4680s are $47 a khw there is NO pack cost any more

[101101]

Munro took their internal cost per kwh at the time of battery day and then applied battery day's percentage decrement and came up with $47 a whr at the pack level.

But that $47 a whr or 4.7 cents per watt is a
FLAT rate because the negative mass comment for the integrated battery relative to a battery pack means there is no associated pack cost or applicable higher pack costs. There is an inverter and a coolant pump but those don't scale with pack size. By anology there is an alternator or distributer/coil pack and a water pump/radiator circuit on an ICE engine but those aren't part of the gas tank.

Here is the battery cost at the start (it will drop) of the $25K Model 2 or Model 1- I think its 50khw and gets 315 miles or $2350
and weighs about 230lbs packless or less than 1/4 of the 75kwh pack in a Model 3 fir the same range. Might be getting down to where motor, heat pump/coolant pump, battery and inverter weigh about 500lbs. And because of the progression of casting tech I think the vehicle will be almost all aluminum. I also think this vehicle weighs more than 1000lbs less than a Model 3 and has stratspheric margins. One of the things I think Musk sand bagged is whrs/kg- which they never give out. He hinted they'd be right up to 400 whr/kg. But that doesn't seem to add up. It adds up at 500 whr/kg. This is why you only have to fire about 2.16 trillion of these 4680 bullets into the fossil fuel monster to kill it and why they will literally be coming out the factory faster than bullets.

He said the limit on production will be air resistance against robot limb movement.
I see those robots operating in vacuum sealed rooms like in chip fab. I think the 2 chassis components and the body get casts 3 pieces, each taking 1/10 of a second to form. And the doors-trunk-hood gets stamped- but those could be cast two and then separated into 6 pieces. Might cast the battery structural enclosure too? Not casting the copper. Ridgid wire harneses coming too.

Oh look Solid Power just launched its solid state commercial battery. You know what? Its irrelevant. Its stats in every way are inferior to the 4680. What we needed was the threshold tech. The 4680 is that tech. The 4680 is the V8 if this new era, it is the x86 of this era its 0-2-4-6-8-(1)-0

But I know the 58157 12oz soda can format is coming next.

 

[101101]

There is an article in either BI or IBT claiming Munro did a presentation for Bernsteins. Hilarious in itself because this is the fossil fuel front that employes paid "bone headed" question asker 'Analyst' Tony Sackanoghi.

The FUD being put out surely by Bernsteins is that Munro told them Tesla would struggle to make a compelling 25K car because of costs and that the 4680 would get them to $70 per kwh. But given that Munro has said on youtube the 4680 brings the target or projected cost to $47 a kwh, it seems much more likely that what was said was something like: if Tesla for some reason can't get the cost under $70 per kwh then its harder to see how it would be compelling. But of course per CATL at their own internal cost level CATL (a Tesla partner) has been at around $70 for LPH since May. So Munro surely didn't say that because it would be contradicting what he said in public and contradicting older public proclaimations by a major supplier that haven't since been walked back.

It was likely not a Bernstein exclusive and Berstein probably only showed up for the strongly apparent reason that Sacanoghi is sometimes able to ask questions on Tesla earnings calls- to spread FUD. Sacanoghi should never be in any of those calls because he only ever appears to be there to spread missinformation and sabotage. When the intent is transparently dishonerable its not a matter of having a range of well formed opinion, it undermines transparency. When someone intentionally profits from intentionally misleading the public about the public interest for reasons they surely know harm the public interest there should be a real consequence. The public shouldn't tollerate deliberate missinformation as a business because it worse than profiting from censorship or having censorship as a business. And why must the public put up with this? Someone who is obviously not credible or on good repute obviously paid to be there to lie and waste people's time and sow frustration and manufacture fake controversy? And then make obviously dumb and historically wildly inaccurate proclaimations.

There has to be a way to keep shill saboteurs like Bersteins and Black Rock and their minions like ISS from buying shares only for the intent to vandalize and undermine. They would try to assert proxies but just a way of keeping them out so they can't claim a right to push their official shills into proceedings. Guess not- because having obvious shills is slightly better than their proxies and proxies of proxies on rotation.
But when we find this kind of financial sabotage there should be a serious consequence maybe tort and beyond just on behalf of legitimate shareholders.

