tqevo

I'll support whatever you're selling as long as you package them with those pictures you usually post...

neanicu

No problem.

robmypro

Jesus Nick!

neanicu

Heart attack Rob,right?! Lol!

Outlaw

She empowers herself

robmypro

I can't post right now. I am in the ER.

thebishman

I need an ICD!

Petevb

Yep. Some rough math:

The sun provides 1 kilowatt of energy per square meter when it's directly overhead on the best day. Solar panels are ~20% efficient. There's about 3 square meters of roof area on the top of a Tesla.

1 x .2 x 3 = .6 kilowatts of energy from the roof at noon on a great day. 100 kWh battery / .6 kw = 166 hours to charge a Tesla. That's assuming no charging losses and assuming the sun sits directly overhead with zero clouds 24 hours day. Add in weather, latitude tilt and, you know, night time, and you get about 4x that long, or ~28 days to fully charge the battery.

Best to put the panels on your garage instead, maybe bank it to a powerwall while you're not home...

randr

If you have a little time, and want some amusement, have a look at the EDGAR (SEC) filings for Tesla. The disconnect between fact and spin is disconcerting.

Outlaw

Tesla is another disruptive force in an industry that's bound by dealers and inefficient bureaucracy. That's what makes it an interesting investment.

randr

You're right there is abundant free solar energy - but thats not the issue and it has never been the issue.

The two key issues that need full resolution are distribution and storage.

Distribution is a very complex issue - power networks largely comprise five key components (a) generators (b) transmission networks (c) interconnectors (connect transmission networks) (d) distribution networks (e) end - users.

In the case of distribution, embedded generators (e.g. solar generation) such as an individual household are all well and good in isolation - they reality is the physics and engineering of the wholesale addition (even slowly) 10^6 users in to a network is immense.

To maintain network balance and stability, require massive upgrading of existing network infrastructure both to allow substantial components of intermittent generation and the ability of a network to withstand massive draw down (for example if there was a period of bad weather and everyone had to rely on grid power to charge their EVs).

Storage, so simple to say so difficult to do - energy is stored in many different ways but to put it simply energy can not be created or destroyed it can only change form. Storage:

(a) fossil fuels (b) fissonable material (c) water storage (hydraulic head) (d) other renewables - solar, wind, tidal (e) batteries

All of the above are capable of storing energy and releasing energy but they all come with a range of issues associated with them (from an engineers perspective) that are largely self constructed and invariably used as political footballs.

I could write a thesis on each of the components outlined above, however I won't, as it will send the good readers of Rennlist to sleep and cause me to have an aneurysm.

I'll leave the good readers with the following - in Australia, two Tesla Power Walls (2 x 14 Kwh) will cost with installation ~ $20,000 in addition solar panels will be required to the tune of >$5,000. A P90D will cost $180,000.

For the vast majority of Australians and Americans the numbers don't add up - and when the full cost of network upgrades etc are viewed the cost base looks even worse.

As it currently stands the friends I have over here, that own a Tesla are high net worth individuals who often own multiple high end cars.

The reality is the take up of EVs will be much slower than people think other than where it is mandated by government intervention. In the latter, Europe which is already a basket case (allbeit a beautiful one), may find itself in a very difficult spot - yet again.

The bottom line, if wise heads prevail, is the process to large scale uptake of EVs will be generational.

randr

No its not, its a transitional car and battery manufacturer that hasn't turned a y-o-y profit in 15 years and has a lot of debt.

However, credit where credits due - Musk built a company the employs people (directly and indirectly) and creates revenue, this is a good thing.

By the same token this doesn't mean its a good business or good investment.

Petevb

I'll chime in with another perspective. I'm co-founder and CTO of a solar company with 300 employees on three continents, currently deploying in gigawatt scale. We don't produce electricity and we're actually supplying to the oil and gas industry, so if I have any vested interest it's to maintain the status quo. Perhaps predictably however I'm closer to Elon on this, though I do think he's quite optimistic (then again he'd have to be to get where he is).

It's easy to miss the forest through the trees. Yes batteries are expensive, there are issues with lithium, current range is limited, there are grid stabilization issues, etc. All of which make electric cars expensive and less attractive now. But we're not talking about now.

Over the past three decades PV panels have sustained a "learning rate" of 25% cost reduction per doubling of cumulative volume. That's meant that panel prices have dropped from $4 per watt in 2008 to $0.35 per watt today. Thus as of today it will cost you less than $5k USD to buy enough panels to fully recharge your P75D Tesla in under six hours. That's a high volume utility scale price without installation, inverters, etc. However that's also today, and the price reduction trend will continue.

