Slashdot Mirror


At Current Rates, Tesla Could Soon Suck Up Worldwide Supply of Li-Ion Cells

cartechboy writes "Lets just say Elon Musk may need to go battery shopping, like, big-time. Here's some little-understood Tesla math that could turn the global market for cylindrical lithium-ion cells upside down by 2015. It turns out the massive Model S battery takes almost 2,000 times the number of cells a basic laptop does. Assume Tesla just doubles production from its current 21K cars/year to 40K cars/year. (Something it expects to do by 2015). At that point, Tesla would require the *entire* existing global capacity for 18650 commodity cells. That assumes no other growth, no next gen model, nada. What should Elon do? Better get on the horn to Panasonic and Samsung."

351 comments

  1. On the plus side... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our newfound infatuation with extremely flat laptops that have about as many user-servicable parts as 2001's Monolith means that demand for 18650 Li-ion cells in laptops should be plummeting! Problem solved.

    Now we just need to go liberate whoever is living on top of our lithium, and we are good to go.

    1. Re:On the plus side... by dj245 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Our newfound infatuation with extremely flat laptops that have about as many user-servicable parts as 2001's Monolith means that demand for 18650 Li-ion cells in laptops should be plummeting! Problem solved. Now we just need to go liberate whoever is living on top of our lithium, and we are good to go.

      There is a difference between a "battery" or "battery pack" and a "battery cell". One "battery" generally needs to have several "battery cells" inside. The voltage of the battery "cell" is determined by chemistry and can not be changed. To make higher voltages, you need to use more cells or a different chemistry. The simplest example is a 9V (PP3) battery. Alkaline chemistry gives a per-cell output of abour 1.5v, so to get 9v you need 6 cells. Usually this comes in the form of 6 AAAA batteries inside.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    2. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we just need to go liberate whoever is living on top of our lithium, and we are good to go.

      We're already on that in a place called Afghanistan, maybe you've heard of it?
      Supposedly they found large deposits of Li around there.

    3. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Now we just need to go liberate whoever is living on top of our lithium, and we are good to go.

      That would be Bolivia. I used to live there.

      A few years ago there were some insane reports in the US press and statements from congress people claiming that muslims were infiltrating Bolivian society. It was the most astonishing nonsense.

      Now, having read your post, I understand what it was all about.

    4. Re:On the plus side... by rueger · · Score: 1

      OH NOES! IT'S CANADA!

      Bright side - maybe the co. stocks in a Canadian Lithium mine that our broker talked us into will finally start to appreciate....

    5. Re:On the plus side... by firex726 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yep...
      For your average Li-Ion battery they are in cylindrical cells and output around 3.7v each. Li-Poly are similar but instead of hard cylinders they are laminated sheets one on top of each other, allowing for more variety in shapes and are the most common for phones; downside being they do not put up with as much abuse and can be damaged resulting in an internal short and the eventual boom/fire.

    6. Re:On the plus side... by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The real problem is that nobody's allowed to make big batteries for use in cars because the oil companies bought up all the patents:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys

      This is the reason they have to use 8000 tiny little flashlight batteries in cars instead of a few dozen big ones.

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:On the plus side... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Is that a typo, or is there actually a AAAA battery?

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    8. Re:On the plus side... by X0563511 · · Score: 1, Informative

      There is. Google would have told you in 5 seconds or less.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:On the plus side... by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perfect example of patents stifling progress instead of encouraging it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    10. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now we just need to go liberate whoever is living on top of our lithium, and we are good to go.

      Hmm, Chile ... no worries, they have been already liberated since 1973 , just remind them you saved them from the reds!

      captcha: "peaceful"

    11. Re:On the plus side... by AnotherAnonymousUser · · Score: 1

      Good thing those patents expire and become public domain in the long run, then. While there's a technology curve that you're ultimately behind due to patent enforcement, all it can do is postpone the release of competitor's projects, and they've done a wonderful job of laying out the work and research to figure out why it's useful and how it can be applied. Waiting twenty one years isn't necessarily the worst thing in the world when it comes to development.

    12. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most of it comes from Bolivia. Will that become our next target for some "international policing action" that will require a massive payoff in some local resource?

    13. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also means that if one cell fails, the car isn't crippled in a major way. You need lots of little cells to fail for the car to be disabled, instead of just one big cell failing.

    14. Re:On the plus side... by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, it took me 2 seconds to type my question and get a response. That's 3 seconds I have to not be a smug asshole.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    15. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't the lithium-ion batteries Tesla is using get better energy density anyway? I though the main reason Tesla used thousands of laptop battery cells, is because they are already being cheaply manufactured in large quantities

    16. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the US has to find some reason to move into Bolivia to take control of the resource.

    17. Re:On the plus side... by Spoke · · Score: 4, Informative

      While large format NiMH batteries are patent encumbered, large format Lithium batteries (the kind used in all EVs today except for Tesla) are not.

      I believe that Toyota is the only manufacturer who currently uses large format NiMH batteries, but only in their hybrids. The referenced wikipedia article suggests Panasonic/Cobasys worked out an agreement as long as Toyota only used those NiMH batteries in hybrids and not in a plug-in vehicle.

      Note that the large format NiMH battery patents are due to expire in 2014.

      Not sure how much of this matters - Lithium batteries are superior to NiMH batteries now in just about every way.

    18. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit.. That is the best response ever.

    19. Re:On the plus side... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perfect example of patents stifling progress instead of encouraging it.

      It's an even better example of patents serving the precise purpose they were designed to prevent.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    20. Re:On the plus side... by bitslinger_42 · · Score: 2

      Well, that and the fact that there are thermal problems with large Li Ion batteries (think Boeing Dreamliner battery fires). Elon Musk actually discussed this in an interview on the 787 fires a while back (http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/26/elon-musks-solution-to-boeings-battery-problem/

    21. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The world's largest known reserves (50 to 70%) are in Bolivia, a poor country ransacked for decades by CIA puppet regimes. A communist regime has come to power there led by Evo Morales, a good friend of Chavez and Corea. There is a significant push from the Morales regime to develop these reserves and catch up with the top producers, Canada, Argentina and Australia.

    22. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but it doesn't support IPv6.

    23. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Well, it took me 2 seconds to type my question and get a response. That's 3 seconds I have to not be a smug asshole.

      /slow clap

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    24. Re:On the plus side... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Well played, Godfather... Well played...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:On the plus side... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

      Large cells have a number of disadvantages, cost being one, but cooling efficacy and reliability are significant as well.

      But, when Tesla is at 40,000 cars per year I imagine the economics will shift somewhat, and I am sure Tesla is looking at prismatic battery options as well.

    26. Re: On the plus side... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Didn't they discover a sh*tload of lithium in Afghanistan a few years ago?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    27. Re:On the plus side... by stdarg · · Score: 2

      I disagree. This Ovonic company was a joint venture between Chevron and GM. That sounds to me like an oil company staying true to its word in trying to become an "energy" company instead of an oil company.

      They sold batteries to car manufacturers including Toyota.

      The company (maybe the technology) has problems.

      In 2012 BASF bought it, so clearly Chevron was willing to let it go and let someone else try to make a go at it.

      So why exactly are you demonizing oil companies in your post? Sounds like they played a big role in creating these large-format batteries.

    28. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nobody is using, or wans to use NiMH batteries. LiPo batteries surpass the in every way. And haven't the NiMH patents expired?

    29. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When most people think of a nine volt battery they think of this (which also has six 1.5 v cells inside).

    30. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most of it comes from Bolivia. Will that become our next target for some "international policing action" that will require a massive payoff in some local resource?

      Nope.

      http://www.mining.com/web/america-finds-massive-source-of-lithium-in-wyoming/

      Sorry about ruining your stupid conspiracy theory.

    31. Re:On the plus side... by tibit · · Score: 2

      I'd like to point out the conspicuous absence of the element Li in the NiMH battery chemistry. You're interestingly off-topic :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    32. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that nobody's allowed to make big batteries for use in cars because the oil companies bought up all the patents:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries#Chevron_and_Cobasys

      This is the reason they have to use 8000 tiny little flashlight batteries in cars instead of a few dozen big ones.

      Tesla deliberately choose to use small batteries in case there was an individual failure. Much easier to contain a small cell in a thermal runaway than a large one.

      Also, NiMH was a dead end for plugins. Not only would the packs need to be freakin' HUGE for decent range, but NiMH cells have (until recently) a self-discharge issue.

    33. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it (almost) obviated the need for me to participate in this conversation at all on the same topic, saving me and countless others the same trouble!

    34. Re:On the plus side... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It also means that if one cell fails, the car isn't crippled in a major way. You need lots of little cells to fail for the car to be disabled, instead of just one big cell failing.

      I'm fairly sure I used the words 'few dozen'.

      If you have a few dozen big cells you can tell which one failed and replace it. Back to full range again.

      Little ones failing inside sealed boxes is harder (more expensive) to route around and harder to fix. It's the battery equivalent of the death of a thousand cuts.

      --
      No sig today...
    35. Re:On the plus side... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So why exactly are you demonizing oil companies in your post? Sounds like they played a big role in creating these large-format batteries.

      Because they used their battery patent to force Toyota to not only discontinue manufacturing their first pure-electric RAV4, but also pay a large fine for daring to do so. That vehicle was their CUSTOMER, and they killed it with a lawsuit. Toyota would have been paying them royalty money for over a decade, on potentially tens of thousands of vehicles worth of batteries, but they insisted on total shutdown of production instead.

      That's how much oil companies fear the possibility of a successful electric car. They're not "energy companies", all branding efforts to the contrary. They're oil companies. They act exactly the way oil companies have acted for over a century.

    36. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lithium batteries are superior to NiMH batteries now in just about every way.

      Except Price. Which is a huge way.

    37. Re:On the plus side... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      No, the reason they use 7000 cells is for reliability and cost. Other car companies use much larger cells, however the cost for those larger cells is high and the energy density is a lot lower than what Tesla is doing.

      The batteries have to be reliable and not catch fire or explode. In the case of the large cells most car manufacturers use, they use a very safe chemistry. The drawback is that the energy density is a lot lower and the cost is high. Tesla went a different route. They chose the 18650 cell for cost and safety reasons. The Tesla battery pack is designed so that if a cell explodes it doesn't cascade into other cells or cause the battery pack to fail. Tesla has a much higher energy density than other automotive battery packs out there and it has been estimated that they also have the lowest cost as well for that density, estimated to be a fraction of what Nissan is paying for their Leaf on a per-kwh basis.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    38. Re:On the plus side... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Their battery packs are designed with little ones failing without causing any major problems.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    39. Re:On the plus side... by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Yes. Each cell in the model S is around 3.1Ah which is pretty high as far as energy density goes. Panasonic has some new cells that are even higher (3.7Ah) though it may be some time until they are qualified or deemed reliable enough to use in a car.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    40. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The patent expires, I believe anywhwere from 2012-2014 to be on the safe side.

    41. Re:On the plus side... by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Tesla used 18650 because of economy of scale thanks to laptops, if laptops switch tesla will switch too.

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
    42. Re:On the plus side... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I still don't think that's right. This is a bit more detail about it from the Cobasys wikipedia page:

      Panasonic EV Energy (PEVE), a joint venture between Matsushita and Toyota begun in 1996, pioneered several advances in large-format NiMH batteries suitable for electric vehicles.

      PEVE supplied higher capacity (28Ah-95Ah) NiMH batteries for use in Toyota, Honda, and Ford battery electric vehicles (BEVs) that began production in 1997.[32] PEVE's lower capacity batteries powered the hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) Toyota Prius, which was introduced in Japan in 1997, and sold 18,000 units in its first year of production,[33] as well as the first Honda Insight and, with Sanyo Electric Co, first generation Civic hybrid models. BEV production by major automakers ceased in the early 2000s, with most leased BEV vehicles crushed by their manufacturers, and replacement batteries unavailable for remaining vehicles.

      A 2001 patent infringement lawsuit brought by ECD Ovonics and Ovonic Battery Company, Inc. against Matsushita, Toyota, and PEVE was settled in July 2004. Settlement terms called for cross-licensing between parties of current and future NiMH-related patents filed through December 31, 2014. The terms prevented Matushita, Toyota, and PEVE from selling certain NiMH batteries for transportation applications in North America until the second half of 2007, and commercial quantities of certain NiMH batteries in North America until the second half of 2010. Additionally, Ovonic Battery Co. and ECD Ovonics received a $10 million patent license fee, Cobasys received a $20 million patent license fee, $16 million of which was earmarked to reimburse legal expenses, and Cobasys would receive royalties on certain batteries sold by Matushita/PEVE in North America.[34]

      Licensing terms were expanded in 2005, with PEVE granted further license to sell NiMH batteries for certain transportation applications in North America, in exchange for royalties paid to Cobasys through 2014.[35]

      So a few points based on that:
      * There was cross-licensing and royalties, just like you suggested
      * Numbers like $20 million and $10 million are not financially crippling to companies like Toyota and Panasonic
      * Cobasys/Ovonics were reasonable and willing to expand licensing the very next year

      How do you think this resulted in a forced shutdown of all-electric vehicles for Toyota on behalf of the oil companies??

      Now for what I think is a more realistic reason, look at this from the first article:

      Toyota employees complained about the difficulty in getting smaller orders of large format NiMH batteries to service the existing 825 RAV4 EVs

      and

      Boschert quotes Dave Goldstein, president of the Electric Vehicle Association of Washington D.C., as saying this policy is necessary because the cost of setting up a multimillion dollar battery assembly line could not be justified without guaranteed orders of 100,000 batteries (~12,000 EVs) per year for 3 years.

      I mean.. clearly an order for 825 vehicles is way less than 12000 per year. What if it REALLY WAS unprofitable for Cobasys to make such a small run of batteries? Why would you assign blame to them rather than Toyota? Toyota has the resources to commit to 100k batteries, that would show they were taking the whole battery thing seriously.

      Think of it this way: Tesla did it. They really did. They made an all-electric car better than any other automaker has ever done. So why can't Toyota? Piddly lawsuits? Patents? Evil Oil? It's a bunch of crap and Tesla proves that.

    43. Re:On the plus side... by loshwomp · · Score: 3, Informative

      IAAEVE (I am an electric vehicle engineer) and I worked on Li cell, battery, and powertrain technology that was licensed to Tesla.

      The real problem is that nobody's allowed to make big batteries for use in cars because the oil companies bought up all the patents

      Please stop spreading this BS rumor--it's been floating around the "EV community" for long enough, and it's totally untrue.

      Anyone can license those patents, and no, Chevron's not going to build you any unless you want a LOT of them, but it doesn't even matter: No one wants to build NiMH cars anyway, because we have much better cells (Li-ion) now. Even hybrids, which need power (more so than energy) and were the last NiMH holdouts have moved to Lithium.

      This is the reason they have to use 8000 tiny little flashlight batteries in cars instead of a few dozen big ones.

      This is wrong in so many ways it makes my head hurt. First, you're confusing radically-different cell chemistires (NiMH vs. Li-ion). Second, the "flashlight" cells are actually 18650 Li cells, a form factor often used in notebook computers. Lastly, Telsa uses 18650 cells because they are (by a large margin) the best available in terms of energy density [Wh/kg]. If you want heavier or more expensive cells, there are plenty to choose from.

    44. Re:On the plus side... by tyrione · · Score: 1

      There is plenty of research developing new battery tech for large scale going on presently. Tesla should have been making this his top priority the moment he wanted to make an electric vehicle. To be behind on this one is a huge blind spot in his scientific background and intelligence to run such a corporation.

    45. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course the Chevron/Cobasys patents relate to NiMH, but whatever. The 16850 cell is the single most common form factor for Li-Ion cells. Sure you could technically make bigger Li-Ion cells, but almost no one does at this time. The manufacturing base for 16850's is already mature, with multiple competitors, which drives the cost down. So sure a battery made out of 30 or 40 reasonably sized cells would be much simpler, but apparently the cost of 16850's, relative to their capacity, outweighs any challenge associated with using 6,831 of them to make a battery.

    46. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the typical Li-Ion (laptop battery, etc) is a different chemistry than Li-Poly. Li-Ion/A123/LiFe have a nominal voltage of 3.3V per cell. Li-Poly is 3.7V per cell.

      The more you know...