Laughing too that Fred Lambert who seems at times to play the role of strategic shill (most damaging kind because they build up trust with good work for the strategic black spin) did an article whining that Tesla didn't announce to the shill press early and exclusively that it had a new aero rim design. Yes Tesla mindshare has reached a critical mass and shill media has broken its pick enough on Tesla and been discredited enough that Tesla can just roll on without placating the extortionate shill business with anything.

 

[bwilson4web]

There is an article in either BI or IBT claiming Munro did a presentation for Bernsteins. Hilarious in itself because this is the fossil fuel front that employes paid "bone headed" question asker 'Analyst' Tony Sackanoghi.

Sorry but I have no idea what this is about:

• "BI or IBT" - before using an acronym, spell it out first so your readers know.
• "Bernsteins" - no luck with Google. The first hits were for a musician.
• "Tony Sackanoghi" - Google claims he analyzes Apple.

Perhaps you might provide a URL to a story that explains what this is about. So far, the introduction has defeated me and Google.

Bob Wilson

 

[marshall]

Perhaps

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBT_Media

https://www.bernsteinresearch.com/brweb/Public/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=/brweb/Home.aspx

 

[bwilson4web]

I appreciate the effort but it still doesn't make sense. The posting reminds me of the many warnings found in:


Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

>If your forward-looking statement doesn't agree with my forward-looking statement, then you are misleading people and there should be consequences.
Also
>Censorship bad

Seriously. It's like he doesn't catch the contradictions in what he says before posting. lol

 

[101101]

@sd

Says the person who openly acknowledges investing in dirty hydrogen and ironically claims not to see how that is inconsistent with posting on a green site with a straight face.

There is no contradiction in wanting to stop the noise from people who deliberately mislead in the hope the signal will be lost in the noise. Its moving away from censorshio not toward it.

 

[bwilson4web]

There is no contradiction in wanting to stop the noise from people who deliberately mislead ...

Use the 'ignore user' function or better speech. For example, a 'slide deck' from hydrogen skeptics showing realistic costs and efficiency of hydrogen from renewable energy into a battery versus hydrogen manufacturing:
https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-fuel-cell-efficiency-comparison/

Efficiency comparison

According to studies, all-electric cars can achieve an outstanding overall Well-to-Wheel efficiency of 70-90%, depending on a particular example.

"In its study “Automotive Industry 2035 – Forecasts for the Future”, the management consultancy recently had a detailed investigation carried out into whether battery- or hydrogen-powered e-cars will become established in the future. ...​

The hydrogen fuel cell requires 2-3 times more energy to drive the same distance, as the overall Well-to-Wheel efficiency is from 25-35%.​

Notice a URL to the source, an InsideEV article and proper quoting. But as a layman observation, there are reports from California that the equivalent energy in hydrogen and gasoline is roughly 3-to-1.

Source: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com...ric-vehicles-is-much-higher-frank-welsch-5545

Bob Wilson

 

[bwilson4web]

I owe you an apology:

The FUD being put out surely by Bernsteins is that Munro told them Tesla would struggle to make a compelling 25K car ...

Source: https://insideevs.com/news/448770/sandy-munro-tesla-shouldnt-build-25000-ev/

There are private events that are so relevant they should have been public. This is the case of a recent Bernstein Research webinar that had Sandy Munro for a chat. Apart from saying Tesla is ten years ahead of the competition in manufacturing, the engineer also said Tesla should never do a $25,000 EV. Such a vehicle would pose more risks than benefits to Elon Musk’s automaker.

According to The Korea Times – which obtained a “fully edited transcript” of the webinar – Munro believes the affordable EV would make Tesla shareholders regret the decision both in market positioning and profits.
...​

Since we don't have a public version of the "transcript," there are reasons to suspect something taken out of context.

Bob Wilson

 

[101101]

Thanks Bob. Its infuriating with hydrogen after diesel gate and Enron, on and on... these people think they can save fossil fuel profits by selling 3x as much natural has as would be needed to replace gasoline by using a hydrogen scam. Its criminal bs and it must never be allowed to get anywhere.

As for Sandy. I think he made a mistake having anything to do with Bernstein.
They are as fossil fuel enmeshed as Black Rock and all they do is spread FUD about Tesla in the past even in Tesla shareholder meetings. They must have saw some vulnerability in Munro. I doubt Tesla will bite on Munro's 3 wheeler stuff. Have to see the irony in Munro trying to get Tesla parts for his 3 wheeler clients but supposedly saying Tesla shouldn't do a 25k car.

