Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla Energy

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 590 posts

Re: Tesla Energy

#101

Post by aerovistae »

Hey, for fun let's use this to do a rough math check on Tesla's future plans.

The battery is $3500 for 10kWh.

Model S with a 270kWh battery is advertised with a range of 240mi.

Model 3 aims for a minimum range of 200mi, or 5/6, a.k.a. 225kWh battery.

225 is 22.5 * 10.

22.5 * $3500 = $78,750.

Model 3 is supposed to be $35,000.

I believe in Elon Musk completely and I want nothing more than to see him succeed and I have been blown away by what Tesla Motors and SpaceX accomplish at every turn.

But even so, I will be amazed again if the Gigafactory can truly make the price point feasible. I really believe they'll do it, I just don't see how.

Can the factory's massive gains in efficiency really change things by such a huge factor in 2 years? (Model 3 targets 2017, doubtful.)

Re: Tesla Energy

#102

Post by aerovistae »

Hey, for fun let's use this to do a rough math check on Tesla's future plans.

The battery is $3500 for 10kWh.

Model S with a 270kWh battery is advertised with a range of 240mi.

Model 3 aims for a minimum range of 200mi, or 5/6, a.k.a. 225kWh battery.

225 is 22.5 * 10. 22.5 * $3500 = $78,750.

Model 3 is supposed to be $35,000.

I believe in Elon Musk completely and I want nothing more than to see him succeed and I have been blown away by what Tesla Motors and SpaceX accomplish at every turn.

But even so, I will be amazed again if the Gigafactory can truly make the price point feasible. I really believe they'll do it, I just don't see how.

Can the factory's massive gains in efficiency really change things by such a huge factor in 2 years? (Model 3 targets 2017, doubtful.)

Re: Tesla Energy

#103

Post by kondro »

marze wrote: post #96
kondro wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2 is not enough. 4kW seems to be the maximum potential drain from the battery. That wouldn't power an oven… let alone anything else at the same time. 4kW inverters seem to be around the $1000 mark… but they don't seem to increase linearly (10kW inverter $4000 for example). Of course you could go totally off-grid, but the cost isn't going to be just $7k… it's likely to be at least $15-20k by the time you get everythin…

Obviously there is a lot more than just the batteries. In solar systems, $7k is not a big amount compared to all the other expenses. I'm assuming you'd minimize your loads, it is silly to size your solar system for a business-as-usual set of loads.

You definitely could, but that will increase costs even further. You're potentially replacing all your lighting, climate-control, water heating, cleaning (dishes/clothes), cooking & fridge/s to be more energy efficient also.

Actual power storage is a reasonably small cost (probably < 20%) in even the solar, power equipment (inverter, switches, controllers, etc), power-storage equation anyway if you want to go completely off-grid. So why does this product make anyone more likely to switch than the existing options?

Re: Tesla Energy

#104

Post by TaylorAlexander »

SCAQTony wrote: post #80
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people (like me) are simply unwilling to keep using carbon-based sources of energy. At some point it just feels awful to be contributing to such a terrible problem. I'm counting the days till I can sell my worn out petrol car and get an electric car. If I had a home and dollars, I'd want one of these batteries.

Batteries are not clean; lithium mines are one ugly slight and recycling is difficult: http://whenonearth.net/awe-inspiring-aerial-images-worlds-me... In my clueless opinion these batteries should be used strategically in places where solar, wind, and hydro power are unavailable.

Whether or not batteries are "clean" seems to be a matter of opinion. My understanding is that lithium mines aren't inherently unclean, but many current lithium mines are unclean. The idea is that it is good to support bad tech, since public pressure could ensure it is clean. That's unlike fossil fuels, which can never be clean. All that is just hearsay though, I can't confirm its accuracy.

Still, some might say that carbon pollution and groundwater pollution are different problems. One may decide the trade off between one and the other is worthwhile.

Re: Tesla Energy

#105

Post by josephagoss »

iandanforth wrote: post #39

I might spend $480 on electricity per year. I can't see this thing having an ROI within its lifespan. I also don't have solar panels, and have a very reliable power grid. Any reason I should consider buying one?