    47. Re:On the plus side... by cribera · · Score: 1

      I think most of it comes from Bolivia. Will that become our next target for some "international policing action" that will require a massive payoff in some local resource?

      Nope.

      http://www.mining.com/web/america-finds-massive-source-of-lithium-in-wyoming/

      Sorry about ruining your stupid conspiracy theory.

      FYI, this 'massive' source of Lithium of Wyoming, is tiny compared to the lithium existent at the Uyuni salt flats.

    48. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Afghanistan, buddy.

    49. Re:On the plus side... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1, Informative

      You have a very strange interpretation of your own quoted material, and your choice of article is poor. This is a much better choice. Cobasys is a whitewash front company partially owned by another whitewash front company. Cobasys was jointly owned by Ovonics, full name GM Ovonics (yes, General Motors), and Chevron, after Chevron bought Texaco, which bought out GM's share of Ovonics. Immediately after the purchases closed, the patent lawsuits were filed.

      The terms prevented Matushita, Toyota, and PEVE from selling certain NiMH batteries for transportation applications in North America until the second half of 2007, and commercial quantities of certain NiMH batteries in North America until the second half of 2010.

      I read the actual judgement in the Toyota case (the article erroneously implies there was only one lawsuit, when there were three separate suits). The text did eventually make it onto the internet, despite the gag order. It said what the quoted sentence said, only more so. Chevron, in the person of Cobasys, won a permanent (expiring) injunction against Toyota, preventing them from selling any vehicle whatsoever with NiMH batteries, and especially the RAV4 they had built and started manufacturing that specifically required the large capacity NiMH batteries. Patent + Evil Oil -> permanent injunction + gag order + $30 million fine. Production had nothing whatsoever to do with any of it.

      Tesla's case proves that Elon Musk can read judgements, correctly identify a risk, and carefully choose a battery product that can't be banned without shutting down the entire laptop industry, thereby avoiding "piddly" lawsuits with words like "permanent injunction" in the judgement. Not to mention the $30 million fine (that the article calls a license fee, but it's hardly a license fee when Toyota was prevented from manufacturing or using the technology, by court order).

      Tesla proved not one, but two things. That it was possible to design and build a desirable battery electric vehicle (which we already knew; there was a waiting list for Toyota's RAV4), and that it was possible to do so in such a way as to pull the teeth of an extremely hostile oil industry, thereby actually being able to sell the product he spent tens of millions of dollars designing and developing, not to mention manufacturing. Tesla may continue using battery cells designed with the laptop form factor in mind, simply because it has heat management benefits, but make no mistake--the original choice was made with full knowledge of the patent suits and their outcomes, with the intent of avoiding any similar action.

    50. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This applies only to NiMH batteries, and a minimal 10,000 item order doesn't sound unreasonable for the auto industry, even for a startup.

    51. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that would be Chile. They have the worlds best reserves, but they need the help of an international group that can mine it at a meaningful rate that also won't try to steal all the revenue from the humble country.

    52. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I meant Bolivia. Ugh.

    53. Re:On the plus side... by swalve · · Score: 1

      I would think the large surface area of a bunch of little cells would be advantageous.

    54. Re: On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more we know, the less we're like you, dumbass.

      LiFePO4 is 3.3V nominal with about 3.7V charge termination. LiCoO (as well as LiMn*, LiMnNi*, and related chemistries) are around 3.7V nominal with about 4.2V charge termination. Both iron-based and cobalt-based (and similar) chemistries are available in both polymer-electrolyte pouch cells and can cells (and also prismatic cells, which you didn't mention). So basically no part of your claim was true as written...

    55. Re:On the plus side... by sabbede · · Score: 0
      Hew, not to worry! I came across a fantastic supply of lithium not too long ago, which I've been using as the core of my new experimental power cells.

      They can be a bit of a hassle around half the time, but I'm running my laptop off one right now. His name is Steve. I found him at a mental health clinic.

      BiPolarPower!

    56. Re:On the plus side... by stdarg · · Score: 2

      You have a very strange interpretation of your own quoted material, and your choice of article is poor. This [wikipedia.org] is a much better choice.

      That's the article I was referring to when I said "Now for what I think is a more realistic reason, look at this from the first article" -- it was the linked Wikipedia article in the post that I initially responded to in this thread. That's the article that I quoted about Toyota technicians wanting to service 825 cars instead of committing to 12000/year like Cobasys wanted.

      Chevron, in the person of Cobasys, won a permanent (expiring) injunction against Toyota, preventing them from selling any vehicle whatsoever with NiMH batteries

      So you're claiming that the Cobasys Wikipedia article fabricated the claim that they granted a new license the year after the lawsuit was settled (2005) to allow sales in North America in return for royalties? I mean that's certainly possible but it would be great if you had some proof.

      I mean the whole thing with licensing and patents and all that is a nasty business, but it's not necessarily a sign of stifling technology. Look at Samsung and Apple constantly trying to get each other's products banned in various countries. Would you take that as evidence that Apple and Samsung are conspiring to destroy the smart phone market? Obviously not, they're both trying to TAKE OVER the smart phone market.

      Tesla's case proves that Elon Musk can read judgements, correctly identify a risk, and carefully choose a battery product that can't be banned without shutting down the entire laptop industry

      The fact that Toyota didn't try to work around the lawsuit shows that they weren't committed to the all-electric car. That explains why they didn't make more Rav4s, even though as you noted there was a waiting list before the lawsuit. They just didn't care about making an all-electric car. They made enough to satisfy California's fleet emissions laws, and then called it a day.

      Here's another thing to consider. Toyota produced the Prius starting in 1997 and sold it worldwide in 2000. Obviously they knew enough about battery technology to work around the ban from the lawsuit since Priuses were sold right here all the way through today. So why didn't they use the same battery tech in Rav4s? Well that mystery is solved -- they just didn't care to.

      It seems pretty clear that Toyota canceled the Rav4 for business reasons and decided to focus on hybrids like the Prius, which has made them a lot of money.

    57. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, plus the fact that 18650 cells are a really poor form factor for laptop batteries. You lose about 30% of the volume to air and connecting wires. Apple have used Li-Poly cells since the first Macbooks or possibly the G4 Powerbooks for a good reason.

    58. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These monolith batteries are also more reliable. The weak link of any electronic system is the mechanical contacts and moving parts. Minimize these and you maximize the product lifetime.

    59. Re:On the plus side... by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Isn't NiMH significantly cheaper?

    60. Re:On the plus side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then we have to liberate Bolivia.

  2. Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If we extrapolate this curve and assume everything else remains constant, DOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

    But it gets the clicks, and that's all that matters on the tubes.

    1. Re:Statistical fallicies by jdunn14 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously: http://xkcd.com/605/

      I bet someone in battery manufacturing is looking as adding capacity now in anticipation of such events. This could be quite an opportunity for some manufacturer with a bit of foresight. As more companies make and sell more electric cars I doubt Tesla will be the only company hunting for more, cheaper, better.

    2. Re:Statistical fallicies by JWW · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yep. In fact probably many someones.

      The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.

      In fact this large demand is going to be what eventually causes prices for batteries to go down, because, like I said before, many companies are going to get into this business...

    3. Re:Statistical fallicies by paiute · · Score: 4, Informative

      The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.

      Sure it can. A process can generate a lot of some material which nobody currently needs. The manufacturer will then go and look for a market which can use this material and try to develop that market.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    4. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1, Informative

      The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.
      Strange that every business does it the opposite way:
      There was no demand for an iPhone ... before it existed.
      There was no demand for the Tesla ... before it actually existed.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a difference between being no demand and not knowing of a demand for something. If you make a widget never made before and show it to someone, and they say, "that's cool, it could possibly be useful for something I use," then there was a demand, even if there were competing products. If you make a widget and someone says, "I have no use for that," or you make 1000 widgets and the market response, "We only can find a use 10 of those, no matter how cheap," then there was not a demand for what you were trying to produce.

    6. Re:Statistical fallicies by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There were no smartphones before the iPhone? Really? There was no desire for portable computing?

      There was no demand for cars before Tesla?

      Demand exists before supply. If no one wanted to ever go faster than a horse the car would never have been a success.

    7. Re:Statistical fallicies by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      In fact this large demand is going to be what eventually causes prices for batteries to go down

      That's not necessarily true. An increase in production decreases the price of each unit when an unlimited amount of the needed raw materials are available. Batteries involve exotic materials that may become scarce due to increased use. That scarcity leads to higher prices for inputs, and thus higher prices for the batteries.

    8. Re:Statistical fallicies by AlecC · · Score: 1

      Not so. Or at least, the demand can be invisible. Lots of pundits said there was no demand for tablets before the iPad launched, and the market was negligible. Apple announced a supply, and demand turned to take it.

      And as transport planners have found, build the roads and the traffic will come.

      What was the demand for Tesla-type cars before Tesla started up? Negligible.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    9. Re:Statistical fallicies by jdunn14 · · Score: 2

      I think you're misreading or oversimplifying those situations. It's not that there was no demand, but it is more difficult to measure before the product exists. There was a market for smartphones and Apple 1) tends to put out good stuff, 2) already made iPods so they had some experience w making small portable consumer devices, 3) demonstrated that people loved the Apple branding of such things.

      As for the Tesla, people plunked down $40000 reservations before the cars existed, and continue to do so for new models. If that doesn't show demand exists I'm not sure what would.

      I'm sure there are products where there was no demand before the product existed, but I don't think you can call that the common case. Before a company sinks significant cost into designing a new product they generally run some numbers to measure the current market demand for the final product. Sure, some of that is wishful thinking, but some is evaluating current offerings and seeing how your product will be able to grab the customers. I'm sure Apple looked at BlackBerry devices before throwing their hat into the smartphone market and I'm sure Musk had more that just a hunch that rich people would buy a luxury electric car. However, when you have enough money, as did the creators of both these examples, the market analysis is a little less critical during the development stage just because a failed project isn't the end of the world. Apple could have kept going even if the iPhone flopped and Musk wouldn't run out of cash if Tesla crashed and burned during the roadster days.

    10. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.

      You need to watch the BBC doc "The Century of the Self" by Adam Curtis:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self

      They argue that the history of the 20 Century did just that: create demand for a supply of stuff that the producers had.

    11. Re:Statistical fallicies by bmajik · · Score: 1

      But there can be offsetting developments as well.

      For instance, lets go and pick-up a computer-shopper from 1991. What does a 486/33 DX with 8MB of ram and 64kb of cache cost? Why, its $3000 USD.

      What does a 2ghz machine cost today? Why, $300 ?

      The raw materials have not become more abundant in 20 years. The cost of labor has not gone down in 20 years.

      Yet somehow, despite fewer raw materials, higher labor costs, monetary debasement making everything nominally more expensive..

      The computers of today are incredibly cheaper compared to the computers of 20 years ago..

      The difference is human ingenuity. We have figured out how to do more with less.

      In my opinion, price deflation is the natural condition of human industry; wherever man innovates the most, prices fall the quickest.

      In the case of the tech sector, this price decrease has happened even in the face of monetary debasement, raw material consumption, rising labor costs, and increased regulatory pressure.

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    12. Re:Statistical fallicies by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Sure it can. A process can generate a lot of some material which nobody currently needs. The manufacturer will then go and look for a market which can use this material and try to develop that market.

      That was the case long ago for gasoline, it was a useless by-product for a long time there...it was actually thrown causing some environmental problems, till they could finally figure out a use for the stuff.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    13. Re:Statistical fallicies by Teancum · · Score: 1

      He is confusing the iPhone for the Newton. Then again, look what happened to the Newton.

    14. Re:Statistical fallicies by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I bet someone in battery manufacturing is looking as adding capacity now in anticipation of such events. This could be quite an opportunity for some manufacturer with a bit of foresight. As more companies make and sell more electric cars I doubt Tesla will be the only company hunting for more, cheaper, better.

      Do you think Elon Musk and Tesla Motors didn't anticipate something like this happening too? While no doubt they have been buying these cells at bulk prices already, with the size of a customer they are right now and the fact Tesla has already sunk a big pile of money into their plant anticipating a huge increase in sales and production (metal fabrication machines aren't cheap), I have no doubt that Tesla is in the thick of things in terms of getting potential long term manufacturing contracts... or at least purchasing futures contracts for these cells in large quantities (essentially the same thing).

      In fact, It has been common practice at both Tesla as well as SpaceX that they try to bring as much of their production in-house as possible. If Tesla is consuming so many cells that their consumption is a sizable fraction of world-wide demand, I wouldn't put it past Elon Musk to either buy the manufacturing plant or build one himself simply to ensure a reliable source of supply for his own needs. It isn't like Elon Musk did something like that before. So much so that I wouldn't even put it past Tesla to start selling these cells as well on a consumer level as well (or at least offer cheap cells to Wal-Mart).

      The one place that Tesla likely won't be investing money into though is raw bulk Lithium and other materials needed to make the cells. If you want to see where the real entrepreneurs are going to be running around at, look into Lithium mining stocks.

    15. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are really confused about demand:

      Or at least, the demand can be invisible. Lots of pundits said there was no demand for tablets before the iPad launched, and the market was negligible. Apple announced a supply, and demand turned to take it.

      So there was a demand there for a 10" tablet that did some basic things, just no one recognized it except for Apple.

      And as transport planners have found, build the roads and the traffic will come.

      Or, there is demand for additional (cheaper) real estate connected by efficient transportation infrastructure. Without the road, the $4/square foot real estate is useless except for people that want to retire in the country. With the road (and sewers, and water, and electric that all go in at the same time), the $4/square foot real estate because tremendously useful for business/industry and housing.

      What was the demand for Tesla-type cars before Tesla started up? Negligible.

      Or, there is a demand for cars that don't directly emit greenhouse gasses and are at least reasonably economical. (I am not debating total carbon footprint here, because it is not germane to the discussion.)

      The point is that there was demand for all of these things before they were developed and sold. Businesses don't embark on ventures without significant market research.

    16. Re:Statistical fallicies by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, and no. Capitalism allows for you to find new markets...this is a 'duh' thing; however, it also requires that you carefully research those markets before they become concrete / real.

      Allow me to give you two examples.

      Tires manufacturers, while creating tires, have a substance no one wants; they have lots of it, but it's useless to them..it's outside their current market / defined role; by researching the substance, they find that it makes a great child's toy...Silly Putty...and thus a new market is born.

      Government officials, thinking that Li-On batteries are a sure-thing, and unaware that the technology is rapidly changing, decide to invest in building a giant battery factory; they believe that Li-On will be big, and that retooling should a different type of battery become popular will be easy; this is well outside the defined role of government....and while it may be a product that people may 'want,' it is not serendipitously so.

      In the former scenario, the tire manufacturers have tire engineers / workers / scientists / managers who know what is and is not waste; they know whether or not their market (that of tires) can in anyway make use of these leftovers; what more, they are producing these leftovers whether or not they are in the Silly Putty market; it's simply a natural byproduct of operations.

      In the latter scenario, governments do not, typically, have a large staff of battery workers, scientists, engineers, etc. on staff. Perhaps the defense portion may, but that's a bit of a stretch. What more, governments are not in the business of making batteries...their core role is 'serving the people,' however that might be fulfilled. As such, creating batteries, when none were made before, is something of a hazardous operation...it's not their core role, they do not have metrics to determine whether or not they are getting a good return for their investment, and rather than a byproduct of ongoing operations, where the costs to experiment and expand are minimal (people are already at work, managers spec in 15 hours per week to work on a new battery, funds are expensed to a proper account, etc.), it's a staggeringly-high startup cost, with a fair chance of failure (how do you know that you're failing? these aren't battery experts...).

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    17. Re:Statistical fallicies by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      It is also over-specifying what the demand is. The demand for cars isn't for a Tesla, the demand is people want to go somewhere. And people want to look cool and have fun while doing it. If you were to invent something that filled that need better than a car, you'd get rich really, really quickly.

      The same goes for the iPhone. The demand was to communicate with others, not to have a phone. The iPhone filled this need better than a landline, better than a flip-phone, better than a laptop computer. So people bought them by the millions.

      Identifying the true underlying need is the part where visionaries come in. Black-and-Decker's customers don't want a powerful, torquey drill,, they want to put a hole in something. Maytag's customers don't want a fancy frontloading washer with all the bells and whistles, they want to get their clothes clean. Loosing focus on the customer's core need has been the downfall of many businesses.

