Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Could Be Hogging Batteries and Causing a Global Shortage, Says Report (gizmodo.com)

According to a report from the Korea news outlet ETNews, Tesla's solution to fixing a manufacturing bottleneck responsible for a $619 million loss last quarter could be causing a global battery shortage. Panasonic reportedly gave most of its cache of batteries in Japan to Tesla so that the automaker and Gigafactory 1 energy-storage company could keep up with its ambitious production schedule. Gizmodo reports: In early October, Tesla struggled with a "production bottleneck," but by the end of the month, Panasonic stated it would increase battery output at the Gigafactory, now that it understood the issues that led to the bottleneck and could automate some of the processes that had been done by hand. But this likely did not help Tesla fix any immediate shortage issues. ETNews claims that Panasonic is coping with the shortage by shipping batteries in from Japan. And many Japanese companies in need of cylinder batteries have turned to other suppliers like LG, Murata, and Samsung -- but those companies have not been able to meet the demands. Reportedly, companies that had contracts before 2017 aren't affected by the shortage, but several other manufacturers have not been able to place orders for batteries, and won't be able to order more batteries until the middle of next year.

159 comments

  1. This sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goddamn Panasonic and Tesla can ship these giant tinderboxes willy nilly all over the globe, and I can't even get a 1800ma/hr cell phone battery shipped here on a damn boat! Assholes!

    1. Re:This sucks! by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      As Electrec notes, it's almost impossible that this report is correct. Model 3 uses 2170 cells, not the standard 18650s, while Model X and Model S have always used imported cells, so nothing has changed there.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    2. Re:This sucks! by viperidaenz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the truth wouldn't generate a click bait headline

    3. Re: This sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, anti-media dingbat.

    4. Re: This sucks! by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      anti-media

      That is not, nor has it ever been - nor will it ever be - an insult. Perhaps think before you type?

    5. Re: This sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still a True Believer eh.

    6. Re: This sucks! by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

      anti-media

      That is not, nor has it ever been - nor will it ever be - an insult. Perhaps think before you type?

      Perhaps think of considering it might be sarcasm? Or was your comment sarcasm, and I cluelessly mistook it for cluelessness?

      Oh, let's not go any further down that rabbit-hole.

      --
      There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
    7. Re:This sucks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not my point! My phone is dead because nobody will ship the damn tiny ass battery! Apparently it's more dangerous than the giant motherfuckers Tesla is making. The world is run by psychopathic assholes!

  2. Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    What's the environmental impact of this battery manufacturing? If they're being shipped from Japan to the US, then they'll have a higher carbon footprint due to being shipped across an ocean than batteries manufactured locally, no? Are vehicles that use batteries like this truly more environmentally friendly if they have all kinds of hidden carbon inputs associated with their manufacture and transport?

    1. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They use giant sailboats to transport them from Japan to Seattle WA, and then they are carried by barrens of mules down to Fremont, CA

    2. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      they are carried by barrens of mules down to Fremont, CA

      Tesla employees deserve more respect than that!

    3. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Are vehicles that use batteries like this truly more environmentally friendly if they have all kinds of hidden carbon inputs associated with their manufacture and transport?

      Short answer, yes

    4. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NOT!

    5. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      What's the environmental impact of this battery manufacturing?

      Compared to extracting oil from the Alberta tar sands, the impact is modest. Lithium is extracted from salt flats and underground brine, which are not ecological hotspots. Cobalt is mostly a byproduct of open pit copper and nickel mining, and little mining is done specifically to extract cobalt.

      If they're being shipped from Japan to the US, then they'll have a higher carbon footprint due to being shipped across an ocean than batteries manufactured locally, no?

      Not really. Ocean transport is very efficient, and adds little to the carbon footprint of these vehicles.

      Are vehicles that use batteries like this truly more environmentally friendly

      Yes, by a big margin.

    6. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ocean shipping is dirty as hell! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

    8. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      The environmental impact of shipping a tonne of batteries from east Asia is the same as the impact of shipping a tonne of steel from east Asia.

      And for the record: Model 3 SR is pretty much the same weight as the similar-sized, similar-accelerating BMW 330i. Model 3 LR isn't much heavier (and is faster).

      Lastly: life cycle assessments aren't conducted by guesswork and speculation. They're done in peer reviewed studies. For example.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    9. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      No difference?
      If the raw materials are being mined in China, it;s not really going to make much difference if they're manufactured in Japan or USA, at the end of the day there is still a ship going across the Pacific Ocean.
      It could even have less impact, if the end product is lighter and/or smaller than the raw materials.

    10. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Ocean shipping is dirty as hell!

      Container ships burn high sulfur bunker fuel, which produces lots and lots of sulfates, which are nasty pollutants ... ON LAND. But at sea, the sulfates settle onto the surface of the sea, where they have a negligible effect since the ocean already contains quadrillions of tons of sulfur.

      Sulfur is a pollutant in the same way that salt is a pollutant: It depends on where you put it.

    11. Re: Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Daily Mail caring about the environment? I'm going to have to order a big net for my roof to catch all that flying bacon.

    12. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one ship uses a lot of very dirty fuel, but that one ship also can move nearly 20,000 20-foot containers, so the fuel used is divided across (literally) millions of items, so fuel use per item is pretty small

    13. Re: Environmental impact of this manufacturing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Daily Mail caring about the environment?

      They don't care. The whole point of the article is to promote environmental nihilism and apathy. If 16 ships pollute more than a billion cars, and wind turbines kill birds, and bicyclists run over endangered insects, then clearly everything is equally bad and nothing matters and readers can continue to drive their SUVs guilt free.

    14. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ocean shipping is dirty as hell!

      Container ships burn high sulfur bunker fuel, which produces lots and lots of sulfates

      Exactly. Fire and brimstone and all that.

      Captcha: odorous

    15. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      They use giant sailboats to transport them from Japan to Seattle WA, and then they are carried by barrens of mules down to Fremont, CA

      You mean high speed trains of mules. They go at least 20 mph.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    16. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Correct. They are very environmentally friendly if made in China, S Korea, and tons of places with cheap solar and wind energy. They are very environmentally friendly almost anywhere in the West or Texas or the NE.

      Now, if you made them in the South, they're not quite as good. Which is why nobody does that. But if you build a Dark Factory that operates 24/7/365 in the dark with full automation, even with coal as an input, they are much more environmentally friendly. Which is most of the new factories in the South.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    17. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cobalt is mostly a byproduct of open pit copper and nickel mining, and little mining is done specifically to extract cobalt.

      While true, there is more to the story. 15% of US cobalt production is already from recycling. Also there is the Idaho Cobalt Project (ICP) that already has permits for a primary-source cobalt mine in Idaho, which should go online imminently. It is owned by a Canadian mining company. They're expecting 1500 tons/yr for 12.5 years.

      The most important thing though is that cobalt is totally recoverable, in the future most of it will come from recycling.

    18. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Ocean shipping is dirty as hell!

      But still negligible compared to the environmental value of the electric car.

      The stupid "it takes carbon to make it" argument is a cookie-cutter way of trashing any manufactured product. That's why Greens always use it against some technology when they have run out of other arguments.

    19. Re: Environmental impact of this manufacturing by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The carbon cost of this car is still far less than a vehicle that spews carbon out through the process of normal operation. If recharged with renewable energy, it is essentially a fixed value except tires and moving part lubricant. Even if charged with "fossil energy" the generation of that energy will be more efficient in extracting the energy from the fuel than a car engine would be, making the carbon footprint less.