I suspect Bernstein got him under a NDA but then only consulted him so they could spin what he said but gag him. They probably paid a lot for that but it will I think damage his reputation if he can't set the record straight. This business from Ruffo about Korea Times getting a fully edited version of the transcript- fully edited to the point of misconstrual by Bernstein? That would be my guess. As above a more probable Munro comment (and Ruffo seems to be trying to suppress knowledge of $47 per kwh with double speak) would be: Tesla was down to $108 per kwh at the time of battery day on the Y we tore down- based on battery day stated numbers that implies $47 per kwh- again at what would have been the pack level because cell to body is negative mass (implied negative cost) relative to 4680 cell in body tech- and now for the part where Bernsteins may have taken things out of context on purpose to spin- they'd be like well what would the threshold for positive margin be on a 25K vehicle? And he probably said anything under $70 per kwh because that is about what CATL said their internal margins were back in May for LPH. So split the difference with 2 layers of FUD. Ruffo implying in the insideevs article that 4680 only gets to $108 (where Y is now with with a pack) or Bernsteins presumed spin of 4680 only gets to $70 and Tesla can't make a profit or will harm share holders if Tesla reaches the mission of the company and hits the full addressable ICE market and begins to undercut it and really threaten the viability of Bernsteins stupid fossil fuel investments. Imagine how lame Bernsteins is. It actually tries to lure customers to invest in fossil fuels and stay invested in that loser criminality. To do that it has to defraud them or lie to them- there is no other way. Think Trump admin tried to or did throw out the financial reform laws that prevented brokerages from defrauding people that way. Remember those recordings that showed wall street thugs talking about jamming customers- got to jam them- jam, jam them?

These companies are utter transparent crap. They will slowly accumulate shares than dump them. And then pay a sponsored (bribery based) media shill oulet to say Tesla dropped because of what their useless analyst said. They think that reinforces their ability to manipulate markets. They're on a Bernie Madoff level of functionality. Its like trading platforms that write instant machine generated fluff and other platforms that counter it and automatically trade off that stuff. Its at the level of machine drivel.

 

[bwilson4web]

Thanks Bob. Its infuriating with hydrogen after diesel gate and Enron, on and on... these people think they can save fossil fuel profits by selling 3x as much natural has as would be needed to replace gasoline by using a hydrogen scam. Its criminal bs and it must never be allowed to get anywhere.

Tactics suggests throwing around 'Its criminal bs and it must never be allowed to get anywhere' may not be the best approach. Stay with facts-and-data and avoid making judgment calls as this tends to cause people to dig in their heels. Persuasion is more effective.

As for Sandy. I think he made a mistake having anything to do with Bernstein.
... I doubt Tesla will bite on Munro's 3 wheeler stuff. Have to see the irony in Munro trying to get Tesla parts for his 3 wheeler clients but supposedly saying Tesla shouldn't do a 25k car.

Right off the bat, I realized Sandy is the victim of this is a 'cut-and-paste' job (aka., Breitbart level propaganda.) Tesla has already declined the "3 wheeler" market but I see India, Africa, Asian and Island nations really needing affordable transportation. Certainly 4 wheels are better BUT it can make the vehicles too expensive for the market. You need a mix:


I recommend following Sandy Munro's YouTube videos. They are Engineering 101 and Engineering Ethics.

I suspect Bernstein got him under a NDA but then only consulted him so they could spin what he said but gag him. They probably paid a lot for [Sandy speaking fees. RJW] that but it will I think damage his reputation if he can't set the record straight. This business from Ruffo about Korea Times getting a fully edited version of the transcript- fully edited to the point of misconstrual by Bernstein? That would be my guess.

I edited your original to make it more palatable to suggest how to have a better impact. In the case of the "journalist" Ruffo, he has pretty lost much respect in the list of News articles. Some see his byline and immediately "load, aim, FIRE!" I'm not in that group but I can appreciate the appeal. For example, I've called him out for writing an article about another, dodgy article without adding any original content. One can plagiarize by word-substitution which is the mark of a lazy journalist. BUT I would write a letter of recommendation to the Press Office of some business I don't care for.

Anyway as a gentle suggestion for posting style:

• shorter is better than longer (here I violated my own guideline)
• reference original source is better than only ranting about it
• avoid legal terms unless law enforcement is involved

GOOD LUCK!