      Look at Blockbuster. Their customers didn't want to rent a videotape and bring it home to watch. They wanted to watch a movie in the privacy of their own home. Netflix (and many others) bettered them on this core objective and the business was crushed.

    18. Re:Statistical fallicies by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Yes, and no. There was demand for a cellphone with an agreeable set of features...and the iPhone fit this mold.

      You seem to be making the error of confusing abstract demand with concrete demand...abstract demand being demand that has yet to be fulfilled, while concrete demand being demand that has been fulfilled.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    19. Re:Statistical fallicies by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      Citation please?

      I could certainly believe this is the case with natural gas, which is as the name implies naturally occurring comes out during extraction, and is still a very cheap form of energy.

      Gasoline on the other hand has to be distilled from crude, a process which I believe really only serve the purpose of producing gasoline. Gasoline is expensive, relatively easy to transport, and easy to burn, so I have a hard time believing they ever had an accidental surplus.

    20. Re:Statistical fallicies by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      You're missing the point. If a type of battery chemistry requires Neodymium, for example, there is only a set amount Neodymium available on the market. There is research to create batteries that are just as effective but with less or no rare earth elements, but that kind of R&D moves very slowly. Because these batteries make use of element's very specific chemical properties- you can't substitute them easily.

      If you get an order for a million batteries that require Neodymium, you can't just make a phone call and have it delivered at the same price you're used to. Your consumption has actually impacted the market and driven up price on that input.

    21. Re:Statistical fallicies by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Citation please?

      I could certainly believe this is the case with natural gas, which is as the name implies naturally occurring comes out during extraction, and is still a very cheap form of energy.

      Gasoline on the other hand has to be distilled from crude, a process which I believe really only serve the purpose of producing gasoline. Gasoline is expensive, relatively easy to transport, and easy to burn, so I have a hard time believing they ever had an accidental surplus.

      Link here - I saw some of this on the H2 channel last night about the "Men who built America". Good show. This is the passage from that page:

      Rockefeller's bookkeeping style of entrepreneurship led to important savings where other similar companies had waste. For example, where others had considered the byproducts of refining oil for kerosene as waste (some dumped gasoline in rivers), Rockefeller and his partners founds ways to use gasoline for fuel and tar for paving. Another savings that helped consumers was by transporting oil in bulk quantities via Vanderbilt's railroad company.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    22. Re:Statistical fallicies by bmajik · · Score: 1

      I'm not missing the point.

      Firstly, nobody who buys a Tesla cares what the battery is made of. Tesla is free to change the battery chemistry whenever they have a competing technology. They may have competing chemistries now that are not cost effective under current dynamics, but will become so when neodymium shortages change the economics of the game. But of course, rising neodymium costs will make additional mining and refining capacity profitable, and so new entrants will enter those games as well, and tend to dampen price rises.

      Secondly, the analogy of computer prices shouldn't be overlooked. We have been shipping an increasing number of devices with increasing capabilities since the 1990s. No new additional raw materials have been created in that time, and yet costs have gone down.

      Why?

      Human ingenuity.

      The battery chemistry in the Telsa wasn't relevant 20 years ago and will likely be irrelevant 20 years from now.

      There is a reason that we no longer worry about "Peak Whale", even though at one time the majority of heat and light in the US came from the whale oil the rapidly diminishing supply of whales and there was no known answer to that problem. How many short years transpired between "Peak Whale" and Standard Oil?

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
    23. Re:Statistical fallicies by Jon_S · · Score: 1

      I can remember paying $300 for 4 MB of RAM once. I needed to upgrade for 4 MB to 8 MB so my slackware 3.0 would run better. Then Windows 95 came out later that year with bigger RAM requirements for your basic Wintel box. RAM prices fell through the floor. Sure, computer parts prices are always going down, but the drop in RAM prices was especially steep (I can remember for obvious reasons ;-) and this was pretty much driven by increase demand.

    24. Re:Statistical fallicies by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, you have it backward. If supply had remained the same, RAM prices would have gone UP with the release of Windows 95. Fortunately, late in 1995, China started saber-rattling and spooked Taiwanese factories dumped a load of RAM on the market. Prices halved overnight.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:Statistical fallicies by EmperorArthur · · Score: 1
      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    26. Re:Statistical fallicies by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      A better example than iPhone would've been the iPad. There was very vocal demand for an OSX tablet to go up against Windows-based tablet PCs--far more than there was demand for an upscaled iOS device. Smart money said shortly after its introduction that the iPad was doomed because there was no demand for such a limited device. And yet the iPad quickly outsold all "traditional" tablet PCs ever made.

      Supply and demand is like the proverbial chicken and the egg. There can be an vague and frankly meaningless demand for just about anything, but providing the supply of something very specific (and factors like how it's implemented,, price, how it's marketed, etc) can bring specific demands into focus and drive it up.

    27. Re:Statistical fallicies by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.
      Strange that every business does it the opposite way:
      There was no demand for an iPhone ... before it existed.
      There was no demand for the Tesla ... before it actually existed.

      This is so completely false as to be laughable. Apple surely fomented some of the demand prior to launch, but the demand was huge (in fact it probably surprised Apple how big the demand was - their success was in proper pre-cultivation, amazing execution, and lack of any worthwhile competitors for years).

      Only the foolish look at things like the launch of any great product that (re)defines a new market as "there was no demand, then it was created". Customers have large untapped desires that require proper exploration, development, and exploitation techniques. Sometimes these desires can be cultivated, but the major wins hit on deep-seated desires that have been unmet by the current product offerings.

      The trick is to be able to see these untapped reserves and map a path towards it.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    28. Re:Statistical fallicies by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      And more recently, for the iPhone. Nobody needed one until Apple announced them.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    29. Re:Statistical fallicies by bware · · Score: 1

      The cost of labor has not gone down in 20 years.

      In 1991, that 486 was manufactured in Austin, Texas. In 1992, it was manufactured in Ireland. In 2009, the equivalent was manufactured in Poland, and in 2013, in Penang and Xiamen.

      I think a large fraction (not all, to be sure) of the reduced cost of the 2013 machine versus the 1991 machine is the global pursuit of the lowest possible wage. Ingenuity, yes. But not always technical ingenuity. Also financial, and logistical.

    30. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I did not talk abou a smartphone, I talked about a secific one.
      I did not talk about cars, I talked about a specific one.
      If you can not get it then consider the first cars and firs combustian engines or the first railroad ... they all where invented and constructed BEFORE the first demand ... 90% of our technology is

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    31. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The people could only preorder Teslas and pay the amount you mention AFTER the product existed as concept, the company existed and all the plans to craft it existed.

      My point is pretty simple: if there was no Tesla, if the company would not exist, then obviously it would be impossible to buy one and hence there would be no demand for it.

      If demand would allways preexist the later product the newspaper would not full with sales advertisments but with "I have damand for X" advertisments.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    32. Re:Statistical fallicies by Tiroth · · Score: 1

      A good way to think about it is that people have needs. In the case of transport: to get somewhere. This need existed prior to the car. When the car came along and people became aware of its benefits, demand for cars suddenly appeared. So even though there was no demand for the car before its invention, there was a need for a solution to the problem that cars solved.

    33. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      That is obviously right and clear. I only challanged the braindead post of my parent.
      And there are lots more challanges :)
      E.g. the demand to discover the amercas came AFTER ship technology made so long journes feesable.

      However on the other hand demand of the military to have long range rockets is the root for many developments in that area.

      Clearly there is a kind of chicken / egg problem. Mostly solved by the fact that ideas are free and hang a while around, that can EITHER lead to inventions and products because the IDEA is already the demand, OR they lead to products because the genious knows how to create the demand later (or that it will evolve by itself as soon as the product is ready). Depends basically on who picks up the idea first and looks at it from which angle.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    34. Re:Statistical fallicies by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      It was a hugely expensive ($700) gadget that Apple didn't market very well and nobody bought?

      Then the R&D department at Palm, Inc said thank you and produced a cut down version that would actually sell.

    35. Re:Statistical fallicies by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Black & Decker found a way to put holes in things where you didn't need to drag a cord and a temporary outlet at a construction site. Being able to put holes in things whenever you wanted definitely was a big help... and their cordless drill was better than the hand crank kind of drill as well (the only other "cordless" drill you can get). BTW, I tend to use my drill more as a glorified screw driver rather than something which makes holes, but I suppose that is a further adaptation.

      Maytag is a special case all to itself. It prided itself on being the top quality in home appliances and built up an amazing reputation of building devices that would last decades or longer. A 50 year old Maytag that still was in service doing what it was designed to do isn't unheard of, those older machines are easy to repair when they do break down, and there has generally been a high degree of quality assurance as well.... at least there used to be. About the mid 1980's there was a management change (basically a new generation of middle and upper management) which didn't care about this reputation other than as a way to exploit it for marketing purposes. By cutting back on materials (using plastic where previously it had been metal, not spending so much on quality assurance, outsourcing parts, and in general doing stuff that frankly many manufacturers were doing in America at the time) these managers threw away their brand name and became everything their marketing department claimed the other companies had become. It now represents a POS piece of equipment if you ever buy that brand. The bells and whistles as you were talking about were there to mask the fact that the machines wouldn't even do what it was that they originally claimed (washing dishes, cook food, or even microwave your popcorn). I had a Maytag stove that nearly burned down my house.... and would have had I not been there to stop the fire from spreading.

      Apple certainly risks doing the same thing now that Steve Jobs is no longer around to bash heads in when needed. The Newton was interesting because it did most of the things that the iPhone does, but it was a little clunkier and slower simply because the technology wasn't quite up to the task at the time. It is an example of an early adopter of technology being well ahead of the curve so bad that they took the arrows and paid a hard price for being so far ahead of the competition that you don't even know what it is that you have in front of you.

      I can give some interesting examples: The Diamond Rio was famous for setting the precedent that the RIAA couldn't hold MP3 device manufacturers liable for copyright infringement simply by providing the means to play an MP3 vile. They played a pivotal role in the technology, but ended up being a commercial failure none the less in the long run. Yes, they did make some money, but others (notably Apple in this case) took the idea forward to the next step once the market was established and thus capitalized upon this earlier effort.

      The Altair 8800 was the very first microcomputer, and developed quite a huge fan following. They blazed the trail, even help give the reason for a tiny start-up company called Microsoft to be established as well as spawned a whole bunch of other companies. Adding to the pattern, Apple Computer even took advantage of MITS marketing strategy and came up with their own computer... thus while not necessarily being first they did take advantage of this much earlier work.

      Going back to even electric automobiles, there were notable electric cars that had been around for quite some time, including the Baker Electrics, which at the time had even seemed as though electric automobiles were the future and the other new technology at the time, gasoline internal combustion engines, seemed as if they were too complex and messy to actual

    36. Re:Statistical fallicies by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Only if you are silly enough to not consider things interchangeable. Which they are.

      There was demand for travel faster than horses, this is what made those things possible and why they survived in the market. You can today invent a machine that makes hats out of your own feces, you will not make money with this since there is no demand for feces hats.

      If you can not get it, then try thinking about it. Like the other poster stated, no one wants a drill, they want to be able to make holes in stuff with the least effort.

    37. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply wrong. If a process (let's say... sunlight and dirt and seeds and water) exists and a fresh "supply" of "weeds" shows up then there's nothing new or capitalistic about that that. The person in charge of the land then needs to find a way to sell it or just accept that the land has been lost. However, the mere having a supply doesn't do the trick does it? He has to go create a product or show that some product is feasible (and desirable) based on his own "product". He has to try to create a demand. Once the DEMAND is in place the supply actually matters and that allows for pricing discussions to commence. When there is only supply without any demand then you don't have capitalism... you have a yard full of weeds.

    38. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're seeing it wrong. We're talking economics - not philosophy. In economics an idea is not supply. And a prototype is not supply. You often have both of those in place to actually figure out what the demand for a given concept, but neither one of those is supply.

      Apple didn't just build a shit load of iPods creating a massive supply and hope they would sell. They built ONE or TEN or maybe just mocked some up and estimated the demand for a product that had those features. Then they did some math and decided that based on their sampling there would probably be a market "this big". Only then did they create the supply and only big enough to meet the demand.

      The great thing is (and it's part of what makes visionaries great) that some people can actually SEE / PREDICT demand for something that doesn't yet exist. Either that demand is there and other's haven't seen it yet or it is simply inevitable (the batteries in this article). These people see that the world is missing something like "PROJECT X", or that the world is soon going to NEED "PRODUCT Y" or that the masses will want something like "ITEM Z". In those cases companies can "bet the farm" on the idea that a product will sell once people see it, but that's based on an estimated / projection of demand. It's not based on some theory that "if I just make enough of these eventually someone will them all.

    39. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the way Henry Ford did capitalism, at least according to John Maynard Keynes. Ford's business plan required significant expense for marketing and advertising. According to Keynes, M&A are the equivalent of of central planning in a command and control (communist) economy because capital investment requires a reasonable assurance of successful ROI before investors will back a venture of any significant magnitude.

      I.e., demand and supply must be developed concurrently, just like they're doing it at Kickstarter.

    40. Re:Statistical fallicies by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 1

      The radio control hobby industry has gone through this in recent years. LiPo batteries were hideously expensive when they first appeared on the market. Now the market is flooded with them and prices have dropped markedly. A 3 cell 2,400 mAh battery that would have cost ~$150 a few years ago can now be purchased for ~$30

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    41. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, you have sometimes quite insightful posts and sometimes just brain dead ones.

      Only if you are silly enough to not consider things interchangeable. Which they are.

      Exactly. This is why I answered to my parent who simply had the opposite position but claimed: it was the one and only true one.

      Perhaps you might scroll back and bash him as well :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    42. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I submit that it's even dumber than that.

      This is just an ordinary industrial supply issue. If it weren't for the involvement of Musk & Tesla, it wouldn't rate attention from /. Tesla asks for more batteries and the battery suppliers... ramp up production! Gee, that must be rocket science!

      In fact Li-Ion batteries are found in all kinds of personal electronics and that certainly wasn't the case 10-15 years ago. Therefore manufacturing capacity must have already increased dramatically. And yet you don't hear any breathless commentary on how that happened.

    43. Re:Statistical fallicies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works for global warming.

    44. Re:Statistical fallicies by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is that government needs to employ more scientists and engineers, because if it were to fire all its competent employees and outsource to the private sector, it would end up looking incompetent, and then that would be used as an excuse to further reduce the size of government?

    45. Re:Statistical fallicies by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      Customers have large untapped desires...

      The trick is to be able to see these untapped reserves and map a path towards it.

      I miss geeks. Now everyone's an MBA.

    46. Re:Statistical fallicies by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that housing humans in a 19th century workhouse is "ingenuity".

    47. Re:Statistical fallicies by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You said you were talking about only one in that post. That is a silly position to hold. Demand for transportation faster than a horse predates both of your other examples in that post.

    48. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well, seems people mix here up the many meanings of "demand".

      In market terms: "supply and demand" which is considered to have the most influence of prices we obviously talk about a _a concrete object_

      Some of the people ninjaing this thread, just to try to be smarter than me or even smarter than my parent misinterpret "demand" as "desire" to do something.

      Sure there is desire to be transported or be able to ride (with a horse, or however) from one place to another, but: there was no "market" for cars or "demand" for cars before "cars existed".

      Hence my parent got it wrong, that is all what I talked about ... He more or less claimed the "market" sprung into existence because some smart guys reacted to the (already existing) "demand" and provided "supply" for a _specific product_. This may happen but happened in history only in the rarest cases.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    49. Re:Statistical fallicies by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Actually I think you are the one who is wrong. There was a desire for travel faster than horses before cars or trains. It was that desire that fed the demand side of those markets. Without that desire you are back to the feces hat machine.

      Demand is quite frankly desire expressed in a market. This means that desire leads demand. A specific product is not what people want, that is simply one way to meet that desire or demand. I do not care if I get a dewalt drill or a ryobi one, only that I get the best price for the level of hole drilling I need.

      In your little fiction products are never interchangeable. People rarely have any desire for a specific product, especially before they research the possible supply available to meet their desire/demand.