      A car with a petrol / diesel engine will use more lubricant (more moving parts), the same or more tire wear depending on traction control, drive train type, and engine size; and it will use far more petroleum products as engine oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid, transmission oil, and fuel.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    20. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by blindseer · · Score: 1

      The environmental impact of shipping a tonne of batteries from east Asia is the same as the impact of shipping a tonne of steel from east Asia.

      If we tax carbon output in the USA, and China does not, then we'll see more steel being shipped from east Asia. We get to see more carbon emissions, both from production and transportation, and higher steel prices on top.

      YAY!

      Maybe, instead of taxing carbon and mandating the use of expensive and unreliable wind and solar, we allow industry the freedom to find their own ways to reduce carbon and the cost of energy. That means less CO2 output, cleaner air, higher wages, more jobs, and perhaps those ships start hauling steel from places that take clean air seriously (like the USA) to places that don't (like China). I know that there's one clean energy technology that's had it's nutsack nailed to the floor for 40 years. How about we stop taxing the poor and giving to the rich so they can buy new electric cars and let industry loose to make some clean energy? Can we at least try? Just for, I don't know, another 3 years or so? What's that you say?

      YES WE CAN!

      I thought so.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    21. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how much CO2 a mule produces?

    22. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. They are very environmentally friendly if made in China, S Korea, and tons of places with cheap solar and wind energy.

      Only a small percentage of China and S Korea energy is solar and wind. Still mostly fossil.

    23. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Ahh.. the Daily Mail - a source so reliable Wikipedia have stopped using them.

      You wouldn't want to breathe the exhaust from a container ship, but as others note, at sea it's not much of a concern. If you happen to be on a cruise ship though, things are rather different.

    24. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should all come down to "the math" which is actually quite hard to do considering most of the details are proprietary.

          Really hard to say what is actually better or worse unless you add up all the manufacturing, transportation and miscellaneous pollution and environmental costs. Even going down to the impact that the people working to make and deliver the products are having by eating what they eat, living where and getting to work the way they do. The devil really is in the details... The problem is that when we buy a product marketed as "better" for the environment we really can't know what that means unless someone has done all the math on that and compared it to other viable options.

      I think driving an electric is probably better for the environment overall than driving a low efficiency gas powered SUV, but at some point there is a threshold of environmental equivalency between high efficiency vehicles and battery powered that really should be understood if we want to have a collective impact on reducing climate change and other pollution. Maybe high efficiency hybrids are "good enough" or even better than all-electric given the current mix of fuel sources. An intelligent discussion would get down to the numbers, because the details really do matter.

    25. Re: Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh. We need to figure out how to hook up generators to /. for those where jokes go flying overhead. Might even be able to power all of China to get them to stop destroying planet.

    26. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you contending that, left to its own devices, industry will to become cleaner and cheaper out of the goodness of their hearts?

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

    27. Re: Environmental impact of this manufacturing by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      None â" they use electric mules.

    28. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by Shogun37 · · Score: 1

      If left to their own devices, no. But "if you don't clean up your room, I'm going to do it for you," might. Tell them what they have to do and the time frame. Tell them the day after the deadline, and if it isn't met, that they will be taxed at a sufficient "cost plus" level to pay for it. They will find a way.

    29. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Are you contending that, left to its own devices, industry will to become cleaner and cheaper out of the goodness of their hearts?

      No, I believe that industry will become cheaper and cleaner because people don't like doing business with businesses that offer expensive and polluting products when they have the freedom to choose cheaper and cleaner ones.

      The government is the "commons" in this tragedy. Did you even read the web page you linked to?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    30. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Mules are often CO2-neutral, depending on where their food comes from. I'm more worried about methane production.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I'd suspect that the environmental impact is mostly from the continuing harm, in which EVs are far and away the more environmentally friendly. Both EVs and ICE vehicles have to be manufactured, and this is going to cause some harm, but there's no obvious thing that would make the manufacture of EVs a lot worse than manufacture of ICE vehicles.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Carbon taxes are an efficient way of applying market forces to reducing CO2 increases. I'm not sure about the legalities, but imposing the appropriate taxes as customs duties for imported material is probably kosher.

      I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea. Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction. The market is VERY good at doing this sort of optimization.

      Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.

      We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I know you're a nuke monomaniac, but mandating one form of power plant is not a good idea.

      Where did I say anything about mandating anything? I want people to have a choice. That's the whole point, choice. Unless I've missed something we will see ships propelled by one of three things right now, wind, fuel oil, and nuclear. I'm sure someone will show an experimental solar powered ship but if someone is going to cross the ocean with cargo there's really only three choices. We've mandated that people cannot choose nuclear. Fuel oil dominates, not because we want to pollute the environment but because it makes economic sense. If we tax ourselves into using windjammers then we've really hit a new low. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Use taxes to represent externalities, and let the market figure out how it wants to handle CO2 reduction.

      Okay, so we tax fuel oil and the market figures out that nuclear power is the best way to reduce CO2 and still offer inexpensive and speedy (for a boat anyway) shipping. But we just removed that option by mandate? What happens then? It's no longer a tax to let the market decide, it's just a tax. Maybe that's the point, the government gets to raise taxes while making the people feel righteous about it.

      Carbon taxes can be combined with cuts in other taxes to remain revenue-neutral, and to make sure the poorer people in general don't suffer.

      Not only have you now just imposed a tax on goods shipped by sea you've now created a form of government dependence on the poor. We've now removed some of their choices too. Now they have the "choice" of going to the government to buy the products they need, or... there is no choice, they are dependent on the government. The government now "owns" the poor and can dictate their "choices" through these subsidies.

      Do you think people honestly "choose" to pollute the environment? We're in this mess precisely because the government has mandated, taxed, and spent us here.

      We could discuss the proper regulatory environment for nuclear power plants, but that's another discussion.

      I'd like to discuss regulation. What we have is not regulation, we have a ban. I'd like to see some regulation, because that means that there is a civilian nuclear marine propulsion industry to regulate.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    34. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      China has actually been working pretty hard to bring down carbon emissions. They're uniquely susceptable to sea level rise thanks to the large population on the very low lying coastal plains and the leadership plays a long game when planning.

      This is why so much renewables R&D is going on there and also why the chinese are investing so much into nuclear energy research (both fusion and fussion). They're not betting the farm on one technology, they're hedging by trying _everything_.

      Bear in mind that the economic power of pretty much all nations can be measured in their access to cheap energy. Whilst the USA has been expending more and more resources to maintain its oil addiction, if the chinese investment works out, they'll be supplying cheap, safe nuclear power (Molten salts, not your grandfather's steamer) all over the world.

      The importance of that can't be understated. If the developed world stopped using carbon overnight, the developing countries could easily make up the entire difference and then some in their efforts to play catchup. It's not in anyone's interest to prevent them playing catchup, but neither is it in anyone's interest for carbon to be the cheapest way of them doing it.

    35. Re:Environmental impact of this manufacturing by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The idea behind the carbon tax is to internalize an externality and let the market decide what to do. If nuclear power plants are then the cheapest, we get nukes. If solar power and wind are the cheapest, we get solar and wind. The market is far better at optimizing than you or I are.

      The reason we're in this situation is that burning fossil fuel is a cheap way of generating energy, and fossil fuels are a very convenient way to create mobile energy sources for use on vehicles. The government is not involved in making that so. The market fails because the people making the decisions pay only a small amount of some of the costs they generate. People chose to pollute because it was the cheapest thing to do. We have seen that time and time again, and the only effective way to stop that is government action.