Bob Wilson

 

[SouthernDude]

Use the 'ignore user' function or better speech. For example, a 'slide deck' from hydrogen skeptics showing realistic costs and efficiency of hydrogen from renewable energy into a battery versus hydrogen manufacturing:
https://insideevs.com/news/406676/battery-electric-hydrogen-fuel-cell-efficiency-comparison/

Efficiency comparison

According to studies, all-electric cars can achieve an outstanding overall Well-to-Wheel efficiency of 70-90%, depending on a particular example.

"In its study “Automotive Industry 2035 – Forecasts for the Future”, the management consultancy recently had a detailed investigation carried out into whether battery- or hydrogen-powered e-cars will become established in the future. ...​

The hydrogen fuel cell requires 2-3 times more energy to drive the same distance, as the overall Well-to-Wheel efficiency is from 25-35%.​

Notice a URL to the source, an InsideEV article and proper quoting. But as a layman observation, there are reports from California that the equivalent energy in hydrogen and gasoline is roughly 3-to-1.

Source: https://www.volkswagen-newsroom.com...ric-vehicles-is-much-higher-frank-welsch-5545

Bob Wilson

Do you know if there's a diagram like that estimating the overall efficiency for semis? But one that includes diesel as well. It would be interesting to compare all the energy sources.

 

[SouthernDude]

Says the person who openly acknowledges investing in dirty hydrogen and ironically claims not to see how that is inconsistent with posting on a green site with a straight face.

lol. like all the $50 I have invested in plug share has tainted me forever. Keep seething.

There is no contradiction in wanting to stop the noise from people who deliberately mislead in the hope the signal will be lost in the noise. Its moving away from censorshio not toward it.

>It's not censorship when I silence viewpoints different than my own.
Yeah. That's totally how it works. lol

Nobody actually knows what the price reduction will actually be. It's literally all just speculation.

 

[bwilson4web]

Do you know if there's a diagram like that estimating the overall efficiency for semis? But one that includes diesel as well. It would be interesting to compare all the energy sources.

None that I know of that are handy. The discredited Nikola would not be a good source. However, there may be some credible Tesla charts comparing diesel to their EV semi-trailer truck. There are some EU companies making EV trucks too.

Bob Wilson

 

[101101]

Just saw another FUD article saying 4680 would be $60 a khw presumably at the cell level implying a higher (actually non existent because packless) pack level cost! Before that it was fudster Bernsteins trying to say $70 for the same thing.

One of the big government labs either Argonne or Lawrence Livermore said back in 2011 that ICE parity was at $128 a kwh presumably are the cell level maybe $150 at the pack level and at the time I don't recall the legacy makes were at $900 plus at the pack level. Well Tesla is at $107 per Monro at the pack level right now and it shows in their industry leading margins.

Now I know that Tesla showed a battery day chart showing battery gains starting to flatten but I also think 4680 gets us to 500 wh per kg not the sand bagged 400 that Tesla stated at battery day, but it does this dirt cheap begginning late next year. Its price and volume that matter more than power/energy density past a critical threshold and the 4680 is the threshold tech. Tony Seba has been right on and has been saying %20 LION cost reductions per year. Tesla has followed that to the letter. No need for solid state, 4680 delivers its benefits and more.

What the ICE FUD industry doesn't want to understand is that YES it is a cobalt free $230lbs, million mile packless battery that costs $4700 and mates to million miles super high performance zero maintenance 90% plus efficient motors that cost only few hundred dollars and out side of charging at home (which almost eliminates charging elsewhere) can be quick charged at about 130 miles in about 7 minutes or fast enough to make charging a non issue at a built out cheaper than all other options Tesla network. There are no more bottle necks and ekectric with 4680 is much less expensive than ICE but radically superior.

A 25k Tesla will be highly profitable much more so than any ICE. 6K will cover the entire power train, at 10k its the powertrain plus hardware 4 self driving.

It leaves 15k left over for margin and the rest of the car. Between packless and ridgid wiring harnesses and casting everything I think Tesla hits 25% margin on these cars and they will be pushing them out of 4 major factories by the end of 2023 making $5000 off each car. Paint quality will be flawless range will be over 300 miled and it will handle and perform better than a ICE Porsche and be more fun to drive than a ICE Porsche and have polished FSD available with the best cost insurance available.

BMW, Ford and GM will be bankrupt by by then