    50. Re:Statistical fallicies by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      People always have desire/demand for specific products.
      Otherwise they would by a HTC or Samsung or something else that is cheap, and not an iPhone.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    51. Re:Statistical fallicies by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      Thanks, very interesting. I wish they had cited their own sources, but at least it's a step in the search for a primary source.

  3. And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponentially by WillAdams · · Score: 2
    --
    Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
  4. Markets, how do they work? by martas · · Score: 3, Funny

    I seem to recall some old English dude saying stuff about supply and demand... But sarcasm aside, isn't it about time we had some tangible breakthroughs in battery tech?

    1. Re:Markets, how do they work? by allaunjsilverfox2 · · Score: 1

      It's not as easy many would think it would be. The battery market requires A LOT more interest before they can speed up research. Right now, There is research being done with nanotubes. But if demand starts rising, I'm sure funding would be much easier to hire the teams of researchers needed to push it to market.

      --
      Restore the madness of youth's lechery
    2. Re: Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A breakthrough! By Jove, you're right! Why didn't they think of that? They should get with it and achieve a breakthrough!

    3. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. All this will do is force more research in to new battery tech.

      And whoever wins gets a shitload of cash for doing so. Said cash repaying the crush for research several times over in under a decade most likely.

      Luckily by the middle of the century, or at least hopefully, space mining will be in full swing and launching useful crap down to us.

    4. Re:Markets, how do they work? by martas · · Score: 1

      Yet another reason to wish electric vehicles widespread adoption. It's about time we escaped the paleolithic era of energy storage.

    5. Re:Markets, how do they work? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      why? liquid fuels have many times the energy density of batteries. we should be making that from dense vegetation grown on scrubland, an already solved problem that is carbon neutral

    6. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batteries are in everything that we use today. I've got one in my watch, my cell phone, my laptop, the electronic thing that unlocks a door at work... the demand couldn't be much higher. Research goes at its own pace -- you can't just say we're going to invent a magic wand tomorrow if enough people pray for it to happen.

    7. Re: Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that you can now buy 3.4Ah 18650s (NCR18650B) when just a few years ago 2.4Ah was the biggest available, I'd say we keep right on having the tangible breakthroughs. The trouble is, we keep seeing news articles about some battery tech which will double current battery capacity, and is about ten years from market. But we never see that "double" jump, next year we just get 7% more capacity and another tech in the lab that will eventually, when it hits the street, double current capacity. So we get disillusioned and think the lab advances never translate into reality, even though capacity is doubling every decade (or so), it just happens in a cascade of incremental improvements each of which was deceptively hyped in the media by comparing it to current production, rather than to other battery tech at a similar stage of development.

    8. Re:Markets, how do they work? by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Provided the electricity that goes into those cells is not made using paleolithic era means.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    9. Re:Markets, how do they work? by martas · · Score: 1

      Do you want an internal combustion engine in your smartphone? Speaking of which, electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion, I believe. There's also the issue of rising food prices. And the fact that better battery tech is pretty important for wider adoption of variable energy sources like solar and wind. Plus burning gasoline or vegetable-derived fuels releases more than just CO2. Even if you end up burning crops for energy, you might be better off doing that in a centralized fashion and getting the energy to cars through batteries.

    10. Re:Markets, how do they work? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Internal combustion is not the only method to get electricity or work from liquid fuel. Methanol Fuel cells are well known.

    11. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I seem to recall some old English dude saying stuff about supply and demand...

      That dude was Scottish!

    12. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Spudley · · Score: 2

      I seem to recall some old English dude saying stuff about supply and demand... But sarcasm aside, isn't it about time we had some tangible breakthroughs in battery tech?

      The problem isn't the batteries -- battery tech *is* improving year on year.

      The problem is that we keep demanding more from our batteries.

      Our mobile devices are being loaded up with retina screens, wi-fi, and all the other new goodies you can think of, and simultaneously we're demanding that they're thinner and lighter with every generation. Seriously, a current iPad would choke if it had to survive on the battery tech even from the original iPad.

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    13. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're talking about Adam Smith, he was Scottish.

    14. Re:Markets, how do they work? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      real methanol fuel cells have EXTREMELY low efficiency because methanol sneaks across the membrane without reacting, regardless of the hype of theoretical goal of 40-50% which is not realized by manufactured cells. Internal combustion for the win!

    15. Re:Markets, how do they work? by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      we're talking of vehicles here, smart phone batteries not a big part of energy storage on this planet.

    16. Re:Markets, how do they work? by martas · · Score: 1

      Are we? I was talking about batteries.

    17. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The amount of energy stored is defined by chemistry, so there is a ceiling of energy density per mass.
      Every time they increase the density, they decrease the lifetime. Something such as separator got to give way to put in more chemical.

    18. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      But sarcasm aside, isn't it about time we had some tangible breakthroughs in battery tech?

      It sure is... or better yet, how about some breakthroughs in supercapacitors that would allow us to get away from battery technology entirely.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    19. Re:Markets, how do they work? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they don't have the other downsides.

      Internal combustion is pretty inefficient as well. Plus it produces all kinds of fun by products.

    20. Re:Markets, how do they work? by TomGreenhaw · · Score: 2

      There is a ton of activity in this area. I think there is a new sulfur based solid anode on the horizon for lithium batteries that is going to reduce cost, increase capacity four-fold and dramatically reduce charge time; see http://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/5834/Oak-Ridge-Labs-Scientists-Make-Lithium-Sulfur-Battery-Breakthrough.aspx and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery. I also think there is a new graphene technology that is going to make way better supercapacitors; see http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6145/534.abstract. The federal government is pushing this hard too: see http://www.anl.gov/energy/batteries-and-energy-storage.

      --
      Greed is the root of all evil.
    21. Re:Markets, how do they work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battery tech is NOT improving year on year. They're all still made of Lithium Ion / Lithium Polymer (i.e. still roughly the same).

      CPUs are getting more efficient, spending less time at higher clock speeds. 80% of the people who have an i5 that I know of constantly complain about battery life (one coworker drops about 50% over the course of ~2 hours of use, mostly texting and emailing).

      Throw in the same battery, and I'll bet it'll perform about the same. Of course, you can't prove it easily since the battery is sealed anyway.

  5. Well... by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Make more?

    Crisis solved. I will even waive my customary consulting fee.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Well... by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      Make more?

      Crisis solved. I will even waive my customary consulting fee.

      Actually, charge more. Seriously if demand goes up significantly so will price until new factories come on line. Of course, extrapolating future demand from a small data set is not a good predictor of future demand. If Tesla became such a large purchaser of cells I would guess manufacturers would be leery of adding significant capacity that could become excess resulting in a glut or idle factories if Tesla's demand suddenly lessened significantly.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:Well... by afidel · · Score: 1

      The former A123 Holland Michigan plant is sitting almost idle right now AFAIK, and the LG plant in Michigan just started production, not sure what percentage of global supply those two plants represent but since both were target at electric vehicles from the big 3 you have to assume they're significant capacity.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Well... by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This. There are several battery plants that were built in anticipation of a boom in hybrid and EV vehicles during the first spike in oil prices. Once oil prices stabilized, those booms of new EVs never happened, and there are several battery plants that are sitting idle right now. The Dow Kokam plant in Midland could absorb half of the Tesla increase alone. http://www.dowkokam.com/about-dow-kokam/global-capabilities/midland-battery-park/

    4. Re:Well... by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one solution - another solution would be to outlaw the manufacture of electric cars.

  6. Super capacitors by DigiShaman · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Maybe Mr. Musk would be better served dumping more R&D into super capacitors instead.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Super capacitors by TWX · · Score: 1

      Maybe Mr. Musk...

      Oh My God...

      Elon Musk is a James Bond Villain! A real-life Max Zorin!

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Super capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Mr. Musk would be better served dumping more R&D into super capacitors instead.

      He IS supposed to be an innovator. Well, here's his chance to step up.

    3. Re:Super capacitors by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      [sigh...]

      Super capacitors are awesome, and would dovetail very nicely with Tesla's high-capacity charging stations. But the simple fact is that they are still about an order of magnitude lower in energy density than Li-Ion. Sure, lots of people are looking to improve that, but it is doubtful that Musk is going to (or would even be able to) dump enough R&D money into the field to bring about an automotive "battery" using supercapacitors anytime soon. If he's going to put money into the field at all, it'll probably be to integrate a relatively small amount of supercapacitance into the conventional battery pack to improve the pulse power capability.

    4. Re:Super capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody should probably tell Musk about supercapacitors - he probably hasn't heard of them and probably nobody at Tesla is working with them.

    5. Re:Super capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, Mr. Bond. I expect you to ride my electric car all the way to my space rocket and help me develop markets not properly expanded by conventional economy.

  7. Do I lack reading comprehensiosn skills? by oodaloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if Tesla doubles production, it would consume the entire world's production of li-ion cells. So the measly 21k cars Tesla produces use half of the world's production already? Maybe I can't read and/or do math though.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Do I lack reading comprehensiosn skills? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if Tesla doubles production, it would consume the entire world's production of li-ion cells. So the measly 21k cars Tesla produces use half of the world's production already? Maybe I can't read and/or do math though.

      It's not your math, it's the lack of data in TFAs. I can't find the number of cells per Tesla battery in any of the articles, either. Maybe I just got bored paging through. Stupid ADD. Anyway. searching around gives guesses of 7500 to 8000 cells in the top-of-the-line pack. So another 20000 cars would be 160 million more cells. If a laptop uses four to eight cells per battery, that's a lot of laptops worth of cells.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Do I lack reading comprehensiosn skills? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put the numbers in place, one car uses between 4,500 - 8,500 cells, depending on model and battery pack. That is as many cells as is used in 750 to 2,833 laptops (assuming 3 to 6 cell models). Which means 21,000 cars could be as many as 59,500,000 laptops and 40,000 cars equals between 56,666,666 and 113,333,333 laptops.

    3. Re:Do I lack reading comprehensiosn skills? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      That's right. Thankfully it's not our half...

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  8. "That assumes no other growth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yeah; in particular it assumes that there will be no growth in production of batteries, despite the increase in demand. Maybe that's not such a good assumption? Nah, let's just print another FUD piece about electric cars.

  9. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Each car obviously consumes one gajillion cells.

  10. I reminded this by LavouraArcaica · · Score: 1
  11. Re:18,650? Really? by homsar · · Score: 5, Informative

    18650 is the name of the size of cell. See this table.

  12. Rather Breathless Headline by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We start with some seriously breathless doom-and-gloom headlines and summary, then reading the articles we find this sort of thing:

    The carmaker's rapid production scale-up has prompted Panasonic to expand capacity, by reopening previously idled plants, while simultaneously committing to build entirely new production lines.

    So prices had been dropping, production had been cut, but now at least one cell maker has restarted idled lines. That doesn't exactly sound like a disaster in the making.

    --
    I am not a crackpot.
  13. price competition via supply shortfall. by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder which has the better profit margin, electronic devices or Tesla? Presumably that decides how this plays out. The interesting thing is that it's going to become a barrier to entry for electric car makers. The one with the highest profit margin can set the price of the batteries above the profit margin of the competition when there is a supply shortfall.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by trout007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The question to ask is what happens to the price of a laptop and a Tesla if the price of the batteries increases.

      A laptop uses maybe 6 cells which retail on amazon for about $10. So a doubling of prices would at most cost a laptop owner another $10 which is almost in the noise.

      A Tesla if using 2000 times the number would cost about $20k more. That is pretty significant.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      JESUS CHRIST it's a li-on, GET IN THE CAR!

    3. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or economies of scale will kick in and the batteries will get a lot cheaper.

    4. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The li-on is already in the car! It's a trap!

    5. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by msauve · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just wait until the new titanium-graphite (TiGr) and beryllium-argon (BeAr) batteries reach the market.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    6. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, my?

    7. Re: price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How much beryllium? That's one of the more toxic metals out there. It isn't going to sail if there's a lot of high-concentration beryllium involved.

    8. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is such a misguided way of thinking about economics, it would almost be better if you didn't know any economics at all.

    9. Re: price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh!

    10. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i will just wait till the tri-li crystal batteries

    11. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just like oil prices keep going down yayyyyy

    12. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the point. It's not just the competition for a particular form factor of the lithium ion battery but the supply of lithium itself that will become, like oil, a world commodity.

      We should be doing more to convert our internal combustion engine cars and other energy hungry applications to handling hydrogen as a fuel. Truly renewable, completely outside the carbon cycle if you use the right technology to get it, just break water into fuel and oxidizer and get water back when you combine them.

      I know, the problem is you need energy to break the water molecule. That can come from nuclear, solar, geothermal, even saw a catalyst on a plate that broke water into hydrogen and oxygen just by putting it in a tank and shining light on it. No carbon problem with any of these. And Hydrogen can be stored for when the wind ain't blowing or the sun ain't shining.

    13. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you really think demand is low enough today that economies of scale haven't already kicked in? If we want cheaper batteries we need cheaper processes to manufacture them, not more economies of scale.

      What electric cars might do is ramp up economies of scale on better battery tech that is being developed, but I doubt there is much to be gained from economies of scale on existing battery tech.

    14. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh my!

    15. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder which has the better profit margin, electronic devices or Tesla? Presumably that decides how this plays out. The interesting thing is that it's going to become a barrier to entry for electric car makers. The one with the highest profit margin can set the price of the batteries above the profit margin of the competition when there is a supply shortfall.

      This article is making the assumption that nobody is going to increase production to match demand, which is flat out stupid.

    16. Re: price competition via supply shortfall. by xaxa · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whoosh!

      Tungsten-hydroxy-osmium-hydride? Sounds expensive!

    17. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Just wait until the new titanium-graphite (TiGr) and beryllium-argon (BeAr) batteries reach the market.

      I'm partial to LiGr technology myself....

    18. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by jythie · · Score: 2

      Depends on what the bottlenecks are. Not everything scales well

    19. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by jythie · · Score: 2

      Given the supply chain, it is not entirely stupid. We are not just talking about adding a few more people on an assembly line. Not only would new factories have to be constructed (which takes time) but new extraction and processing facilities would have to ramp up. That type of production increase could easily take multiple years to impact available supplies.

    20. Re: price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'A Tesla if using 2000 times the number would cost about $20k more. That is pretty significant.'

      What about the poor Borderline Patients, they won't get their medecine.

    21. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Or economies of scale will kick in and the batteries will get a lot cheaper.

      Bingo. The oceans contain about 230 billion tons of lithium so there is no constraints on production. Lithium can be extracted from salt deposits, brine springs, or even directly from seawater as a by-product of desalination. The kid down on the corner running a lemonade stand understands more about economics than the author of TFA. Supply does not stay constant in the face of rising demand.

    22. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      Diesel is truly renewable as well... we can make it from vegetable oil ridiculously easily (and some diesel engines can run on raw vegetable oil). Hell, there's some strains of algae that literally shit it out... put them in a sugar-water solution, give them enough heat, and they will make diesel for you. Put them in the dark so they don't waste energy on photosynthesis, and they make more (as long as they have enough glucose).

      The problem isn't that renewable energy sources don't exist. Many of them can even be used with our current technology. It's that the non-renewable stuff is cheaper/easier to extract. We're far more likely to see a switch to diesel instead of gasoline/coal in the future than we are hydrogen fuel cells, especially with the NIMBY folks going after nuclear, wind, and solar. (Nuclear, in spite of events like Chernobyl, 3-mile Island, and Fukushima, is still safer/cleaner than the coal we're replacing nuclear with). Personally, I'd like to see a switch to Thorium reactors, but that's not bloody likely, despite Thorium being *way* more common than Uranium, and less dangerous to boot.

    23. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by tibit · · Score: 1

      New factories are in the process of being built. Always. Almost independently of what industry you choose. Even if it's horse/buggy repair shops.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    24. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 0
      To someone that really wants a Tesla the added cost could actually be a good thing. People tend to want things others can't have,
      Sheldon Cooper explained it in the exchange with his friends:

      Raj: Dude, I’m glad you finally got a girlfriend, but do you have to do all that lovey-dovey stuff in front of those of us who don’t?

      Sheldon: Actually, he might have to. There’s an economic concept known as a positional good in which an object is only valued by the possessor because it’s not possessed by others. The term was coined in 1976 by economist Fred Hirsch to replace the more colloquial, but less precise neener-neener.

      Howard: That’s not true. My happiness is not dependent on my best friend being miserable and alone.

