are abundant and widely distributed. I don't see sulfide deposits scaling to the multi-terawatt-hour scale.
Also, HPAL is finally coming into its own in terms of pricing; for a long time it was a "wouldn't it be awesome if..." tech that just wasn't really there yet (high-temperature pressurized sulfuric acid isn't kind to your plant
). It looks now like it's going to be undercutting sulfide pricing. I can easily picture Tesla buying up a HPAL startup, and then deploying their tech en masse around the world.** - Laterites are those yellow-to-red (usually tropical) mineral soils that you see all over the world, formed by the weathering/leaching of bedrock into layers. A surprisingly high percentage of laterite deposits are nickel-rich. Limonitic laterites form the upper layer, and silicate type the lower layer - although layers may be eroded away. HPAL is preferentially used on limonitic laterites.
Last edited:
Definitely did not like how he used his personal mpg, and then said he would generously raise it to a value that was still below the city mpg. He should have used the combined mpg rating.
That kind of bias made me stop reading.
The calculation is ridiculous in the other direction, though: it assumes zero residual value.
TCO calculations are usually primarily about depreciation. Seriously, people should stop trying to do these for themselves and just compare lease rates, which are computed by actuaries who know what they're doing and take into account residual value, the time-value of money, and any risk factors. Once you know the lease rates:
- Take the electric car's lease rate.
- ... minus the gasoline car's lease rate
- ... plus the normal monthly cost of electricity ( = (annual mileage - annual trip mileage) * kWh/mi * home $/kWh)
- ... plus the cost of electricity on trips ( = annual trip mileage * kWh/mi * supercharger $/kWh)
- ... minus the normal monthly cost of gasoline ( = annual mileage / mpg * $/gal)
- ... plus scheduled EV maintenance during the lease term, divided by the lease term in months
- ... plus a probability-weighted estimate for unscheduled, unwarrantied EV maintenance/repairs during the lease term, divided by the lease term in months
- ... minus scheduled gas car maintenance during the lease term, divided by the lease term in months
- ... minus a probability-weighted estimate for unscheduled, unwarrantied gasoline car maintenance/repairs during the lease term, divided by the lease term in months
- ... plus the cost of the EV's insurance
- ... minus the cost of the gasoline car's insurance
[#6, #8: Repairpal tracks average costs for "normal" (e.g. non-accident, etc) maintenance for common vehicles, averaged across years. Camry is $388/yr, e.g. $32/mo]
[#7, #9: One can be lazy and assume that they're the same (e.g. that the greater cost of the EV - and presumably uncovered expenses - is roughly canceled out by lower odds of such expenses). Different people will reach different conclusions here]
[#10, #11: It'd be interesting to have some hard numbers here. More expensive vehicles generally cost more to insure, but vehicles with more active and passive safety features generally cost less to insure. I overall expect the EV to generally cost more to insure, however]
If lease terms don't go out as far as you'd typically own a vehicle for, then simply expect that the longer you own the vehicle for, the more the comparison will favour the EV - dominated by the fact that depreciation rates slow with time.
Last edited:
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Or if you don't spend at least $50 per oil change the shop will cheat you an oil filter. As if you pay $100 the shop won't cheat you.
Toyota says new Camry has liftetime transmission fluid but I will add two changes because mechanics say so. Of course mechanics will advise more maintenance.
My sister's Toyota dealerships does lifetime fluids/filters changes for free (obviously if you buy a Toyota at their dealership). They find it is the cheapest way to retain customers. And much cheaper than acquiring new customers via expensive paid advertisements.
In a video by Curious Elephant, he claimed Tesla would not stop partnering with big battery producers because of the patents and how expensive it would be to license them.
Does anyone have any opinions, on whether this holds water?
Does anyone have any opinions, on whether this holds water?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