      I fail to see why reducing taxes on certain people, or letting the market do things, is supposed to cause dependence on the government.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by js290 · · Score: 2
    --
    "Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
    1. Re:Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      When the very summary is wrong, where does one even start? "Most" cobalt is not in the Congo. The cheapest primary cobalt is found in the Congo, with the caveat that it's not been that heavily explored due to previous levels of demand (there's a new wave of exploration at present). Cobalt, however, is found in significant consequence everywhere that nickel, copper, and many other commonly mined metals are. Some places recover it in the tailings, but most don't bother because, again, historically demand hasn't justified it.

      Cobalt isn't a rare metal. In the crust, it's 2-3 times as common as lead, 40% as common as copper, a third as common as zinc, etc. Nor is it "spread out"; as mentioned, it's associated with many commonly mined minerals.

      As for mining in Congo itself: at least 80% is mined in big international mines with modern equipment and practices; how much "over 80%" is uncertain. The remaining percentage is so-called "artisinal mining" - improvised mines mined with manual labour and primitive equipment (aka, generally not very safe). Some are villages mining their own land, while others are outsiders exploiting locals. In the past year, there's been a big crackdown on artisinal cobalt, with major buyers taking steps to track the origin of their products better and keep it out of their product streams. Of course, one can always expect artisinal producers to try to do more to hide the origins of their cobalt, and/or sell to less scrupulous buyers (such as in China).

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    2. Re:Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fuck you! I want single-source artisinal cobalt hand smelted and machined into a battery to sell to gullible hipsters.

    3. Re:Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Aighearach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to this Canadian mining company about to start operation of a primary cobalt mine in the US, 58% of world cobalt production was from DR Congo in 2015.

      http://www.ecobalt.com/assets/...

      Before offering corrections, it is important to understand what the words mean within their context. In the context of industrial supply, where the mines are is what they are talking about when discussing the locations of a resource.

      For example, it doesn't prove them wrong to point out that there is a lot of cobalt on Venus.

    4. Re: Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You insensitive clod! Don't you know the best is sustainably sourced free-range farm-to-table BPA-free Cobalt?

    5. Re:Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I did not say "most currently mined cobalt", because currently mined cobalt simply will not support battery production scaleup. I said "most cobalt", period. You have to look at where additional cobalt for batteries is going to be coming from. And it's not going to be coming from the Congo. Yes, part of the supply will come from expansions to major Congo mines, but most is going to come from new cobalt projects and from adding cobalt recovery to the tailings of existing mines.

      It's nothing at all analogous to "cobalt on Venus". As was explicitly stated: "Cobalt, however, is found in significant consequence everywhere that nickel, copper, and many other commonly mined metals are."

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    6. Re: Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but is it gluten free cobalt? I love the placebo effect of having terrible variants of regular things that arbitrarily leave out gluten, or things that never had gluten in it that are now declared to be gluten free, because marketing fads!

    7. Re: Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I refuse to buy anything less than gluten-free cobalt!

    8. Re:Tesla's Cobalt Conundrum by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It's nothing at all analogous to "cobalt on Venus". As was explicitly stated: "Cobalt, however, is found in significant consequence everywhere that nickel, copper, and many other commonly mined metals are."

      You literally did not in that statement say anything about where the metals are mined. You talked about where the metals are. That they are mined is used at the limiting factor for the set of things being discussed.

  4. Business 101 by fluffernutter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fuck everyone else. It's just good business.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for when it isn't.

    2. Re:Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-Elon forces (read as stock shorters) are spinning the hell out of this one

      Fact of the matter is that dominating the supply chain and starving competitors is how business is done

    3. Re:Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for when it is.

    4. Re:Business 101 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fuck everyone else. It's just good business.

      As we shift from fossil fuels to batteries, we will have to ramp up production. Tesla is causing that to happen NOW, rather than in the future when it could be even more disruptive. This is a Good Thing. We need to produce more lithium, and more cobalt. We need to make more batteries, and make them cheaper and more efficiently. By bringing the inevitable supply problems forward, innovators will be incentivized to find solutions.

    5. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, and when are those subsidies supporting fossil-fuel industries going to magically disappear?

    6. Re: Business 101 by Rei · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Yeah, who would pay $35k for a vehicle that's faster than a BMW 330i, $5k lower MSRP, handles better (according to Motor Trend), and which every former BMW owner I've talked to who's sat in has said is more comfortable. Which can be preheated/precooled remotely (including melting ice off your windshield), no carbon monoxide concerns, with no idling wear, no idling noise, and without draining a tank that you have to go out to a chunk of concrete and stand outside in whatever weather you're wanting to avoid while paying out the nose to pump carcinogens into a tank. Which starts each day in your normal life with a full charge in exchange for ten seconds of your time (5 to plug in, 5 to unplug) in the comfort of your garage, rather than randomly hitting you up for 5 minutes of your time, regardless of what's going on. And which even on long trips - the exception to the rule - can charge enough during meal and rest stops to not slow you down at all.

      No, I can't understand why anyone would buy such a thing.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    7. Re: Business 101 by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ed: Or instead of the Model 3 SR we could compare the Model 3 LR. Starts at $44k and is as fast as the BMW 340i, same handling advantage, also $5k cheaper. And actually goes *farther* than the BMW in city driving.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    8. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You convinced me! Where can I find a model 3 ready to buy and drive off the lot today?

    9. Re: Business 101 by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why do people talk about no lidling noise being a good thing? I've always loved that sound and tried to accentuate it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    10. Re:Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As we shift from fossil fuels to batteries, we will have to ramp up production

      Hi,

      I'm from North Korea, did you know Kim Jong Un can make batteries just by thinking about them with his mind?

      Tesla is causing that to happen NOW, rather than in the future when it could be even more disruptive. This is a Good Thing.

      No it sucks ass. I need cobalt to salt our atomic (redacted).

      We need to make more batteries, and make them cheaper and more efficiently.

      I need to make more (redacted) and make them cheaper and more efficiently or Lil Kim is going to shoot holes in me with an anti-aircraft gun and use my lifeless corpse to scrape barnacles from the bottom of the USS Pueblo.

      By bringing the inevitable supply problems forward, innovators will be incentivized to find solutions.

      Please help me... I need cobalt. Please send cobalt.

    11. Re: Business 101 by Rei · · Score: 1

      Never said there wasn't a waiting list. ;)

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    12. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So abusive monopolistic practices are good when it's a politically favorable cause. Got it. All I need is a musk-sized spin machine.

    13. Re: Business 101 by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monopolistic? Don't be an idiot. It's basic supply and demand. And, Tesla has a monopoly on exactly nothing, except maybe a trade secret on generating fanboy hype. Neither does Panasonic.

      There is simply not enough battery manufacturing to meet the current demand. So Tesla is locking up the supply they need by working with their manufacturing partner in a very legal and straightforward way that hundreds of businesses have done to obtain the materials they need, for basically all of history. And guess what? If demand is greater than supply, some other company can either outbid Tesla for the supply, or wait for more manufacturing to be built to increase the available supply. Just like any other product or material in any other market, ever.

      Oh, I forgot - we are talking about Tesla, so OMG evil! Bad! Almost as bad as Apple, because reasons!

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    14. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know that Tesla is already planning on the subsidies going away, right? They have the option to turn them off in their online price calculator, because they will hit the cap in 2018, or Congress will cancel it. And you know what? They will still sell every car they make, because people want the cars.

    15. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tesla is not locking up the supply! Tesla locked up the supply years ago when they first started with electric cars and told everyone that they would sell thousands of cars is the future so everyone should start contracts with the battery suppliers to expand production for the future.

      However, everyone else laughed at them and never started up any contracts.