      Raj: Thank you.

      Howard: Although, I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a little bit of a perk.

      Leonard: Who’s miserable and alone?

      Raj: Me.

      Leonard: Oh. I used to be like that. Then I got a girlfriend.

      Sheldon: In pre-1976 terms, neener-neener.

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    25. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Pharmboy · · Score: 2

      Li-ons and TiGrs and BeArs? Oh my....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    26. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by fnj · · Score: 2

      A laptop uses maybe 6 cells which retail on amazon for about $10. So a doubling of prices would at most cost a laptop owner another $10 which is almost in the noise.

      Yes, you can get extremely dangerous, garbage 18650's for $2.72. Note that they actually only have one third of the advertised capacity, though. These things are probably rewrapped worn-out or reject cells.

      An 18650 of any quality at all costs more like $10-$25 EACH. You start putting no-name crap 18650's in there and you are going to have enough laptop fires to cook every weenie in the world.

      Lenovo already charges $149 for a complete 6 cell battery with case and electronics. Would you like to see that rise to $298? Be my guest if you want to replace yours with a dangerous piece of garbage. You certainly won't be bringing it into my house.

    27. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Tesla's 18650 cells are different than the cells you see on Amazon. For one thing, they do not have the protection circuits built in. The protection circuit is for each group of cells in the pack. Second, they lack the bump on the positive terminal since a wire is welded to the positive terminal. Tesla has done a lot with the cell design to minimize the cost. While it is the same form factor as a laptop battery it is not the same. The chemistry is also a bit different in order to be suitable for an electric car.

      It has been estimated that Tesla pays under $2 per cell but nobody except Tesla and Panasonic know the actual cost. Tesla also gets the economy of scale. They go through 3-4 million cells per week acording to one of the techs I spoke with at the factory.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    28. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      By way, you mean about four times more common. By less dangerous, you mean it's an alpha emitter with a halflife on the order of 14-billion years, as opposed to Uranium, an alpha emitter with a halflife of only 4-billion years.

      Thorium is fertile, not fissile, so if we want to use it, we need breeder reactors. If we're using breeder reactors of any sort, we need heavy waste reprocessing to really make a go of it, and our usable stores of Uranium go up by around two orders of magnitude. In other words, if we are going to use Thorium, there's no reason to use Thorium over Uranium unless you've got abundant deposits in your possession. If your country has Uranium, use Uranium. If you have Thorium, use Thorium. Either way, we've pretty much solved our power supply problems for a few tens of thousands of years.

    29. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by HairyNevus · · Score: 2

      Ehh, I think you may be wrong about "no limits on production" by reasoning the amount in seawater. I mean looking it up Lithium isn't listed in the top 10 salts found in ocean water. And desalinization--while it's something the world could stand to do more--is a slow or energy-demanding process. Sorting through the left over salt crystals for lithium would probably be more demanding. However lithium supplies aren't too low at any rate.

      --
      You were critically hit for no damage. The bruise will look nice, and maybe the scars will make good party talk.
    30. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by jimbolauski · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ore is defined by the price of the mineral and the cost to dig and refine it. If prices don't go up there simply is not enough ore to mine. Even though Lithium cobalt oxide costs about $30 a kg it's still too expensive to recycle and too risky to mine many mineral deposit locations. At $40 a kilogram many sites could open up and expect a ROI in 10 years. The price right now simply won't allow for mining in many areas that have stringent environmental controls which is why China is one of the largest suppliers. Economies of scale won't be enough to overcome the environmental regulation that are used to control such a dirty mining process.

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    31. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Interesting note on the price.

      Panasonic sells various chemistries (at the very least two different chemistries) in 18650s. I would count the chance that Tesla's is unique as essentially zero.

      The cells linked on Amazon do not have the PCB (protection circuit). AFAIK Panasonic does not put PCBs in any of their cells. Other firms buy the cells and add PCBs or not. Usually they change the brand marking as well. AFAIK all Panasonic cells sold to the public and marked "Panasonic" are grey or black market. Panasonic themselves do not sell individual cells at retail. There are even some low lives who take crap generic 18650s and apply counterfeit marking to exactly mimic Panasonic's distinctive marking.

    32. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by AaronW · · Score: 1

      According to a talk I attended given by Elon they use their own chemistry (LiCoAl). They are also automotive grade and are not the same as the consumer cells. Apparently Tesla can also use other manufacturers if needed as well.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    33. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by WaywardGeek · · Score: 2

      Panasonic sold 100,000,000 batteries to Tesla so far this year. They reopened shuttered plants, and are investing in new ones. They already push the state of the art vs competitors, likely due in part to their collaboration on the Tesla Roadster battery packs. With the volume Panasonic now has, they are simultaneously making a bunch of money and dropping prices for Tesla dramatically, rumored to be less than $2/battery now (some speculate as low as $1.20, but I doubt that), which is huge when you're buying 7,000 of them per car.

      There are so many problems with these batteries that make them expensive. Do you know how many battery chemistries are competing in the 18650 format? I'm no battery expert, but apparently, there are so many that we now have Li-Ons, TiGrs, BeArs (Oh, my!), and even LiGrs. That fragments economies of scale benefits. Add on top of that crazy low-volume customers (a laptop may have 4 or 6 cells), individual protection circuits *per battery*, built in, and a market fragmented in it's needs: RC cars need high power, as in A123, laptops need power density, equipment often needs long shelf life, etc.

      So... 100,000,000 batteries in the first 8 months of 2013, all bought from one company... yes, I think this will have an impact on lowering costs.

      --
      Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
    34. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by swalve · · Score: 2

      Economy of scale only works because it lowers overhead. A lot of costs are per-transaction, not per-piece. Having to open new factories raises overhead rather than lowering it.

    35. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by swalve · · Score: 1

      But there is so much ocean, that even a small percentage will net you tons and tons. And a nice nuclear plant with access to seawater running full-bore desalinating and pulling Li ions out of the spillage would probably not be all that expensive. Long term, anyway.

    36. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by jrumney · · Score: 1

      And a nice nuclear plant with access to seawater

      Japan has that covered already

    37. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      And a nice nuclear plant with access to seawater

      Japan has that covered already

      No, he said "nice" not "rice". That rice burner they have isn't what he had in mind.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    38. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

      extremely dangerous

      The brand name is UltraFire, for Stallman's sake! I mean, fuck, at least they're honest with their advertising, but you might as well call a boiler COrelease and a pram CotDeath!

    39. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      So make bigger pieces and use more automation. Invest to make them in cheaper labour markets.

    40. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 0

      Where are those mod points when you need them?

    41. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by K10W · · Score: 1

      Tesla's 18650 cells are different than the cells you see on Amazon. For one thing, they do not have the protection circuits built in. The protection circuit is for each group of cells in the pack. Second, they lack the bump on the positive terminal since a wire is welded to the positive terminal. Tesla has done a lot with the cell design to minimize the cost. While it is the same form factor as a laptop battery it is not the same. The chemistry is also a bit different in order to be suitable for an electric car.

      It has been estimated that Tesla pays under $2 per cell but nobody except Tesla and Panasonic know the actual cost. Tesla also gets the economy of scale. They go through 3-4 million cells per week acording to one of the techs I spoke with at the factory.

      stores I use such as fasttech sell those cells too, they aren't made for tesla to keep cost down; they are made for people who need cells minus the protection circuit or a shorter cell (for instance in tight fi flashlight with spring/button on driver so none needed on cell). Many just solder on buttons if needed but many people use little magnets on buttonless cells I notice

    42. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by fnj · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the information. If Tesla is really behind the continuing innovation with 18650s at Panasonic, then it certainly doesn't do anything but raise my already high estimation for Tesla and Musk. I had inferred, perhaps unwarrantedly, that Panasonic's research in this area was internally driven. In any case, Panasonic + Tesla is certainly a great partnership.

    43. Re: price competition via supply shortfall. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Tiger and bear)

      Poor Soul.

    44. Re:price competition via supply shortfall. by Gen_Music · · Score: 1

      No, Having to build more factories raises overhead. Opening existing factories that were mothballed does not increase overhead as a percentage of capacity because capacity instantly rises. And that's what really matters as far as lowering costs.

        In other words, if those factories couldn't pay for themselves back when they were in use, they would have been destroyed, not shuttered... and due to the fact that HQ and C-sec costs don't rise then as a percentage the total overheads are lower per unit sold.

  14. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by smith6174 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, putting an r-squared value on the chart for apparently FOUR data points? Scientist card revoked.

  15. Re:18,650? Really? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2

    http://troll.me?p=9286

    18650 is the model

    --
    These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
  16. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    18650 is the size of the cells in question, 18mm in diameter and 65 mm in length the 0 means cylindrical form factor.

  17. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the type of cell. nr 18650

  18. Re:18,650? Really? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 0

    The global supply of laptop cells per year is 18,650? As in... 18,650 laptops are sold per year. Across the planet? That seems implausibly low. Did anyone try applying some common sense to this story?

    Also, the number 18,650 does not appear in the linked article anywhere. In fact it mentions that prices have been going down on cells across the board for several quarters now. This is the exact opposite of what would happen during a shortage. My guess is the submitter cartechboy is just making up bullshit or is an idiot, and the "editors" are lazy and did not bother to RTFA.

    Usually you can tell a summary is bullshit when it is filled with links that have no relation to the topic in a vain to prove the submitter's theory.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  19. Duh? by mechtech256 · · Score: 1

    Elon Musk founded PayPal, Tesla, and a company that flies TO SPACE. I'm sure he has the supply strategy for the #1 component of his cars worked out. What a non-story.

  20. Buying up all the cells. by Culture20 · · Score: 1, Funny

    At least they aren't buying up all the HeLa cells. That would be creepy.

    1. Re:Buying up all the cells. by AlecC · · Score: 1

      But we could grow indefinite numbers more.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  21. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    18mm diameter x 65mm long.

  22. Um, no. by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 1

    It would drive the price of batteries sky high, as well as other devices that use said batteries, such as cell phones.

    Supply and demand. Econ 101. Nothing to see here besides another Tesla slashvertisement.

  23. Re:18,650? Really? by voxelman · · Score: 2

    18650 is the Li-ion cell type not the quantity. It looks like a bulked up AA battery and is typically available in the range of 2.5 - 3.0 AHr at 3.7 volts.

  24. Sigh by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    Better get on the horn to Panasonic and Samsung.

    Tesla already has a manufacturing deal with Panasonic, who makes all their cells. They don't buy the thing on the open market. I'm pretty sure that if Tesla wants more batteries, Panasonic can and will ramp up production.

    1. Re:Sigh by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Funny thing that hey were willing to pay for them and probably top dollar at that (car manufactures rarely go for cheap) thus they will find a way to make more.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
  25. If I were him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd build my own battery plants. Once Tesla succeeds with electric cars everyone will want batteries to power their own.

  26. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The global supply of laptop cells per year is 18,650? As in... 18,650 laptops are sold per year. Across the planet? That seems implausibly low. Did anyone try applying some common sense to this story?

    this comment making it to 3, Insightful is by itself sufficient to prove the uselessness of Slashdot's moderation system.

  27. Re:18,650? Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Basically, they're on their way to consume the li-on's share of Li-Ion cells. Sounds about right!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  28. so glad for the solution by swschrad · · Score: 1

    we'll start making LiON batteries from carbon, zinc, and magnesium dioxide, then.

    the lithium/rare earths mine in California is going to have to start exporting to China.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:so glad for the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Lithium doesn't come from rare earth ores. It's in fact almost on the opposite end of the periodic table, being the first metal (after hydrogen and helium).

      It's mainly found in Bolivia, which is a bit of a problem: Bolivia would like to have a domestic battery industry (higher revenue), instead of exporting raw lithium. The problem? A 20th century socialist for president, who is quite successfully scaring away international investment. As a result, the main exporter is Chile, which has smaller deposits.

    2. Re:so glad for the solution by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Excuse me for being sane here, but why does he not sell the lithium to finance the battery production infrastructure? Then he would not need any international investment.

    3. Re:so glad for the solution by AlecC · · Score: 1

      It requires a huge mine, ore purifiers if not smelters, roads and railways to be built, To get small amounts of lithium from half way up a mountain to a port where it can be shipped in quantity to battery manufacturers requires investment of the order of billions of dollars, which Bolivia doesn't have, plus mining and technology skills it doesn't have. You need the investment to product the lithium before you can sell it. And potential investors are scared that a sovereign country will either nationalise the mine as soon as it is completed, or increase extraction taxes so it is not profitable enough to repay the investment.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:so glad for the solution by cribera · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Lithium doesn't come from rare earth ores. It's in fact almost on the opposite end of the periodic table, being the first metal (after hydrogen and helium).

      It's mainly found in Bolivia, which is a bit of a problem: Bolivia would like to have a domestic battery industry (higher revenue), instead of exporting raw lithium. The problem? A 20th century socialist for president, who is quite successfully scaring away international investment. As a result, the main exporter is Chile, which has smaller deposits.

      In reality, bolivian government is not allowing transnational companies get the lithium for pennies, as they do in other countries who were servile to transnational power, or as happened in Bolivia before.

      They are investing heavily (Bolivia is still poor, but its economy is growing steadily, while other countries were affected by the world crisis) in their own R&D, and they consider that no matter how long it takes for them to get everything going on, it's better than the alternative that letting trasnational companies get the lionshare of the profits.

      Think about it, 2 alternatives for Bolivia.

      A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.

      B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.

      They chose A, wisely IMO. In fact, that example should be followed by more poor countries, isn't this a good way to stop corporations greed to keep them in poverty while they earn huge profits on the resources of the country?

    5. Re:so glad for the solution by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I get that, I just thought they could sell the raw ore, and from their bootstrap their way to full battery production. Sell X ore futures, use cash to build road, sell more ore use cash to build refinery, and so on.

    6. Re:so glad for the solution by AlecC · · Score: 2

      Futures might work - again, if you trust the government. I don't think Bolivia would expect to get to battery production in the foreseeable future: this obviously requires the kind of huge scale precision operation perfected by the Far east producers such as Panasonic. If it were simple enough, there would be factories all over the world. But I think it is too complex for a third world country. The fact is, it requires billions, and years, just to extract the ore,

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    7. Re:so glad for the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily, the U.S. has just taken ownership of a country with vast lithium reserves! I hope they remember who got them on their feet.

    8. Re:so glad for the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now wait until a Mr Rich from Zurich or a Mr Wolfowitz from Washington will organize a little uprising against these evil plans ! Sure as hell Obama-puppet will drop a few smart bombs in support.

    9. Re:so glad for the solution by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.

      B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.

      Or maybe C) Zero pennies ever, if some other battery tech replaces Li-ion before they get spun up.

      The smart move would be to sell lithium now for its raw material value while setting up battery production for the future. Don't leave money on the table now while preparing to step up the food chain.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:so glad for the solution by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      "they consider that no matter how long it takes for them to get everything going on, it's better than the alternative that letting trasnational companies get the lionshare of the profits".
      That's no precisely true. If the demand for lithium dries up, say if an alternative source arrives or lithium is no longer required in such great quantities, then they might miss the boat and end up with absolutely nothing.
      In that case, there's a possible C) zero pennies now, hoping on profits in the future but tech outraces them.

    11. Re:so glad for the solution by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If the Bolivians decided the expropriate the Lithium when the delivery date came due what could the victim do about it? The Bolivians would just say they were taking it back from thieves.

      Nobody in their right mind trusts a government once they start expropriating. Fuck that. Nobody in their right mind trusts a government.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:so glad for the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.canadalithium.com/s/Lithium.asp

    13. Re:so glad for the solution by cribera · · Score: 1

      A) Zero pennies now, for getting big profits in the future by controlling its own Lithium production.

      B) Small profits now, letting the corporations get the lionshare forever.

      Or maybe C) Zero pennies ever, if some other battery tech replaces Li-ion before they get spun up.

      The smart move would be to sell lithium now for its raw material value while setting up battery production for the future. Don't leave money on the table now while preparing to step up the food chain.

      For poor countries with a lot of precedents of transnational greedy corporations getting the lionshare of their resources for pennies, wouldn't that C option (zero pennies) be an affordable risk to take, if there is a chance to break the vicius circle most poor countries are trapped in?

      At least for oil, there has been a lot of talk about supposed technologies that would replace the oil need, nothing more than hot air.