We spend over $2,000 per year and it's just me and my girlfriend. From the sounds of it you have either very good rates or perhaps a frugal lifestyle? Either way it's impressive.

Re: Tesla Energy

#106

Post by [deleted] »

aerovistae wrote: post #101

Hey, for fun let's use this to do a rough math check on Tesla's future plans. The battery is $3500 for 10kWh. Model S with a 270kWh battery is advertised with a range of 240mi. Model 3 aims for a minimum range of 200mi, or 5/6, a.k.a. 225kWh battery. 225 is 22.5 * 10. 22.5 * $3500 = $78,750. Model 3 is supposed to be $35,000. I believe in Elon Musk completely and I want nothing more than to see him succeed and I have…

[deleted]

Re: Tesla Energy

#107

Post by breser »

aerovistae wrote: post #101

Hey, for fun let's use this to do a rough math check on Tesla's future plans. The battery is $3500 for 10kWh. Model S with a 270kWh battery is advertised with a range of 240mi. Model 3 aims for a minimum range of 200mi, or 5/6, a.k.a. 225kWh battery. 225 is 22.5 * 10. 22.5 * $3500 = $78,750. Model 3 is supposed to be $35,000. I believe in Elon Musk completely and I want nothing more than to see him succeed and I have…

Your battery sizes for the cars is way off. The Model S has come with a 60 (no longer available), 70 and 85 kWh battery. The 240 mile vehicle is the newer 70 kWh battery.

70 is 7 * 10. 7 * $3500 = $24,500.

Re: Tesla Energy

#108

Post by TaylorAlexander »

Vik1ng wrote: post #81
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people (like me) are simply unwilling to keep using carbon-based sources of energy. At some point it just feels awful to be contributing to such a terrible problem. I'm counting the days till I can sell my worn out petrol car and get an electric car. If I had a home and dollars, I'd want one of these batteries.

I feel like a backup generator is the last place where I would make my decisions based on the environment. I mean how long is it actually going to be active? Also batteries aren't exactly environment friendly either.

That may well be how you feel, but lately I feel like any burning of petrol is just disgusting (though I still do it as I cannot afford alternatives at the moment). I want to completely divest from fossil fuels, even for intermittent use. That's as much for the social value of saying "yeah I don't use fossil fuels and it's great" as it is for the environmental impact. I want to try all this tech to be an early adopter and help people prove it out to the rest of the world.

Re: Tesla Energy

#109

Post by TaylorAlexander »

Zombieball wrote: post #99
SCAQTony wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are not clean; lithium mines are one ugly slight and recycling is difficult: http://whenonearth.net/awe-inspiring-aerial-images-worlds-me... In my clueless opinion these batteries should be used strategically in places where solar, wind, and hydro power are unavailable.

Yes the real breakthrough tech needed is a new battery! Which hopefully Tesla is on track to develop,because as is, electric cars are just not scalable.

People say that, but from what I've heard there is plenty of lithium in the world to increase use 20% every year for 30 years before we need to get more creative in how we mine it. That's a huge total increase and means that electric cars totally are scalable.

Do you have information supporting the idea that electric cars aren't scalable? My understanding is that they definitely are scalable.

Re: Tesla Energy

#110

Post by toomuchtodo »

kmod wrote: post #91
colinsidoti wrote: post #51

One thing that might go overlooked: Load shifting could, in theory, lower electric bills such that there's ROI without solar panels. --- Edit for why: On-demand power is expensive. "Spinning up" additional power during the day is more expensive than having certain types of power generation running all the time. In theory, pumping power into a battery at night during non-peak hours will cost less than consuming direct…

If what you say is true, then with better economies of scale and longer investment horizons, utilities would quickly erase any peak-vs-non-peak arbitrage opportunities.

> utilities would quickly erase any peak-vs-non-peak arbitrage opportunities.

Probably right around the same time they're no longer necessary, as the cost of distribute solar continues to plummet. Its actually truly amazing how quickly the price continues to drop for panels each year.

Post reply on HN