      Tesla did sign a contract with Panasonic that made sure Panasonic would meet their battery needs, but the other companies did not.

      So today we not only have all the other car companies that did not sign contracts scrambling to get batteries for their future car production, but if you look in your local hardware and electronic store you will see more and more devices that also need Lithium Batteries.

      Result - Massive battery shortage cause by the short sightedness of all the non-Tesla companies that need batteries.

      Earl Colby Pottinger

    16. Re: Business 101 by jandjmh · · Score: 1

      As soon as someone mentions "hydrogen energy" I know they can be dismissed as uninformed. Hydrogen is a lousy, inefficient way to store or transport energy. The reasons are so numerous and fundamentally intractable that anyone who thinks hydrogen will be an economical way to power anything on a mass scale has to be lacking in basic science and engineering knowledge. Hydrogen will have niche uses, but is very unlikely to be the fuel of choice for cars.

      But in about 18 - 24 months we will have a definitive answer as to whether or not "actual consumers would voluntarily pay the true cost of these vehicles." Tesla will soon cross the threshold of production volume where the subsidies on their cars phases out. Most of the 330K+ people who have put down deposits to get a Model III will be getting that car after the subsidies end. Or they will cancel. Time will tell.

    17. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you stop making idiotic comparisons between a shitbox that cannot actually be bought and BMW 3-Series models all the time?

    18. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we're not you.

    19. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen "seems" like a great fuel when considering Fuel Cell technology

      However, as you state, hydrogen is hell to work with and all of the tech we are familiar with for fuel storage simply has a hard time holding onto something that is both very small (leaks through just about anything) and has to be stored at very low temps (or has extremely high vapor pressure when compressed at high temps)

      It would be really nice to see Fuel Cell technology introduced that can pull hydrogen out of methanol, while containing the carbon that has to be scrubbed from it

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

    20. Re: Business 101 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Electric Trucks are getting zero subsidies and Tesla has already pre-sold over a 1000 trucks, if inside info is correct.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    21. Re: Business 101 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      What is funny is that German car manufacturing is down due to lack of sales, so plenty on the lots. And yet the AC does not understand the issues/economics between supply being more than a shrinking demand on ICE, while supply is short of quickly growing demand for EVs.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    22. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people talk about no lidling noise being a good thing? I've always loved that sound and tried to accentuate it.

      Can be easily fabricated if you wish. BMW i8's deep seductive rumble is entirely fake.

    23. Re: Business 101 by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Hydrogen is a lousy, inefficient way to store or transport energy."

      Yup, and the day it becomes economic to produce bulk hydrogen from water, it's also economic to tack on enough carbon atoms to make it easier to handle.

      Synthetic diesel/kerosene/gasoline burns just as well as the stuff outta the ground and it's still the only practical fuel for aircraft (short or longhaul), however I suspect that the most heavily trafficked routes will fall to electric high speed trains or vacuum trains before long.

      The irony about that that the best suited nuclear reactor for making synfuels is the molten salt type (heat levels), which were a direct product of the nuclear aircraft project. It's a long way around to get your nuclear powered aircraft, but we might get there in the end.

      (Practical molten salt reactors will make most renewables obsolete overnight too, which is probably a good thing)

    24. Re: Business 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up dieselgate, you will be surprised. Who wants a German car after that? All the demand is in Asia now, so it's just easier to make them there anyway.

  5. "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Ritz_Just_Ritz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It will be interesting to see how the usual group of Musk trolls reconciles their desire to paint Tesla as a flop while grappling with data like this. They are selling product fast enough that they are causing battery supply disruptions.

    1. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being far too presumptuous when you claim that the supply disruptions are due to high sales volumes. When it comes to manufacturing cutting-edge products, it's far more likely for supply shortages to be caused by technical difficulties. This can happen even when sales volumes are well below what was predicted and planned for.

    2. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why would you post such an innocuous reply anonymously? :P

    3. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selling more when each sale loses money is a success?

    4. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by grungeman · · Score: 2

      Looks more like production problems on Tesla's side, since they already had them when they were tinkering together the Model 3 launch batch. This was only a few hundred cars, so it cannot be due to huge demand. Even now it is extremely unlikely that Tesla ist anywhere near the output that they had planned for December, so if the Gigafactory should easily be able to deliver enough cells if it was running at full capacity.

      --

      Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    5. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You can sell significant numbers of a product, beyond your wildest dreams, and still be losing money.

      Boeing has sold 1287 of its 787 Dreamliner series aircraft, has delivered 625 and was still losing money overall (as in deferred program debt was still rising) until earlier this year (when they managed a slight reduction). Boeing isn't forecast to make any actual profit on its current order book.

      In the commercial aviation world, 1000 sales of a large aircraft is a huge success, usually (see 777, 747, 767, A330). But then, usually, these programs have their production and R&D debt paid off in the first few hundred airframes....

      Tesla is in the same boat - massive (relatively) up front costs, coupled with significant production issues which means debt is still rising rather than being recouped.

      They will get there, but they aren't there yet.

    6. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Krishnoid · · Score: 2

      1970's:
      Kid: Daddy, my new radio-controlled car won't run!
      Daddy: Batteries not included? What the hell is this?
      Kid: Daddy, you shouldn't swear.

      2017:
      Kid: Batteries not available? What the hell is this?
      Kid's kid: Seriously, what the fuck?
      Kid: Where'd you learn that kind of language?
      Kid's kid: Are you fucking serious?

    7. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      Taking all the batteries and still slipping on production schedule actually aligns with painting Tesla a flop. That would be the limiting factor, and even with the world's supply of batteries they cannot produce what they've taken the cash to produce.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    8. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If there was so much demand for my product that I couldn't keep up with it because of GLOBAL supply constraints on parts, I'd consider that a problem I'd like to have.

      Call me crazy.

    9. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure that all of the institutional investors, whose entire businesses depend on the accuracy of their due diligence, are wrong on the fact that Tesla is earning a 25% margin on S and X and is likely to earn a 25% margin on the 3 when in full production.

      --
      Pinkypants -- my favorite!
    10. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by zlives · · Score: 1

      source please

    11. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'll admit it, if Musk meant to do it it's smart. Starve your competitors and prepare for the future, it is right out of Steve Job's playbook. It's just a little more dickish than I expected from him.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    12. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy, point out that the working class are subsidizing all of this. Power walls are politically correct and ratepayer subsidized, but don't make a damn bit of economic sense.

    13. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2

      That 25% margin is just what Tesla claims. It takes no great insight to arrive at.

      Tesla computes gross margin differently than other auto makers. I'm not saying one is more correct than the others, but Tesla would barely squeak by on what to others would be a comfortable margin.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    14. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep dreaming. Tesla still hasn't paid off their R&D costs for the Model S and that entered production in 2012. They simply don't sell enough vehicles and don't have the required production capacity to make more. It is a catch-22 for them. Coupled with manufacturing issues which their competitors have solved long ago.

      Boutique car companies aren't profitable. They have all succumbed to insolvency or been bought by larger companies, which fund them as a prestige label and a proving ground for expensive technology.

    15. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 0

      Each sale does not lose money, unless you are doing something incredibly stupid with your math, like thinking fixed capital costs to build massive factories are ongoing expenses for all time.

      Or, you are spreading FUD. Either way, it doesn't look good on you.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    16. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      It depends. It's a great problem to have, but it's still a problem. Imagine being subject to a class-action by people who you've been unable to deliver to. Imagine the stock price dropping because production cannot scale.