      And even if the remote C possibility arrives (I'd say it is more likely that they would find new technological uses for Lithium, than to lithium become useless), just not allowing the greedy corrupt corporations get away this time, would be worth the move, isn't it?

    14. Re:so glad for the solution by swillden · · Score: 1

      But why not take the money you can get now, while tooling up? In fact, use the cash you get from selling lithium to fund construction of battery manufacturing industry. There's no good reason to accept the risk of C, unless your lithium resources are so slight that you'll deplete them before you can start making batteries, but that's not the case.

      No, Bolivia's just squandering its opportunities to no benefit.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:so glad for the solution by cribera · · Score: 1

      But why not take the money you can get now, while tooling up? In fact, use the cash you get from selling lithium to fund construction of battery manufacturing industry. There's no good reason to accept the risk of C, unless your lithium resources are so slight that you'll deplete them before you can start making batteries, but that's not the case.

      No, Bolivia's just squandering its opportunities to no benefit.

      Because the money is already being invested, but using bolivian's money (even money from country's international reserve) and bolivian workers (scientists and support staff), without the need to give corporations the lionshare and/or the control.

      I repeat, the 'money' to get, would not change the bolivian situation (as happened before, where even the oil & gas money were pennies, compared to the country needs, while corporations got the lionshare).

      So, it was better to take the change of the C scenario (very slim chance, imo), than to keep repeating the mistakes of the past, regarding dealing with greedy transnational corporations.

    16. Re:so glad for the solution by swillden · · Score: 1

      I don't see how selling lithium to foreign corporations gives them "control".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:so glad for the solution by cribera · · Score: 1

      I don't see how selling lithium to foreign corporations gives them "control".

      Selling raw lithium would also be repeating former mistakes (not only letting them take control of the business).

      That's why they are trying really hard to have the whole business in Bolivia, with the least foreing involvement as possible.

      And if there's foreign involvement, it will be under strict conditions, getting sure that the bolivians won't be screwed again, as happened in the past.

      I really don't see what's wrong with such approach.

    18. Re:so glad for the solution by swillden · · Score: 1

      Avoiding foreign investment and involvement makes sense (in some situations, likely including this one). Ignoring a potential short-term revenue stream does not.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:so glad for the solution by cribera · · Score: 1

      Avoiding foreign investment and involvement makes sense (in some situations, likely including this one). Ignoring a potential short-term revenue stream does not.

      The country has the funding for the project, the 'short-term revenue' is not free of hassle and/or potential problems for the long term vision they have.

      For bolivians, it's by far the lesser of 2 evils, to wait until they have everything in place. even if it means sacrificing short-term urges, than to rush in selling raw materials, without added value, repeating some (if not all) the mistakes of the past. The long-term vision is winning, and it's a bad thing for corporations, a double good is achieved.

  29. Introducing Tesla-X battery company by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cause this seems to be the way he solves these kinds of problems.

  30. no, flux capacitors by swschrad · · Score: 1

    and the speedometer has to be marked -2000 to +10,000 years, not in mph

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
    1. Re:no, flux capacitors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the fuel gauge in henries. IDK, inductive energy storage gets a little weird. It's hard to prevent parasitic coupling.

  31. Perspective is important by wchin · · Score: 5, Informative

    The lithium ion 18650 cylindrical cell production has been dropping as laptop demand has dropped and as laptops are moving to lithium polymer flat pack batteries.

    Panasonic/Sanyo has had to close factories. Originally, Panasonic's plants that were acquired from Sanyo were supposed to be able to produce 300 million cells in their Suminoe plant in Osaka, Japan in just stage 1.

    http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800603184_765245_NT_5f784554.HTM

    That plant alone, running at full stage 1 capacity could produce enough batteries for 40,000 85kWh Model S's. The demand from Tesla is strong enough that they are expanding production again:

    http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-21/news/41433228_1_lithium-ion-batteries-production-line#

    However, it really isn't the Model S or Model X that will have the issue, or even the initial production of whatever Gen 3 car that is coming. The big issue is making enough batteries for millions of EVs, and that will take some planning for the necessary expansion.

    1. Re:Perspective is important by Spoke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The big issue is making enough batteries for millions of EVs, and that will take some planning for the necessary expansion.

      Luckily all the big manufacturers have been building battery plants - the problem is that automobile manufacturers haven't been building good enough cars around those proposed battery packs to fully utilize those factories.

      A few examples:

      Nissan / AESC: Finished a large battery plant earlier this year in Tennessee thanks to DOE loan. Currently only supplies batteries for the Nissan LEAF (24 kWh battery pack), which sells about 1,600 / month or 20,000 / year in the USA. Maximum capacity of the plant when fully ramped up is claimed to be around 150,000 / year or over 12,000 / month.

      LG Chem: Finished a large battery plant last year in Michigan thanks to DOE loan. Unfortunately, has been sitting idle for some time, though is finally starting to produce batteries for the Chevrolet Volt (16.5 kWh battery pack). Maximum capacity of the plant is claimed to be around 60,000 / year, currently the Volt is selling about 1,600 / month or 20,000 / year in the USA.

      A123: Finished a large battery plant in 2010 in Michigan thanks to DOE loan. Capable of 30,000 battery packs/year. Unfortunately a very large bad bad of batteries delivered to Fisker and Fisker's demise also lead to A123's demise whose assets were bought out. Still operating, and delivering batteries for the Chevrolet Spark EV (20 kWh battery pack). Unfortunately the Spark EV is a low volume vehicle so far only available in a few markets. Launched late June, only sold 130 through July (August sales numbers should be out soon).

      Anyway - my point is that there is plenty of supply out there for lithium batteries right now - there are more plants than just the ones mentioned here - both in the USA and abroad. The competition is tough (see A123's bankruptcy and others, too) so despite low interest loans manufacturers are going under. What's needed is a few more plug-ins with a bit more appear - either more utility or lower price.

      Both Nissan / GM / Tesla have shown that the public will buy electric cars if they are good products and priced right.

      Nissan says they are actually selling all the LEAFs they can make and are currently capacity constrained after a big price drop for the '13 model - they are apparently being conservative in ramping up production capability. Inventory levels support their claims. If Nissan could get at least 25% more range into the car (and perhaps a more neutral package) without increasing the price, I think they could easily sell quite a few more EVs.

      GM needed to drop the price of the Volt - they finally did so for the '14 model and they are saying as a result August will be their best sales result yet. Inventory levels support their claims. If GM could get the Volt drivetrain into a slightly roomier vehicle without sacrificing much efficiency and keeping the price down, I think they could easily sell quite a few more PHEVs.

      Tesla has finally worked through most of the backlog of their USA orders (there's only so many people who can afford $70k+ cars) and are starting to ship product to Europe. They are expecting to stay at maximum capacity for the foreseeable future (over 2,000 Model Ss / month).

    2. Re:Perspective is important by wchin · · Score: 1

      There is an issue for Tesla that a lot of the capacity you are mentioning is not applicable to solving Tesla's requirements. Between different chemistries and form factors, Tesla will require different plants to ramp up. We also don't know the battery specifics for anything beyond the Model S/X. However, Panasonic alone was expecting to make 600 million 18650 cells in the Suminoe Plant through phase 2. So Panasonic will probably be able to supply Telsa through 2017, but it's through 2020 that becomes the issue. Of course, that's a lot of time to ramp.

      As for demand, there are almost 6 million households that have an annual income of $150k+ in the U.S. alone. So there is likely roughly 1 million of these households looking to buy a car in any particular year.

  32. Switch tech - slightly by DCFusor · · Score: 1

    Just use the design for the Chevy Volt. Had mine two years, beat the snot out of it - and it's as good as new, or actually, slightly better in range. GM has that all worked out re temp/charge/balancing control - and as a result, both would get cheaper due to volume. And yes, I'm about to test-drive a Tesla, since my solar system has the extra juice to handle both.

    --
    Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    1. Re:Switch tech - slightly by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I prefer a Photo Voltaic power system to a Solar System. They are far more compact and you dont have to deal with the plants constantly spinning and upsetting the neighbors.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Switch tech - slightly by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so surely you made sure that volt doesn't just pack the same cheapo cells into their cellpacks?

      I just thought before this article that they would have used something a bit more custom... but if the plants had overproduction I guess that's why they went with what they went with.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Switch tech - slightly by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      It does not look like GM wants a cheaper Volt. They are going the other way with a Volt Cadillac.

      The question I have is why anyone would pay Tesla prices for a Volt in Cadillac clothes. Also I doubt there is a big crossover between the Rapper and Granny sets with the Hybrid/Electric car buyer set.

      A cheaper Volt would be nice though, I could afford one but I can't justify spending that much on a car to myself.

    4. Re:Switch tech - slightly by afidel · · Score: 1

      The Volt has a much smaller pack (17kwh vs 85) since it can fall back on the ICE for extended range.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    5. Re:Switch tech - slightly by sshir · · Score: 1
      Actually it's not "as good as new".

      What's happening is that degradation is being hidden from you. Volt's battery is much bigger than needed for the purpose - they over-provisioned it because cycling of a smaller battery kills it really fast.

      So as the battery degrades, cycles start to grow at faster and faster rate (even when you're keeping the exact same driving routine). So when that point comes that the car can no longer hide the overall state of the battery, your electric range will start dropping like a rock.

    6. Re:Switch tech - slightly by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Yes, the Volt uses much larger cells. It has strings of 96 in series (about 360v) and three strings like that in parallel. There are ~~ 120 small embedded processors controlling the thing. There's a cooling fin (and a whole battery cooling loop that's separate from the rest of the car) for each set of 3 cells, resistors that can be switched in and out to balance the charge among each cell in the three strings, a bunch of fancy stuff in that box - along with relays that shut it off to the outside world the instant anything trips the alarm; the relays run from the 12v system the Volt also has (with a 175 amp switcher off the big guys to keep that charged) because it cost less in $ and weight to use standard 12v accessories for - power steering - hydraulic brakes (yup, it has a pump) heat, A/C, and anything else that would normally be dependent on shaft power, because tthe engine doesn't run often (I'm showing 209 mpg on my 2012 so far, and the electricity is ALL coming from my solar system).
      .

      Yes, the Volt has a dinkier battery capacity than the Tesla. For one thing, for longevity, they only let you use 10.5kwh out of a nominal 16 kwh. That's why they think they can afford an 8 year/100k mile type warranty on it. But duh, you can make it bigger, use more than one, and so on. The Tesla actually gets more miles/kWh than the Volt unless you're racing, as well - the Volt is a heavy, solid car, not the latest greatest no money spared lightest car you can make, like the Tesla is.
      .

      (Yes, I'm a very serious electronic engineer {Hence the Volt}...but one who will never buy a car I can't just buy the one I just test drove. When Teslas hit the real street and I can just write a check and drive away - one of them is going to be mine - too much danger putting down that much money and hoping to get one of the "good ones" rather than the "hangover monday" cars - and the wait is excruciating).

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    7. Re:Switch tech - slightly by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      Full cycling of ANY battery kills it quick - not sure what Tesla does with theirs but they'd have the exact same set of issues. FWIW, A123 batteries more or less went out of business due to quality control issues and Fiskar's failure. No, what happens with the Volt is that you wind up putting in a little more to get the 10.5kwh out again. That's all. Eventually, it'll not have the 10.5 left over. Some Li winds up lost to the process, so even that first isn't anywhere close to as bad as lead-acid - and I know - I run solar and have since 1979. I'd KILL to have a battery as good as the Volt one for my home (actually, 2-3 would be nice). Too bad that though GM only charges you $3k for one - you have to turn one in to get that deal. They're keeping mum on what they actually cost.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    8. Re:Switch tech - slightly by sshir · · Score: 1

      That's not what I was talking about. Full discharge is a bad and, well, extreme case. No, when people talk about cycles, they mean how many times battery supplied it's rated amount of energy. For example, if you drive to work 5 times a week and each time discharge 20% of your battery, you do 1 cycle a week (regardless if you plug it in every night or not).

      This does not apply to Teslas for very simple reason: their battery is HUGE. So for the same daily routine, they will accrue 1 cycle not in a week but in a month (same amount of energy is now only 5% of the capacity)! Thus they burn through li-ion cycles at a much, much slower pace (and that's why, again, your Volt's battery is bigger than needed for spec'd performance - to slow down cycling degradation - just re-read my previous comment)

      That the battery's calendar life that is a problem that affects everybody.

    9. Re:Switch tech - slightly by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware of all this, and it's why I don't full-cycle my off grid house batteries (off grid since '79 except for phone/inet). As luck would have it, by the time the Volt's warranty runs out, I'll be 68...and might not care. Till then, new batteries are free to me.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
  33. Re:18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can a manmade masterpiece like the Sistine Chapel, the ethereal elegance of a mathematical equation, even the dance of the heavenly spheres, compare to the beauty of a perfectly crafted troll?

  34. National Geographic Magazine will crush us all by mveloso · · Score: 1

    This article is a classic example of why this sort of reasoning is wrong:

    http://www.jir.com/geographic.html

    "PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE MUST BE IMMEDIATELY STOPPED AT ALL COSTS! This beautiful, educational, erudite, and thoroughly appreciated publication is the heretofore unrecognized instrument of doom which must be erased if we as a country or continent will survive. It is NOT TOO LATE if this warning is heeded!"

  35. The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 by watermark · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure.

    1. Re:The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Have you been to London lately? It seems to be that way.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 by PPH · · Score: 1

      Technology triumphed. Its all been moved on-line.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  36. That's assuming a lot... by bmo · · Score: 2

    Summary sez that...

    >no assumptions that the situation will ever change except that Tesla will use more batteries:

    FTFS "That assumes no other growth, no next gen model, nada."

    Increased demand will make it profitable for economies of scale in manufacturing to take place, and to make Li cells cheaper, as has happened since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And we'll have more of them.

    FTFA:

    The carmaker's rapid production scale-up has prompted Panasonic to expand capacity, by reopening previously idled plants, while simultaneously committing to build entirely new production lines.

    Well, duh!

    It's not like we're going to run out of Lithium, either. It's recyclable, first and foremost, and it's plentiful.

    Clicking through to the article, it's not at all as sensationalist as the summary even though the article itself contains some BS. The summary says that we're going to suddenly run out because of the demand. No such thing is mentioned in the article itself.

    Invest in battery manufacturers. That's the real take-away from this article. And the summary writer is a douchebag.

    --
    BMO

  37. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by blueg3 · · Score: 1

    They should've fit it with a cubic function to claim an r^2 of 1.

  38. He needs.... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    To build that Ark reactor he wears....

    Or ask Howard Heughes, the real Tony Stark, for his Ark technology.

    Seriously, the #1 problem with electric vehicles is that we have crap power storage systems. If he wants to change the world, stop with flights of fancy and dump ALL his effort into just tripling battery storage capacity and life.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  39. 18650 cells? by Wierdy1024 · · Score: 1

    18650 cells?

    Thats like saying "If everyone bought their house using pennies, we wouldn't have enough pennies!". 18650 cells are ideal for laptops, but for cars, one uses bigger batteries, for which there is more production volume.

    1. Re:18650 cells? by King_TJ · · Score: 1

      Yes, except this is Tesla's unique strategy with electric car production. Musk said he actually did string together a whole bunch of "off the shelf" 18650 batteries, intended for use in laptops originally, in order to assemble a functional electric car power pack at a lower cost than if he designed a specific one for it.

      As time goes on, I expect he will change strategies to having a custom battery pack built for him by someone (similar to what GM has done with the Volt). But at least to get his Tesla S out the door at a competitive price, this was part of his plan.

    2. Re:18650 cells? by PPH · · Score: 2

      Um, like Boeing does on the 787?

      There is some logic to the Tesla design. Or Musk stumbled upon the right way to do things accidentally. 18650 cells, being smaller, have fewer thermal issues than larger cells. More surface area per unit volume makes them easier to cool.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  40. Re: 18,650? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, the R stands for Round, and designates that it's a cylindrical cell. The 0 is just the tenths place, denoting that the cell is 65.0 mm long. I'm sick of this misconception (spread memetically through and from candlepowerforums), could you people please get it right?