Lithium batteries are on a similar trend, and have been sustaining a >20% reduction per doubling (or nearly an 80% price cut) since 2010. While this may begin to flatten past 2020 the fundamentals are clear- today's idea of cheap, "long range" electric cars will look nothing like tomorrow's, and through the power of exponential growth tomorrow's coming far sooner than most comprehend. At least that's what Musk and co are betting on, and they have explosive growth in volume along with the associated cost reductions to support their case so far.

While electric car prices and uptake are somewhat speculative at this point PV no longer is. There are many places in the world where PV is currently the cheapest way to make power, and this does threaten to destabilize the grid in these regions. Rather than viewing electric cars as contributing to the problem, however, in fact they look likely to be a significant part of the solution.

Many people who buy a NEST thermostat are unaware that utility companies are also paying NEST for grid stabilization. During periods of peak demand Nest can remotely adjust the thermostat up, shedding and levelizing load at virtually no penalty to the consumer. Electric vehicles offer a similar opportunity, and there are even systems in development that will allow them to discharge into the grid when needed (for a significant reduction on your utility rates). Meanwhile it's easy to set cars to charge either overnight when the grid is under-taxed and base-load is available or at times when you have an excess of PV. Thus even a rapid adoption of EVs looks in many ways far easier for the market to absorb than the current mass adoption of air conditioning across Europe.

I've dabbled in some electric car design with a co-founder of Tesla. I also drive an electric daily. I would not currently do so without government incentives (particularly the carpool lane exemption in my area) so I tend to agree with those that say that these cars are "not there yet" for the masses. However the fundamentals suggest to me, and apparently now many automakers, that they will be there very soon. Not only for commuters but also for "fun cars" (ie Porsche thinks they'll be over 50% electric by 2023)... At which point you'll still need to pry my GT3 from my cold, dead hands.

-eztrader-

Interesting Pete, thanks for posting

randr

Pete - in a nutshell, its easy to generate power from solar panels - its not easy to stabilise state wide transmission and distribution networks - this is and still remains a significant technical challenge and requires large scale infrastructure upgrades. Network destabilisation can cause what is known as a code black - e.g. complete network shut down to minimise damage to network infrastructure though to household appliances.

There are comical examples out there e.g. the recent complete shut down of South Australia due to a code black. This was caused by a political drive to have 50% of the states energy derived from renewables - the network was destabilised by a wind farm. South Australia now has the most expensive electricity in Australia - lacks energy security, can't attract meaningful investment and this despite it is the worlds largest exporter of uranium (for political reasons there are no nuclear power plants in Australia - the hypocrisy of which beggars belief).

I have "no dog in this fight" however the last major industrial site I built required 16MW to 20MW peak consumption - the plant could not lose power to the furnaces (causes irreparable damage to the liners). Thus the 20MW peak production was delivered by 5 X 4MW diesel units.

The company in question wanted to be "green labelled" so we installed 10 x 2MW wind turbines at a cost of $30m or thereabouts (of shareholders money - effectively wasted) plus a solar farm with the capital coming from the solar company. The business model was they got the savings from reduced use in diesel.

As a network isolated stand alone integrated system it worked. However, the panel company made an IRR of about 3% and the turbine farm was largely a white elephant but from time to time did contribute up to a peak of 12MW.

A more simple real world example from a cpl of years back - My company leased a large facility in a tech park. It had a large underground carpark for the employees. Two of my senior engineers owned Model S cars (can't remember which ones ~ 85Ds I think) and they asked if they could charge their vehicles at work.

I had no problem with this - the rest of the story, involved solicitors, electrical contractors, insurance, whole sale re-wiring and then remediation of the car park back to original state. The bottom line was the cost was ridiculous to back install high speed DC charge points (or even much slower but high amp systems) and then remediate them to the building owners satisfaction. The bottom line was the real world cost in this instance was cost prohibitive.

My take home points were complex but a big one was - EV owners rarely understand the real world whole cost of their vehicles. The two guys in question baulked at the full cost when it was put to them. They actually felt as the business owner I should pay - I was prepared to split it 50:25:25 and still they baulked.

In terms of cars, the economic cost of a move to full EV utilisation will be vast, because humans want to have electricity on tap 100% of the time.

That requires both base load and peak capability and networks that can reliably deliver that. The other reality is EV users are nowhere near completely green - they can't be - because solar/wind can not be delivered 24/7 - they have to have network access. Invariably they will access networks and draw on coal/gas/nuclear capacity. Again, if the network has not been built to withstand large scale draw down it will fail.

At the end of the day it should be a case of user pays and governed by market economics not by whimsical political interference. When the true cost of EVs is factored in - this has to include both distribution network and total storage costs. When this is factored in, the rate of uptake will be reduced.

Someone has to pay the true cost.......