      Or, just think of this. It would be great to design an app that was getting a million downloads a day. It's better than most apps will ever do, and by orders of magnitude, every day. Yet, if it requires server resources, it's entirely possible that your app will implode because the server keeps failing. See also: slashdot effect. And if the code needed to be rewritten from scratch, the fad may be over before you can upgrade the server to scale.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    17. Re:"hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boutique car companies aren't profitable.

      Which is why they're pushing to enter the mass market. You don't know what Tesla's costs are to develop and produce the Model 3, so please keep quiet and let the adults talk.

    18. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they can make money selling their batteries

    19. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wants to move the human race to Mars, nobody ever said he had to be nice about how he gets the money to do it

    20. Re: "hogging batteries" = booming sales? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Supply shortages, in this case, means that more people want batteries than are produced. There are a variety of reasons, including technical difficulties, why the production might be lower than demand. We could examine the figures (I'm too lazy to, myself) and find how battery production is going. It's highly unlikely to have gone down because of technical issues. This means demand is going up.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  6. So? by GerryGilmore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's see: company (Tesla) has more need for materials furnished by a partner company(Panasonic), so orders more and partner company supplies the extra materials. Other companies WITHOUT existing supply contracts whine about being unable to buy batteries from partner company. Isn't this at some level how basic capitalism works? It's not like there aren't other battery suppliers and - yes! - demand is skyrocketing. Welcome to the real world.

    1. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      And many others believing they will enter the EV market significantly in a couple of years are swallowing hard as they realize that this is a BYOB, as in Bring Your Own Battery, enterprise. It takes years to build the factories and the equipment that goes in them and few have started.

      The next realization will be that this is a BYOE, as in Energy, enterprise too. They can't depend on utilities to be able to react fast enough to supply exploding fleets of EVs in the mid '20s. Auto companies that can't bring their own energy will be shut out of markets in cities whose utilities don't have the capacity to supply their depots. They all need to be vertically integrating a means of supplying their own energy.

    2. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      No, as soon at that starts to happen the local authorities will mandate that charging stations serve the general public.

    3. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand. The general public will not need charging stations. People aren't going to be owning most of the cars. Most vehicles will be owned, maintained, powered, and operated by the manufacturers.

      The manufacturers are going to be able to drop the per-mile cost of Transportation As A Service (TAAS) to less than the per mile cost of owning your own vehicle, probably significantly less. This will make owning your own vehicle an unnecessary luxury or pain in the @$$ depending on how you want to look at it. Once it gets started, Americans will see the advantage and flock to it. Rich people who choose to continue owning their own cars won't be admired as they pass by, they'll be laughed at. The new generations are not like the old.

      Even if no people used the service, the vertically integrated fleets will quickly take over the delivery market eliminating a lot of the need for people to climb into their own vehicles. This market may be bigger than personal transportation in the long run.

    4. Re: So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are suggesting that government will eminent domain charging stations that were built with private funds? And you don't think that gets immediately blocked and laughed at by a judge?

      What are you, some kind of communist?

    5. Re:So? by schleimkeim · · Score: 1

      Isn't this at some level how basic capitalism works?

      Well sure. The thing with capitalism is: It's only good as long as a specific group of people profit from it.

    6. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early bird gets the worm. No one is stopping you from making your own East Germany and living there. Have fun with that. The rest of us are going to continue maintaining economic environments that allow scientific and engineering progress to be a reality. Well, except for North Korea I guess.

      Also, if you think that the managed capitalism practiced in the United States and much of western Europe is "oppressive", you should head to Africa, where in much of the continent you can be certain that most if not all of your male children will be forced into rebel gangs at gunpoint while I can't even speak about your female children, and you'll be lucky to squeeze a meal a day.

    7. Re:So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TAAS will very likely take off in major cities; places like New York City and San Francisco, where it is already a pain in the a$$ to have a personally owned vehicle. And given that the fraction of population living in urban centers is increasing, there will definitely be a market. But TAAS achieves low per-mile costs through high revenue-generating utilization. Once a car drops off one fare, it takes little time, or distance travelled, to pick up the next fare. Once you get out of the city centers, the population density decreases enough, and the average trip distance increases. Thanks to the lower population density, the TAAS cars will spend exponentially more time and mileage dead-heading from one fare to the next. Basically, any place that doesn't have the population density to support effective mass transit won't be an cost-effective for TAAS either.

    8. Re:So? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The manufacturers are going to be able to drop the per-mile cost of Transportation As A Service (TAAS) to less than the per mile cost of owning your own vehicle, probably significantly less. This will make owning your own vehicle an unnecessary luxury or pain in the @$$ depending on how you want to look at it. Once it gets started, Americans will see the advantage and flock to it. Rich people who choose to continue owning their own cars won't be admired as they pass by, they'll be laughed at. The new generations are not like the old.

      It's already happening now. Before, it was just rental cars you rented for a day or so. Now in places that have good public transit, you'll find you can rent cars on a per-hour basis. Companies like Care2Go and others offer fleets of cars to rent.

      The monthly cost is around $150 or so (cheaper than most insurance plus maintenance fees) and the per-hour rate is fairly low, like $5 or so. Gas is included - if you need to top off the tank, there is a gas card in the car.

      It's perfect for those who pretty much live by public transit (or can cycle), but do on occasion need to drive (go out on the weekend, for example). Some even offer higher rate cars if you're needing to haul some larger items around.

      The fact that they're not all going bankrupt is showing that for a good chunk of people, they no longer need to own a car, or even a second car - they needed the car (or second) for light use, so can either live without a car most of the time, or no longer need to maintain/insure/expense of owning a second car that's also used only infrequently.

    9. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      I agree that the cities will be first. But, I disagree with high revenue-generating utilization being the sole reason for the low per-mile costs and thus believe that the much of the lower population areas will eventually follow.

      People talking TaaS are currently writing optimistic predictions of $1 per mile cost. I believe they'll be able to hit $0.50 per mile for on-demand vehicles in the cities and still make a tidy profit. The reasons are in the reduction in costs that the providers will be able to achieve. They will create million mile vehicles that

      • have no transmissions,
      • motors that typically last that long with no maintenance,
      • batteries that last a million miles (Tesla's data is already showing 500K miles above 80%),
      • brakes that last that long because they hardly ever get used,
      • extraordinarily low accident rates, and
      • cost little more than a vehicle today to manufacture.

      In addition, they will self-insure at a vastly lower cost than we do today, their maintenance costs will be vastly less, and their energy costs will be the costs of the solar cells to produce it amortized over the 20-year life of those cells (batteries at the depot are required whether or not they produce their own energy).

      On the opposite side of the equation, they need to create depots. These will be industrial type facilities that don't have to have nice roadfronts, though large fields and roofs to cover in solar cells would be nice.

      With actual procurement + operating costs of the vehicles likely being less than half of what we pay today (possibly much less), the costs of the facilities will be easily covered while still being able to eventually offer us sub $0.50 per mile rates with no monthly agreements.

      The rural situation makes the investments take longer to pay off because cars will be parking themselves in staging locations more often and it increases the miles driven without fares a bit, but the costs of the land for the depots and solar farms also drop. In addition, they may enter the local power markets in rural areas. For all but the most extreme rural situations, it will still be a viable model, just longer in developing.

    10. Re:So? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      At least it's not partner company gearing up for a single massive order, then going bust a couple of years later due to overcapacity and no orders.

      Apart from these kinds of blips, the market for batteries is limited by price, not by availability - meaning that if you raise the price then sales drop off in a non-linear fashion, and the same thing happens to the increase when you lower the price - the balancing act is to set the price high enough to make money but not cause a glut which would lower the price, trigger a rush and result in a shortage (and wild oscillations)

    11. Re:So? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "This is a BYOB, as in Bring Your Own Battery, enterprise."