  41. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by PoliTech · · Score: 1

    1.21 Jigawatts! Science!!!

  42. Analogy to Apple by necro81 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There was a time when there was this thing called the iPod, and it had a small magnetic hard drive inside it. iPods were really big business - hundreds of millions were made. iPods practically cornered the market for 1.8" hard drives for a while. The world did not end.

    More recently, Apple started producing iPods and, later on, entire freaking phones, tablets, and computers that did away with the spinning magnetic discs in favor of flash memory. Apple sold of lot of those, too, and for a long while has consumed a large fraction of the entire world output of flash memory. Lo and behold: world output increased to match demand.

    If anything, these facile comparisons should give Elon Musk an idea: pre-purchase huge swaths of 18650s as a strategic move, just as Apple has done for flash memory and touchscreens over the years. Doing so would ensure the lowest possible price, a consistent supply chain, and make it harder for competitors to enter the market on equal terms.

    1. Re:Analogy to Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Elon Musk, not being an idiot, has already made a deal with Panasonic for production of the battery cells he will need.

    2. Re:Analogy to Apple by supernova87a · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the thing with storage is that memory density increased by orders of magnitude, and the same previously sized 10GB disk could now store 10TB. Battery storage density doesn't increase very much, aside from changing the chemistry...

    3. Re:Analogy to Apple by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Irrelevant. The world output for flash (and spinning memory) does not tend to be measured in total bytes of storage, but rather in units (i.e., chips or drives) shipped. This makes sense, because in finished goods (i.e., a laptop or cellphone), the number or storage units - hard drive or flash memory chips - tends to stay constant across generations, even though the capacity of that storage increases. A purchasing manager at Apple doesn't say "I need to ship 1 million iPhones next month, how many GB of flash should I order?"; instead, he asks "how many chips do I need?"

      A chip fab may be shipping 10x the TB of flash as a few years ago, but the number of chips being shipped follows a more prosaic trends - typically following a learning/experience curve. Not coincidentally, the output of a battery production plant follows similar trends.

    4. Re:Analogy to Apple by necro81 · · Score: 1

      And Elon Musk, not being an idiot, ought to know that relying on a single supplier for the one crucial piece of hardware that Tesla can't make on its own is a strategic liability. One well-placed earthquake could halt Tesla's production line for months, and possibly sink the company in the process. He can't rely on just any ol' supplier - quality matters an awful lot for batteries in this application (just ask Boeing) - but he would do well to figure out where else he can get 18650 cells.

  43. Re:18,650? Really? by hattig · · Score: 1

    The first linked article mentions them explicitly:

    Tesla is the only carmaker to use small "commodity" 18650 cells for plug-in vehicles; Nissan, General Motors, BMW, and others use larger-format cells, which contain up to 10 times the energy in each cell.

    The issue is whether there is a production limit for "18650" cells, or if only enough are made that would be sold, and now Tesla need more, more will be made.

    Given that ultimately they're all Li-ion, just in different formats, it's not a real issue as long as Tesla have managed their suppliers expectations.

    The carmaker's rapid production scale-up has prompted Panasonic to expand capacity, by reopening previously idled plants, while simultaneously committing to build entirely new production lines.

    Yes.

    No real story, certainly no panic.

  44. li-ion batteries suck by Xicor · · Score: 1

    lithium ion batteries are awful. currently available, there are much better battery types out there, like the si-anode battery, among others. the future,however, is not batteries, it is supercapacitors made out of graphene. there wont really be a huge market for electric cars until supercapacitors are available, because they hold a much larger charge and build up storage 100x faster than a battery. with graphene supercapacitors, electric cars will be able to go much further without recharging than a normal car would go without refueling.

    1. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The demand for electric cars is already here, and the market is growing now.

      90% of drivers require a range greater than 50 miles less than once or twice a year.

      The perceived necessity of range is largely a product of applied psychology (propaganda).

      The first vehicle (daily commuter) of almost every household could easily be electric with current tech (with range less than a Tesla). Single vehicle households can supplement with rental vehicles on rare occasions where long distance travel is necessary.

    2. Re:li-ion batteries suck by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I think how fast you can charge a battery (or super-capacitor) is really limited by the charger/power-source anyway. Sure the super capacitor might be able to handle being fully charged in 30 seconds, but what would the charging cable look like for that. And even then, it would only be an option at quick charge stations. Charging at home would be limited by the amount of power supplied to your house. Which is actually quite low. Swapping the battery for an already charged would probably be the only choice for actually getting fully charged batteries in under 10 minutes.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:li-ion batteries suck by flink · · Score: 1

      The first vehicle (daily commuter) of almost every household could easily be electric with current tech (with range less than a Tesla). Single vehicle households can supplement with rental vehicles on rare occasions where long distance travel is necessary.

      That's great if you live in the suburbs and have a garage where you can plug the car in in overnight. Until municipalities start installing metered outlets in on-street overnight parking spaces, electric is unfortunately impractical for millions of people.

      That and the fact that the model S was 4x the price of my bottom-of-the-line Hyundai made it a non-starter for me.

    4. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The Model S is not meant to be comparable to a bottom of the line Hyundai. Neither are the top end Audi and BMW in the same class of the Model S.

      The Nissan Leaf is a lot closer, coming in as low as $21k (after tax rebates), and still offers range in excess of the regular needs of 90% of the population.

      You can:
      a: run an extension chord out your window to trickle charge.
      b: demand that you get metered outlets on the street.
      c: use a rapid charging service.
      d: demand that your employer offer charging in the employee parking lot as an employment perk.
      e: move.
      f: recognize that you are still greatly outnumbered by all the people that do have access to overnight power reasonably close to where they park their car because they don't live in low rent housing projects.

    5. Re:li-ion batteries suck by afidel · · Score: 1

      Nope, they won't have greater range, at least with anything so far developed, the recent research study that showed they could build a graphene supercapacitor showed density similar to the bottom end of lead-acid batteries, nowhere near Lion, let alone gasoline or diesel.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Xicor · · Score: 1

      charging a battery takes a long time and a large amount of power because batteries are super innefficient. they dont hold a "charge" they use the electric charge to cause a chemical reaction. the chemical reaction builds up and then can be reversed for a small amount of the input charge. this is why they suck and only have like 9 hrs of battery life for a laptop at most

    7. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Xicor · · Score: 1

      what part of "in the future" do you not understand

    8. Re:li-ion batteries suck by afidel · · Score: 1

      What part of your proposal is fairy magic until someone builds a lab specimen showing this theoretical capacity and then turns it into an actual product do you not understand?

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    9. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Xicor · · Score: 1

      some things just make technological sense. 15 years ago, you would have thought the idea of a smart phone was fairy magic.

    10. Re:li-ion batteries suck by afidel · · Score: 1

      No I wouldn't, I had a Palm Pilot 15 years ago =)
      More importantly I try to keep up with material science research to get an idea of where things will be in 10-15 years, and there's no supercap material in development that's going to replace fossil fuels in that timeframe, at best they'll be used as part of the regenerative system in hybrids.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:li-ion batteries suck by Xicor · · Score: 1

      are you also going to tell me that dna data storage and quantum computers are fairy magic too?

  45. Supply and Demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only there was some way that Tesla's demand for lithium batteries could signal battery producers to increase production or signal Tesla to use less batteries. :/

  46. can't it be taken from seawater? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    Although lithium is widely distributed on Earth, it does not naturally occur in elemental form due to its high reactivity.[3] The total lithium content of seawater is very large and is estimated as 230 billion tonnes, where the element exists at a relatively constant concentration of 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm),[37][38] or 25 micromolar;[39] higher concentrations approaching 7 ppm are found near hydrothermal vents.[38]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium

    is it economically viable to isolate it from the sea?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:can't it be taken from seawater? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I am going to go with... no. 0.14 to 0.25 ppm is a ridiculously low concentration. And its going to be mixed up with the much more common sodium and potassium if you are trying to chemically separate it.

    2. Re:can't it be taken from seawater? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      agreed

      however, the devil is in the details

      the price point may be too high, for all time

      or the price point may be too high, for now, but later, when lithium is in higher demand, it might make sense

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  47. There goes my Ecig batteries by danknight48 · · Score: 1

    I'll have to buy a petrol version.

    Tesla really needs to give up on electric cars. Unless, they can prove their CO2 footprint is lower than building and running a petrol car.
    Pigs might fly....

    1. Re:There goes my Ecig batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt your ecig uses a 18650 li-ion cell, its far too big, maybe if you had an ecigar...

      All Tesla needs to do to keep selling electric cars is to keep making a profit on them, and there is enough demand for the cars they make to do that. When you're as successful as Elon Musk, then maybe people will actually listen to what you think Tesla should be doing.

  48. So I should keep my stock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've had stock in battery making company since 2009. So I guess I should hold it and sell it in 2016! Huge Profit for me! Yea!

    1. Re:So I should keep my stock by Gold__Plated · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is there are plenty of ASX listed companies that do a lot to contribute to the raw materials of these batteries but just loose money Such as Galaxy Resources and Lynas Corporation. https://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX%3ALYC&ei=CP8lUrirI4elkgWu-AE https://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX%3AGXY&hl=en&ei=P_8lUvCZB4WpkgXQlwE I guess its a lot like farmers and the supermarkets, those at the top get the money.

  49. Computer anology for car... by tekrat · · Score: 1

    Wait wait... You just made a computer analogy for a car issue. This is a complete reversal of Slashdot policy. I'm afraid your userID will have to be suspended.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  50. Scottish, not English by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume you're referring to Adam Smith.

  51. How about some real innovation Elon? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 0

    All Elon has done is put a battery into a nice attractive container and sells it as a high-end luxury car. There is absolutely NOTHING innovative about the Tesla cars.

    Elon needs to step out of the fantasy world he has created in his mind and start applying some of that supposed "innovative thinking" towards solving some real problems with electric vehicles. The battery technology today is not an appropriate solution for the future of electric powered vehicles.

    Instead of pie-in-the-sky ideas like Hyperloop, Elon should invest his billions into coming out with a new generation of batteries that:

    a) don't rob the world of a specific limited resource to produce, need to make it from carbon, period, we have more than enough, use up what we have dumped into the atmosphere as a start.
    b) has a much higher energy density than found in today's batteries, extends range and delivery of power comparable to combustion engines.
    c) are quicker to charge, ideally 5 minutes for a long enough charge that matters
    d) are significantly cheaper to produce, we don't want $20k batteries that have a limited lifetime.

    I mean, its been easy to just take existing technology and repackage it as a luxury car, and maybe guys like Elon are nothing more than snake oil salesmen, but if this guy wants to "save the planet" like he thinks he is doing, then an X-Prize for a new generation of battery technology is what both Tesla and the planet needs if we want to move forward with electric vehicles.

    This is the problem with ALL green thinkers, they see a single minded solution and don't realize or understand the logistics of it in terms of scaling up to make an actual environmental difference or what other side-effect impact it has on the environment. The world moving away from oil and towards something more difficult and limited such as Lithium is definitely not a solution; we would have to scrap the earth bare and drain the oceans to make enough Lithium to match the power storage equivalent of what is found in oil today, and then you still need to make the power to charge them. I am so frustrated when some green thinker thinks we need to stop using oil and then offers stupid narrow-minded solutions like solar or battery power vehicles and doesn't understand even a modicum of the logistics involved in making that happen. I am all for an alternative, but come up with a solution that works, not a vapid pipe-dream.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:How about some real innovation Elon? by Powercntrl · · Score: 2

      Elon is a successful businessman specifically because he's selling the idea that if you buy his $70k car, you're doing your part to help move humanity towards a more sustainable future. It's exactly the same reason some people with extra money to burn buy organic foods. The reason he doesn't get attacked more often on Slashdot, is because people here really want to believe the line of shit about his company producing an affordable car at some indeterminate point in the future, when economy of scale makes it feasible.

      --

      ---
      DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
    2. Re:How about some real innovation Elon? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Elon is a successful businessman specifically because he's selling the idea that if you buy his $70k car, you're doing your part to help move humanity towards a more sustainable future. It's exactly the same reason some people with extra money to burn buy organic foods. The reason he doesn't get attacked more often on Slashdot, is because people here really want to believe the line of shit about his company producing an affordable car at some indeterminate point in the future, when economy of scale makes it feasible.

      It's a lot simpler than that.
      Musk is all image and no substance, with billions of undeserved dollars and a rapidly expanding reality distortion field and cult of zombie followers.
      Basically, people want a new Steve Jobs character, so they latched their suck/blow tubes onto Musk and inflated his ego and wallet to the fucking stratosphere. Now he can do no wrong. Absurd ideas such as the Hyperloop get mass media attention and morons all over cry about how it would be so great if the "rest" of society would just wake up and do it. He gets praise for being a visionary of some sort when his main claim to fame is PayPal - an evil bank that skips out on all regulation by saying "We're not a bank, LOL!".

    3. Re:How about some real innovation Elon? by Valdrax · · Score: 2

      Instead of pie-in-the-sky ideas like Hyperloop, Elon should invest his billions into coming out with a new generation of batteries that:

      a) don't rob the world of a specific limited resource to produce, need to make it from carbon, period, we have more than enough, use up what we have dumped into the atmosphere as a start.
      b) has a much higher energy density than found in today's batteries, extends range and delivery of power comparable to combustion engines.
      c) are quicker to charge, ideally 5 minutes for a long enough charge that matters
      d) are significantly cheaper to produce, we don't want $20k batteries that have a limited lifetime.

      You call Hyperloop "pie-in-the-sky," and then you demand all this from batteries? What do you expect him to be, a wizard? Do you think throwing money at the problem will just magically make all this happen?

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    4. Re:How about some real innovation Elon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am betting on Wall(Main) Street. Wall(Main) Street is betting on Elon Musk. I am betting on Elon Musk!

    5. Re:How about some real innovation Elon? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      All Elon has done is put a battery into a nice attractive container and sells it as a high-end luxury car.

      Toyota paid $100 million to have Telsa build drive-trains for them for use in the RAV4 EV. Doesn't sound to me like what you claim is all that Elon has done.. sounds to me like there is a commercial demand for the Tesla drive-train, and that Patents that Telsa owns on their own drive-train prevent others from producing a competitive product.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  52. Pure FUD by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 1

    I'm sure _no one_ at Tesla has gotten someone "on the horn" and planned out their capacity for the next several years. Also of course production cannot be expanded at any battery plant or new plants built, because of the oh-so-precious resource that is lithium, one of the most abundant elements on earth, right behind Carbon and Chlorine.

    Why is this trash on slashdot?

    --
    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
  53. Sounds Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Excuse me for being sane here, but why does he not sell the lithium to finance the battery production infrastructure? Then he would not need any international investment.

    Sounds simple doesn't it. These things always do. But, reality is a bitch. Here's that rather circular process that is always there.

    • Insufficient funds to initiate large scale mining. Foreign investment or mining companies required.
    • Moneies earned from foreign investment and sale of resources is wasted and or stolen via corruption and the remainder is squandered by the socialist system.
    • Government nationalizes mining industry planning to make billions selling domestically mined resources to fund domestic manufacturing build out.
    • Incompetence leads to rapid decline of mining infrastructure. Corruption and waste lead to further decline and squandering of profits.
    • Corrupt government is replaced. 'It's time for a change'.
    • New "improved" government continues previous process and starts eying other industries as a "fix".
    • Foreign investment in other industries see their own risk and start pulling out.
    • Economy tanks.
    • Government is replaced. Again.
    • Same shit different day.
    • Organized crime and drug cartels start capitalizing on the poverty/unrest/lawlessness.
    • Deeper we go.
    • Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

    See most of South and a bit of Central America for specific examples. Brazil seems to be an exception, Venezuela seems to be a poster-child.

  54. way better idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    They should just develop their own vastly superior battery technology instead of buying other people's cells. All they'd have to do is read Slashdot and call up everyone behind every battery vaporware story and buy their patents and/or company. Then they could make superior batteries that are lighter and better than anyone else. They could either lease those new patents out or directly make battery cells for other companies like golf cart manufacturers or laptop battery makers and they'll probably make more of a profit on that than on their cars.

  55. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by MightyYar · · Score: 1

    He also throws out 2 data points to make the curve!