      Tesla has been described for many years as a battery company which happens to build cars.

      The powerwall and renewables battery farms should underscore that point - they're where the money is.

      Cars are merely a way to sell more batteries, which in turn generates enough demand to justify the gigafactory. once it's online, tesla/panasonic will be producing more cells than the rest of the world combined.

      Regarding utility capacity: Electricity accounts for 30-40% of carbon emissions depending where you are in the world. Transportation about half and domestic heating/cooking(oil+gas) + industrial processes account for the rest.

      To eliminate carbon entirely will take a power generation capacity increase of between 6 and 8 fold over current capacity and that's simply not possible with renewables no matter how many way to try to square that circle. Nuclear is the only long term solution, it's just a question of which technology. That said we can't afford to hang around for 40 years whilst MSRs or fusion become viable, we should have been building conventional plants already. The UK is going to need around 60-70 new ones in the next 20 years and right now it hasn't even started building the only one it committed to a decade ago.

      We're rapidly approaching an environmental knee-point which will force the issue on carbon emissions. I strongly suspect that even the current "it's going to be warmer than we though" news is vastly underestimating the impacts, as they're not taking account of what happens if ocean methane clathrate deposits bubble out catastrophically - and it looks like this is about to happen off the Siberian coast line (it's been getting steadily worse since the bubbles started reaching the surface in 2004, with plumes 1km wide reported in 2010). There's a hell of a lot of "mystery methane" in the air that was blamed on farming - but the instruments have only been proven accurate over land. They can't see methane over water at all as the researchers assumed there wasn't any.

      If this environmental disaster comes to pass, then Tesla's batteries are going to be paying off handsomely.

    12. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Naw, I probably did understand basic shit.

      I probably just don't think most Americans are going to give up personal ownership of transportation. Some will. It will be a popular product, just like buses are popular.

      It will totally kill Amtrak.

    13. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Many would agree with you.

      Personally, I believe it will happen. We'll give up driving. The younger folks are already doing it. I look forward to it as there are better things to do with my time, and the expense is already a ridiculous portion of income.

      In less than a decade, I expect the cost of insurance for drivers who turn the autopilot off or are driving pre-autopilot vehicles to start ramping up on a geometric curve extending over a period of 10-20 years. At the same time, availability of that insurance for personally owned vehicles will start falling off as insurers leave the business.

      Twenty years out, you'll need to be wealthy to afford driving on a real road as opposed to one of the many tracks that will open up to cater to the nostalgic. There will likely already be much discussion about outlawing the dangerous practice too.

      Perhaps some vehicles will keep the wheel to give the user's the feel of driving as long as they don't do anything out of monitored safety limits.

    14. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The young tend to have lower income. The conflating variables are going to be a much larger signal than anything you can tease out already.

      People who can afford a rental car will use it in preference to a bus, that doesn't mean they won't someday buy a car.

      And why would insurance go up? That is just silly! That would push people off the insurance product. Insurance on self-driving cars is going to be much lower, longterm health for the auto insurance industry is iffy. They're going to have a lot of painful consolidation. If anything prices will go down as they try to incentivize people to stay and reduce turnover. Consolidation doesn't lead to a lack of supply, and the existing companies have liabilities and will want to maintain cash flow. That's a buyers market.

      It is just hand-waving; self-driving cars will be cheaper to insure, and that will reduce the cost pressure on car ownership! Your analysis is standing on its head looking silly.

    15. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      It is indeed early to tell for sure.

      Insurance will go up for the same reason it has become higher for drunk drivers. In the 70s, drunk drivers were common and rarely punished. Their insurance was the same as everyone else's. Public safety perceptions are relative and evolve. When self-driving vehicles become common, the safety difference of driving manually versus letting the car drive itself will be so extreme as to prompt movements against it. Liabilities will be higher because of the lack of responsibility being shown by those recklessly driving themselves.

      Owners also will not be able to take advantage of the same advances as the fleets. A car going a million miles versus 200K isn't worth so much for the average person but will only cost the car companies a fraction more to make for themselves. The average person will have rotting components by the time they cross 200K after the need to drive to retail businesses drops off. Heck, without store visits, I doubt I cross 100 miles a month.

    16. Re:So? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This will make owning your own vehicle an unnecessary luxury or pain in the @$$ depending on how you want to look at it.

      It was far beyond that point when I got my driving license in 1989. It still is. Which is why I've owned a car for barely half the years that I've had a driving license. Bus, bike and train are much easier.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    17. Re:So? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Now in places that have good public transit, you'll find you can rent cars on a per-hour basis. Companies like Care2Go and others offer fleets of cars to rent.

      The monthly cost is around $150 or so (cheaper than most insurance plus maintenance fees) and the per-hour rate is fairly low, like $5 or so. Gas is included - if you need to top off the tank, there is a gas card in the car.

      The UK has several different such services. I'm signed up with a not-for-profit one, and have been for about 5 years now. Monthly fee is £5 (USD 10? 7? ask an American? ; 1 litre of beer in International Monetary Units) ; per hour about £5 with a £5/per rental fee (so, 4 hour hire is £25) Mixture of electric vehicles, petrol ones and diesel trucks ; more in larger towns.

      Very much more convenient than owning your own car, for those uncommon occasions when you need a car.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    18. Re:So? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      People who can afford a rental car will use it in preference to a bus,

      No. They'll use the bus to get from home to the rental station (or the car's delivery driver will use the bus to get back to the office, and her (minimum wage?) pay for that time will go onto the rental charge. And the same after drop off of the rental vehicle. So each car rental will generate two bus trips on average. Slight lowering for people or rent-drivers who car pool.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    19. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      lol no

    20. Re:So? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      So, how do you get from your home (office, today's worksite, pub, whatever) to the car hire company to hire today's car? Or the weekend's car, if you work weekdays only.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      The part you miss is that insurance isn't priced randomly. You don't understand why drunk drivers pay more instead of others getting discounts. You think insurance prices are a type of sin tax.

      They're not.

      Insurance is a competitive industry, you're not going to set rates significantly higher than the competition, you're not going to set rates higher than they are now.

      If half the cars on the road are "self driving" then those cars all have less accidents. That means less liabilities for everybody. You can't force prices up, because the costs are going down and there is competition! Incentives for self-driving cars will only modify that curve; everybody's rates still go down. Consolidation will be painful for the industry, but there will still be competition.

    22. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      People who live way out in suburbia are not going to be using it at all; they're already on the bus, they're going to take public transit to their destination.

      In cities there are already reserved parking spots for shared vehicles in high density neighborhoods.

      People in between will either drive their own car, or else use a bicycle or electric personal mobility device to get to a rental car. If it is a manual drive.

      Once they are self-driving, they will simply show up outside the house a few minutes after you press the button on the app.

    23. Re:So? by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Insurance prices are based on risk to the provider. They have to walk away with profit after accounting for all payouts. If they can't do that on average in a region, they'll walk away from the region's business. There are many states where major insurance providers have left the market because the state's courts are friendly to those hurt.

      There won't be less liability for everybody. There will be less liability for self-driven vehicles.

      Our difference is in the assessment of the liabilities for those manually driving. That is very complicated and I know that I am an outlier in my beliefs. I do believe though that the risk equation is complicated in many ways that aren't being considered yet.

      My belief is that, yes, manual drivers may have fewer accidents due to not having as many other manual drivers on the road, but their accidents will increase in cost by a greater percentage than the reduction in likelihood of an accident can balance.

      I currently live in a mostly no fault state which I find to be pretty weird. It's my first time in such a state after having lived in many states. As self-driving vehicles become common, that will change. Most self-driving vehicles will be corporate owned and self-insured. After any initial kinks are worked out, corporate TaaS providers with massive self-insured fleets will lobby hard to put fault back into the equation. It will both reduce the cost of their self-insurance and help to drive more customers to them.

      As the numbers of injuries and deaths decrease, the shock of each will go up and drive up the cost - especially in those states that don't attempt to limit suits to actual damages. Those paying that cost will likely be of a higher economic class on average because they are the ones with the money to indulge in driving their own vehicles instead of using the much cheaper TaaS.

      The makeup of the pool of drivers will change too. At first, there will be a huge positive because impaired drivers will be among the first required to use self-driving modes. But, good drivers are often safety-conscious drivers. I believe that early on you'll see a much higher percentage of good drivers giving up driving than bad, aggressive, non-impaired ones.

      In some cases, deaths may not decrease by the percentage expected because manual driving may actually be made more difficult. For example, as people subconsciously realize that most cars automatically stop as they step into traffic, the numbers killed by accidentally stepping in front of a distracted manual driver may actually increase. This kind of creeping complacency could become a real problem for manual drivers.

      The sin tax isn't in the insurance, it's in what the insurance pays for. It comes from the civil cases that are one of the big reasons to carry the liability. Those manually driving will almost always be at fault and when their choice to indulge in unsafe driving causes harm to those acting responsibly, they'll pay. There will be efforts similar to MADD's efforts today to change attitudes and make that happen sooner than later.

    24. Re:So? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      OK cluestick, if half the cars are self-driving, and they cause less liabilities, that lowers liability for everybody! That means less crashes for everybody, including less crashes for manually driven cars. Self-driving cars don't crash just because it would be your fault, they actually don't care whose fault it is; if they can stop in time, they will.

      Really supper-sloppy thinking all around. And I called you out on viewing it as a "sin tax," and all you did is try to shuffle your sin tax around; you didn't do anything to clean up your thinking and establish where the fuck this extra sin tax is coming from; what causes it to be part of the equation? The other company across the street already isn't charging it, won't I just keep buying insurance there? You just go all hand-wavy and fall off the rails.

      You just imagine that good drivers will adopt self-driving cars but you don't have reasons; all you do is measure supposed virtue, and decide that the virtuous people will make good decisions. That isn't the way the world works at all. People who suck at driving often also find driving to be really unpleasant; driving is extra-stressful for people who have already had a few wrecks! That should be obvious. And old people who know darn well that they can't drive worth a shit anymore, but they're not going to give up the freedom that driving brings. Those people are more likely to want a self-driving car, and more likely to be able to afford it too. Those are people you'll think of when you're doing real analysis, instead of just virtue-imagining.

  7. Re:I don't see a shortage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they used NiCd a Model S would weigh 8 tonnes.

  8. Causing? by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Wait, so the claim is that Tesla could be CAUSING a shortage?

    How are they causing a shortage? By buying up all the batteries they can get.
    Why are they buying up batteries? To eliminate their manufacturing problems.
    What were the manufacturing problems they were having? They couldn't get enough batteries.

    Oh yeah, that makes total sense. It's not a battery shortage causing Tesla to buy up batteries....it's Tesla buying up batteries that is causing a shortage.

    1. Re:Causing? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why are they buying up batteries? To eliminate their manufacturing problems for themselves.

      FIFY.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re:Causing? by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Nope. They were already using Panasonic for their batteries. Yes, they've had manufacturing problems. No, they didn't switch their orders.

      Their battery production problems relating to cars was simply in the assembly of the cells into batteries! None of that has changed, they must have actually only had "problems" not a failure.

    3. Re: Causing? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So? Not like they are buying all the batteries and just sitting on them in a giant warehouse to deny competitors, or shooting them into space or something. They are buying them to put into cars for resale.

      Oh no, Tesla out-maneuvered their competition by having a business partner (Panasonic) who did what was necessary to fulfill orders! For shame!

      Why does anyone give a shit?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re: Causing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? They are buying batteries they were supposed to produce themselves? Yeah looks like a solution to manufacturing problems. Now they should shop for Tesla model 3.

    5. Re:Causing? by CityZen · · Score: 1

      A more detailed report indicated that Tesla has been buying the parts and materials needed to make the batteries, but has yet to produce the actual batteries. By buying up all the raw materials, other sources were not able to make batteries themselves.

    6. Re: Causing? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Of course, the battery cell that Japan provides goes to model S/X and not to the M3. In fact, the cell that M3 uses is made no other place. The cells that Tesla is picking up from other sources is for powerwall/packs and possibly the semi, though I doubt that.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    7. Re:Causing? by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You forgot to post the link. Or is it in TFA?

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  9. Want to bring back manufacturing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Start manufacturing batteries.

  10. Re:I don't see a shortage. by hey! · · Score: 1

    If they used NiCd a Model S would weigh 8 tonnes.

    On the plus side, it could qualify as a moving Superfund site.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  11. "Could be" means "Is not" by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

    Journalists use language like that when they don't have any facts to back it up.
    The facts are Tesla no longer use the same sized batteries as other products, like laptops do, in their new models.

    I don't see how draining stockpiles of 18650 cells would help them manufacture their cars that require 2170 cells.
    A more likely story is that Panasonic has halted production of 18650 cells to manufacture 2170 cells instead, while keeping enough capacity to honor existing customer contracts.

    1. Re:"Could be" means "Is not" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goes along with the 'hogging' part i guess.
      That would be buying all the batteries cause they might need them or just because. Don't they kind of need them NOW, so just buying all they can to use is normal business. (ok even the hogging would be too)

    2. Re:"Could be" means "Is not" by Jonathan_S · · Score: 2

      The facts are Tesla no longer use the same sized batteries as other products, like laptops do, in their new models.

      I don't see how draining stockpiles of 18650 cells would help them manufacture their cars that require 2170 cells.
      A more likely story is that Panasonic has halted production of 18650 cells to manufacture 2170 cells instead, while keeping enough capacity to honor existing customer contracts.

      My understanding is that currently it is only the Tesla Model 3 that's using the larger 2170 cells. The Model S and X are sticking with the 18650 cell for the at least near term future. Having more (though smaller) cells per battery pack allows them a higher peak power output and hence better max acceleration.

      Telsa wouldn't want a drop in performance numbers on their flagship vehicles from switching battery cells. (I suspect if, down the line they do switch to 2170s for S and X it'll come at the same time as a pack capacity boost so there are still enough cells to keep the peak power output at least as high as the current battery packs)

      And since at the moment Tesla's selling more S and X models than 3s they might have caused a shortage is Panasonic's 18650s.

    3. Re:"Could be" means "Is not" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The people buying their cars are causing the shortage. Do you think Tesla is simply warehousing these batteries in perpetuity?

    4. Re:"Could be" means "Is not" by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Number of cells doesn't determine peak power output.
      It's the number of cells multiplied by the power output of each cell.
      Larger cells typically have a higher output power, as one of the determining factors is the surface area of the electrodes inside the cell. It's a balance between power density (watts a cell can deliver) and energy density (watt-hours a cell can store).

      2170 cells are allowing them to increase the energy density of the pack as a whole, which in theory allows them to increase the power density of the cells - same size/weight battery pack, more power. Weight especially, as with the larger cells there is a higher ratio of active components to metal casing.