    He jumps to the conclusion that a car with 400 mile range will require $10,000 in batteries in 2017. Fair enough. He goes on to say that means there will be no reason to own a gasoline car if electric continues to cost 0.03 $/mile and gasoline 0.20 $/mile. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong, but that $10,000 premium still buys you almost 60,000 miles worth of gas! For my city driver that is over 12 years payback period, for my minivan it is around 6 years, but I haven't seen an electric minivan yet. If, God forbid, you have to replace the pack, you start all over again.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  56. Meanwhile, back in reality by Powercntrl · · Score: 1

    The worldwide supply of oil is being sucked up by people who can't afford a $70k electric car.

    --

    ---
    DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
  57. Need more work on the salt batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then we could make the cars using NACL batteries at a far cheaper cost, manufacture the batteries right next to a molten salt power plant - put the whole thing together in the salt flats. Cheap materials for power generation, power generators used to cook/cool the salt at the right rates, make power to run the battery manufacturing plant all at the same time.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-sodium-air-battery-rechargeable-advantages-li-air.html - Making Sodium Air batteries using properly crystalized salt from a molten salt power plant has many possibilities...

    I could even see where a desalinization plant that would produce drinkable water, extract the salts, purify the NACL, extract the NA needed for the batteries, etc...

    1. Re:Need more work on the salt batteries by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      What do you do with all the excess chlorine?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  58. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A low-milage driver is almost always better off with the cheapest possible car price, and a higher cost per mile. Buy a used crown vic from your local taxi or municipal auction and accept the bad mileage and throw the car away every couple of years.

    At 12k/miles/year - something that lease owners fight to stay under, it's 5 years on the button to pay the 10k electric price difference if that's the premium.

  59. Non-story by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    "That assumes no other growth, no next gen model, nada."

    So in other words, this is a non-story. Hey, if I make patently false assumptions, I bet I could come up with some pretty scary "news" stories, too!

  60. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by msauve · · Score: 1

    Gigawatts. "jigga" is the correct pronunciation of the SI prefix, despite the widespread use of gigg-a (hard g).

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  61. In line at Costco by sstern · · Score: 1

    He better not be in line in front of me at Costco. Just sayin.

    --
    --Steve
  62. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Jigga" is not THE correct pronunciation, it's an acceptable but exceedingly uncommon one.

  63. I wouldn't worry by RobinH · · Score: 2

    If there's one thing business is exceedingly good at, it's ramping up production when a big customer says they want to buy lots of your product. All Tesla has to do is sign a contract guaranteeing a minimum buy.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  64. Peak Oil, shithead. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you for indicating that despite it existing, you have no fucking clue what it meant.

    1. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      So what, you think the materials for Li-Ion batteries are endless?

    2. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      No, but this isn't about resource exhaustion, it's about current production levels.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    3. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Batteries don't use up their working materials, speaking generally.

    4. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      No, but this isn't about resource exhaustion,

      Yet.

      Lithium is one of the rarer metals, in commercially extractable concentrations. A crustal abundance of about 20ppm is comparable to the abundance of fine diamond in a good quality ore. Clearly, ore bodies presently being worked are more concentrated than that.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    5. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      When do you think Li depletion will limit battery production? If the answer is a decade or more, even with significant increases in output, then I suspect TFA will prove wrong about a near-term price spike due to production shortfall.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    6. Re:Peak Oil, shithead. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      When do you think Li depletion will limit battery production?

      I honestly don't know. I think that production is fairly well concentrated into a small number of mines, which doesn't auger well for being able to expand production rapidly, but I really don't know about the ultimate levels of reserves, or their distribution.

      Reading the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium#Production), it's not clear whether there is likely to be a problem or not. It's not encouraging that half of the reserves are in one country, but the article reports several other recent major discoveries. Given that estimating reserves isn't exactly a precise science, it's probably good that a number of other resources are being developed.

      I'd lose sleep over something else.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  65. Lithium. What, do you think, is the name root? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Earth.

    That's right, lithium is FUCKING COMMON.

    And we dig out 30 billion tons of coal and oil a year, so I think we have some headroom for fucking lithium.

    Shit, it just HAS to be doom and gloom alarmism if it's going to be bad for electric cars.

    1. Re:Lithium. What, do you think, is the name root? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Handbook of Lithium and Natural Calcium: "Lithium is a comparatively rare element, although it is found in many rocks and some brines, but always in very low concentrations. There are a fairly large number of both lithium mineral and brine deposits but only comparatively few of them are of actual or potential commercial value. Many are very small, others are too low in grade."

      Places lithium is being mined have on the order 20-100 ppm by weight of lithium in the rocks being mined, and the few highly productive places currently producing it are extracting it from salt flat brine instead.

    2. Re:Lithium. What, do you think, is the name root? by eliphalet · · Score: 1

      Maybe Elon Musk will have to buy Bolivia.

    3. Re:Lithium. What, do you think, is the name root? by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've read there is up to 28 million tonnes (depending on who you ask) of lithium available for commercially viable mining, and the total quantity of lithium on the planet being something like 3 million billion tons (only a fraction is actually accessible, of course). Lithium is about as plentiful as nickel.

      If we go with a conservative 8 grams of Li per 100 Watt-Hours of battery capacity, that 28 million tonnes translates to 355,000,000 megawatt-hours of storage - Enough for nearly six billion 60kWh Tesla vehicles. That's roughly five times as many vehicles that are thought to be on the road on the entire plant today.

      Granted that only a portion of our lithium production goes to batteries, but even if we consider those other uses there is nothing like a shortage of Lithium on the horizon. The bottleneck is entirely production related.

      Plus, unlike oil, lithium is not consumed when used and can be recycled.
      =Smidge=

  66. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Merriam-Webster dictionary says you're full of crap: the pronunciation guide shows that both the "hard g" and "soft g" are acceptable.

    But if you really want to snicker, find Chris Date's 8th edition database textbook. He has a footnote buried in there about how "giga" is pronounced with a "soft g" and a "long i". (The prefix comes from the Greek "gigas", which may be pronounced that way, so who knows?)

  67. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by PoliTech · · Score: 1
    It might have helped if the quote had been as follows: "one point twenty-one jigowatts!" (Notice the corrected spelling)

    El condensador de fluzo!

  68. 18650 cells? Really, Elon? by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Opinion: I think it's ridiculous to use AA form-factor cells to power an automobile. I know for a fact that large, high-capacity Li+ cells are made specifically for vehicle use. Yes, I understand his rationale for using them -- but I think Tesla should transition towards the larger cells at some point.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    1. Re:18650 cells? Really, Elon? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Turns out to be a better idea than you thought. Larger cells are notably harder to cool, as Boeing can attest to their (very very expensive) sorrow. Small cylinders packed into a rectangular array have lots and lots of easily exploitable air gaps, good for cooling. I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla stays with the 18650 cell size for quite some time, even after it falls completely out of favor with laptop manufacturers when more of them start using lithium polymer flatpack cells instead.

      If Tesla has problems with cell interconnect reliability, then I'd expect them to move to larger cells, but that's a problem I've never heard of them having. Seems it's not at all difficult to reliably connect 7000 cells. Surprising, perhaps, but it's working for them.

  69. Basic Market Forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good, God, people. As a product gets more popular, the prices can be raised, (as you can sell to the most motivated buyers). Higher prices mean more producers can enter the market. There might be a lull, where's it becomes difficult to get Lithium, but the markets will adapt. It's like referring to the inevitable enveloping darkness that is approaching hour after after.

    It's called nightfall, and the antidote is turning on a light.

  70. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by msauve · · Score: 1

    At least in the US, NIST, the official standard bearer for all things SI, says you're wrong. "Gigg-a" is simply the ignorant pronunciation, popularized by the same people who though it a good idea to incorrectly use SI prefixes for units based on powers of two (1024 = k, etc.).

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  71. Supply can come first. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    The way capitalism works is demand first, then supply shows up. It can't even be done the other way around.

    Sure it can. Inventing demand for a waste product is a great way to create new markets. Examples include whey protein as a byproduct of cheese production, biodiesel from waste fryer oil, the huge demand for a process to turn cellulose into ethanol, the invention of silage for animal feed in the 19th century, scrap metal reselling, gasoline and petroleum jelly as byproducts of refining oil into kerosene, etc. These are all examples where supply came first and demand came later.

    Also, marketing can be a huge creator of demand for products people didn't even know they wanted. For a humorous, non-scholarly article on that, check out 5 Basic Facts of Life (Were Made Up By Marketing Campaigns). While it doesn't focus on the creation of markets as much as their radical expansion, The 7 Sneakiest Ways Corporations Manipulated Human Behavior is also good for a read on the subject. (Take with a grain of salt; both articles are from a comedy site that doesn't exactly cite its references.)

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  72. Wake up you Morons. by hackus · · Score: 1

    All we need to do is continue what we are doing.

    Send Al'Queda into regions with resources we want, properly fund them to do terrorist attacks here and abroad to keep the money flowing for the bankers and industrialists. That way we can install regimes to get the natural resources of any country for the cheap.

    You don't think for a minute for example that Afghanistan war for the past 10 years is about "People who hate our freedom and liberty.".

    I tend to think it is about this:

      http://news.discovery.com/earth/afghanistan-minerals-lithium.htm

    I mean seriously people. Wake up and smell the coffee. Your getting your balls felt up at the air port, your cities are laying in ruin all for a bunch of bankers, who are printing money for the government to obtain these things.

    No way in hell can we afford 11 carrier groups from just taxes, the dollar is a reserve currency so they can print it to fund all of this stuff.

    When the dollar loses its reserve status, which is in the making, there is going to be a massive correction.

    In my opinion when this happens the government in charge at the time is going to probably set off a Nuke in New York or something dramatic so the event clouds the issue and nobody asks these sorts of questions.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Wake up you Morons. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they currently burn off some nice fireworks in Syria, so that German citizens will be distracted and not vote against the Euro in the next federal elections. Before, they paid the little "I now have a nuke" Kim for the same purpose, when the Euro was in deep shite. That's the only rational explanation for Mr Kim-os rantings. Militarily, he would be evaporated in less than an hour if he actually started a serious war. A single Trident submarine would deal with him and all his minions.

      Sure as hell London and NY benefit from the Euro scam, so they will work (and pay) towards the US lighting up that fire a bit more. The greasy Saudi tyranny again plays their nasty role.

    2. Re:Wake up you Morons. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      London and NY benefit from the Euro scam? So far it's been the Greeks, Italians and Spain that have benefited, but they haven't liked the gravy train slowing down.

      We will see how it works out. It is a race to see which mess explodes first. Euro, Dollar or Renminbi. Capital flight will likely save the last one standing, the other two are fucked. My guess is first the Euro crashes, then the dollar. The Chinese banking system is a huge fucking mess, but they are crooked enough to cover it in the short term.

      The real question is which currency will survive the crash of the euro better. US dollar or Renminbi?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  73. Pure FUD by Khyber · · Score: 1

    " It turns out the massive Model S battery takes almost 2,000 times the number of cells a basic laptop does."

    No fucking shit, Sherlock, given the Model S weighs about 2000x what a typical fucking laptop weighs.

    " At that point, Tesla would require the *entire* existing global capacity for 18650 commodity cells"

    Your link quotes graphs with ZERO production capability. Your rough estimate would be Tesla needing 480 Million 18650 cells just for their vehicles alone. I can guarantee you more than that gets produced (one factory I deal with in China can do 300 million annually by itself. I know of at least six others with an annual capacity of 100 million each. One of the joys of having such a huge coastline and easy access to ocean lithium supplies that us in the USA simply won't do.)

    "What should Elon do? Better get on the horn to Panasonic and Samsung."

    Aren't you just the shill, CARTECHBOY that knows jack about anything other than the shell of the vehicle and knows nothing about the rest of the world involved in such a contraption?

    Come back when you're as deep in global production as I am. Maybe then you'll actually have something worth saying besides shilling and spreading FUD.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  74. Re:18,650? Really? by anethema · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ya. Just in case it isn't obvious, 18650 means 18mm Diameter, 65mm length, and 0 at the end indicates a cylindrical cell. AA batteries are 14500 sized, and CR123's are 16340s.

    I use 18650s and 26650s in all my flashlights. Lithium is cheap, bright, and long lasting compared to AA NiMH. Love em!

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  75. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would appreciate it if you cited a source. I've looked this up before and could not find a definitive preferred pronunciation. English is very much the Swiss Army Knife of languages partly because there is no authority to decree how it is spoken. It is a good thing that many try to impose order and consistency. In the end they will they acquiesce to acknowledging common usage.

  76. Cough Cough Haliburton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a good thing that we discovered one of the world's largest lithium reserves in Afghanistan, worth over one trillion USD http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/afghanistan-mineral-discovery-a-1-trillion-find/2553 [wealthdaily.com]

  77. Different cells than laptops by AaronW · · Score: 1

    While Tesla uses the 18650 form factor the cells ARE NOT the same as laptop cells. Laptop cells typically contain protection circuits for each cell. Tesla maintains protection circuits for each group of cells. Also, Tesla's cells are a slightly different chemistry designed to be more reliable for automotive use. Right now Tesla uses Panasonic to manufacture their custom cells. Each model S and future model X uses up to 7000 cells each.

    In the last earnings call, Elon has stated that they are working on getting more battery production lines online in order to meet their demand. Given that it is a couple of years away, that gives time for the production lines to be built. Tesla is very aware of the problem and has been actively working on it.

    Elon estimated that by the time they come out with their lower cost model (Model E) that they will be using more 18650 cells than all the laptop batteries combined.

    People ask why they use the 18650 form factor as opposed to a larger rectangular form factor and the response is that the 18650 form factor is a lot cheaper and that by using a lot of small cells, the failure of any single cell does not cause any problems (for example, the fires that Boeing had with their 787).

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  78. Pump and Dump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Pump and dump" is a form of microcap stock fraud that involves artificially inflating the price of an owned stock through false and misleading positive statements, in order to sell the cheaply purchased stock at a higher price.

  79. Would not want to make an American job. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In America for Americans to build them.
    Guess Communism is better than trickle down.

  80. Plastics, too. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Sure it can. A process can generate a lot of some material which nobody currently needs. The manufacturer will then go and look for a market which can use this material and try to develop that market.

    That was the case long ago for gasoline, it was a useless by-product for a long time there...it was actually thrown causing some environmental problems, till they could finally figure out a use for the stuff.

    Other examples:
      - Plastics
      - Asphalt
      - "Coal-tar" dies.
      - Liquified Natural Gas from remote oil fields (like the Middle East).

    One of my favorites: Stove Pellets: They're made of sawdust from lumber mills, which used to be disposed of by burning it on site. They can sell them very cheap and still be far ahead of spending money to get rid of them (especially after EPA regs made burning them pricey). As a result, my house heating (in a mild climate place where shipping raises their price substantially) costs me maybe $300-400/year, vs. several thousand if I were still using natural gas. (It's carbon-neutral, too.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  81. There's NOTHING blocking production ramp-up by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    If we extrapolate this curve and assume everything else remains constant, DOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

    Darned right. (The authors seem to think the battery makers won't respond to a market for more batteries by building more batteries. Duh!)

    As I understand it there's NOTHING blocking production ramp-up for Li-Ion batteries except lack of customer demand, which the auto industry is now rectifying. There's nothing exotic or rare in their composition.

    Pretty much ditto for NiMH (except maybe for the price of nickel).

    Henry Ford built a bunch of infrastructure to supply his auto company with necessary materials - including building his own steel mills, power plants, and soybean warehousing and processing operations (for early plastics). Any bets on whether Elon Musk would build his own battery plants if the current industry doesn't make him enough (or gouges him on the prices)?

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  82. Re:And, Li-Ion batteries are improving exponential by Joining+Yet+Again · · Score: 1

    They're not "incorrectly" using an "SI prefix" - they're overloading the meaning of a prefix.

    Sometimes things have more than one meaning. Welcome to human communication!

  83. Re: 18,650? Really? by umghhh · · Score: 1

    give parent more mod points - this is just about what I would have expected from forum at least in part dedicated to technology - giving information in concise form.

  84. Re:18,650? Really? by umghhh · · Score: 1

    It was a good one was it not? It is indeed a rarity to have one working so nicely.

  85. Think critically, please by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    The companies who hold the large-battery patents are only shooting themselves in the foot if their asking price to license their intellectual property is so high that it stifles adoption.

    Generally, owners of intellectual property do not shoot themselves in the foot. They prefer the large revenue stream that accompanies widespread adoption of their IP.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.