  12. Not True by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Look, I have news for you, there are about 20 decent battery technologies that are cutting edge right now. We had a battery technology research conference here this past summer at the UW. There are many flavors of battery types, and I'll be honest with you, they all work fairly well.

    A shortage of a specific type of battery materials in a specific country does NOT mean that you have shortages worldwide, nor does it mean that you can't use any of the other very good battery tech instead.

    Stop panicking. We need the batteries for our new fusion reactor balancing systems. That's why you're seeing shortages. It will be over soon, once the new fusion submarines and naval retrofits are complete. And, no, you won't see those commercially for another 25 years.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  13. In other news... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    There is evidence that Apple is hogging the world's supply of overpriced bullshit.

    Seriously, when Apple ties up these exclusive contracts for its 4k displays, it's considered great business. If Elon is really hogging the world's supply of batteries, then one would expect to see the price of batteries to go up instead of down.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  14. Re: Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah, buying batteries available on the open market, gassing 6 million Jews and starting a war that killed over 50 million other people... basically the same thing.

    FYI you are a moron.

  15. Re: Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the problem? Your parent said "worse" not "more awesome".

  16. Re:I don't see a shortage. by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Wait, what? I thought electric vehicles didn't have a transmission.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  17. Seeing these comments, I have just one observation by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

    So, I'm reading all these Slashdot comments, and just am amazed at one thing that wasn't even close to true even ten years ago.

    Not only do Republicans appear to hate the environment, they clearly hate basic capitalism too.

    I would make a Russian communist joke starting with "Da comrade..." but given what's in the news, am worried it might be confused with a real critique.

  18. Hahaha by fubarrr · · Score: 1

    >but several other manufacturers have not been able to place orders for batteries, and won't be able to order more batteries until the middle of next year.

    Chinese factory owners must be happy

  19. Re: Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What 6 million? The six million is a sham number.

    Auschwitz concentration camp Poland, years 1948-1989 the official camp plague said- "four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945"

    After the 1989 and Polish independence from CCCP, the official camp plague was changed - "for ever let this place be a cry of despair and a warning to humanity, where the nazis murdered about one and a half million men, women, and children mainly jews from various countries of europe"

    The first one did not talk about jews in any form and the second one talks about men, women and children and mentions that "mainly" but not all. What is "mainly"?
    80% or 70% or 55% of 1,5 million? They do not talk about that for some reason.

  20. Carmageddon For Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Dec 3, 2017

    Yesterday was the monthly moment of truth for automakers in the US. They reported the number of new vehicles that their dealers delivered to their customers and that the automakers delivered directly to large fleet customers. These are unit sales, not dollar sales, and they’re religiously followed by the industry.

    Total sales in November rose 0.9% from a year ago to 1,393,010 new vehicles, according to Autodata, which tracks these sales as they’re reported by the automakers. Sales of cars dropped 8.2%. Sales of trucks – which include SUVs, crossovers, pickups, and vans – rose 6.6%. Strong replacement demand from the hurricane-affected areas in Texas papered over weaknesses elsewhere. As always, there were winners and losers.

    And one of the losers was Tesla.

    First things first: There is nothing wrong with a tiny automaker trying to design, make, and sell cool but expensive cars that a few thousand Americans might buy every month, and trying to do so on a battleground dominated by giants. Porsche has been doing that for years. Porsche AG is owned by Volkswagen AG, which is itself majority-owned by Porsche Automobil Holding SE. Tesla is out there by itself.

    And Tesla has put electric vehicles on the map. That was a huge feat. EVs have been around since the 1800s, but given the challenges that batteries posed, they simply didn’t catch on until Tesla made EVs cool. Yet Tesla has to buy the battery cells from battery makers, such as Panasonic.

    Tesla isn’t quite out there by itself, though. The Wall Street hype machine backs it up, dousing it with billions of dollars on a regular basis to burn through as fast as it can. This masterful hype has created a giant market capitalization of about $52 billion, more than most automakers, including Ford ($50 billion). It’s not far behind GM ($61 billion).

    But Tesla – which lost $619 million in Q3 – delivered only 3,590 vehicles in November in the US, down 18% from a year ago.

    There are all kinds of interesting aspects about this.
    One: 3,590 vehicles amounts to a market share of only 0.26%, of the 1,393,010 new cars and trucks sold in the US in November. Porsche outsold Tesla by 55% (5,555 new vehicles).

    Two: Tesla doesn’t report monthly deliveries. It wants to play with the big boys, but it doesn’t want people to know on a monthly basis just how crummy and by comparison inconsequential its US sales numbers are. Opaque and dedicated to hype, it refuses to disclose how many vehicles it delivered that month in the US. So the industry is estimating Tesla’s monthly US sales.

    Tesla discloses unit sales data in its quarterly earnings reports, long after everyone has already forgotten about the months in which they occurred.

    Three: So how are Model 3 sales doing? Since Tesla doesn’t disclose its monthly deliveries in the US, the industry is guessing. The assembly line still isn’t working. “Manufacturing bottlenecks,” as Tesla calls it, and “manufacturing hell,” as Elon Musk calls it, rule the day.

    In Q3, Tesla delivered 220 handmade Model 3’s. In October, it delivered about 145 handmade units. In November, the assembly line still wasn’t assembling cars. Inside EVs estimates that Tesla delivered a whopping 345 units in November.

    Four: This is where hype goes to die. In February 2017, Tesla hyped these Model 3 production numbers for 2017:

    Our Model 3 program is on track to start limited vehicle production in July and to steadily ramp production to exceed 5,000 vehicles per week at some point in the fourth quarter and 10,000 vehicles per week at some point in 2018.
    November is solidly in the fourth quarter. 5,000 vehicles per week would mean over 20,000 a month. OK, this is November and not December, so maybe 4,000 a week for a total of 16,000. We got 345.

    Even if the estimate of 345 is off by 100 units up or down, it doesn’t even matter. And December isn’t l

  21. Re: Elon Musk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Auschwitz concentration camp Poland, years 1948-1989 the official camp plague said- "four million people suffered and died here at the hands of the nazi murderers between the years 1940 and 1945"

    Unfortunately a lot of people have only heard about Auschwitz. It wasn't the only concentration camp.

  22. Re:Seeing these comments, I have just one observat by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    So, I'm reading all these Slashdot comments, and just am amazed at one thing that wasn't even close to true even ten years ago.
    Not only do Republicans appear to hate the environment, they clearly hate basic capitalism too.

    Republicans have always, repeat always been against free market capitalism. They say they want small government, and for it to stay out of businesses' affairs, and then they pass assloads of laws designed specifically to give the advantage to one business or another. When they say they are against the Democrats interfering in the way businesses are operated, they mean that it's affecting their ability to do the same, not that they are opposed to it.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  23. Re:I don't see a shortage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are Electric, they have an Emission.

  24. Re: Elon Musk by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    Treblinka? Belzec? Chelmo? Dachau? Buchenwald? Janowska? Majdanek? Bergen-Belsen?

  25. Re: Elon Musk by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I'm going to point out two things. First, Auschwitz was only one (although the most murderous) of the Nazi death camps, and Nazi murder was not limited to just the death camps. Second, people process wood and cloth into flat and flexible sheets, put them into packages that allow perusal of both sides of all sheets, and make small dark marks on the sheets (typically before the creation of the package), and these packages can be used to learn things from. Some of these will show all the details you want about Nazi murders.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. Re:Seeing these comments, I have just one observat by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Lots of people don't seem to notice the difference between an economic and regulatory environment that is friendly to business in general and one that is friendly to certain specific businesses.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes