Slashdot Mirror


For Now, at Least, the World Isn't Making Enough Batteries (bloomberg.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Evidence of the battery-powered era is all around us. Electric vehicles are cruising down our freeways. Household appliances thrum with stored solar energy that was until recently a daytime-only power source. Governments from California to China and South Korea -- even Donald Trump's Washington -- have taken steps that will make battery power more ubiquitous. There's just one hitch to this battery boom: The world isn't making nearly enough. All of the new demand from North America, Europe and Asia is constrained at the moment by a market that remains heavily dependent on a few producers. Data on the global supply of batteries is hard to come by, but close observers of the industry have noticed evidence of the shortfall. "We've never seen such demand," said Yayoi Sekine, a New York-based analyst at Bloomberg NEF. "But the supply is struggling to keep up."

Oddly, however, lithium-ion battery-rack prices have continued their annual decline, even in the face of constrained supply and expectations of ever-growing demand. To get a clear sense of the near future, consider battery-powered cars: Today, there are more than 3 million electric vehicles on the road worldwide; by 2025, Volkswagen AG alone plans to build as many as 3 million electric vehicles per year. Those vehicle batteries -- in addition to storage batteries for homes, businesses and utilities -- will have to come from somewhere.

113 comments

  1. Big Battery Factory by Thelasko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone should make a massive battery factory to profit off of this problem!

    --
    One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    1. Re:Big Battery Factory by Red_Forman · · Score: 1

      I want to invest in Panasonic but I can't find their coin on coingecko.com!

    2. Re:Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Someone should make a massive battery factory to profit off of this problem!

      The largest football stadium in the world becomes rather fucking worthless without any football players.

      Same goes for battery factories when it comes to lithium...

    3. Re:Big Battery Factory by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 0

      The largest football stadium in the world becomes rather fucking worthless without any football players.

      Even without players, a football stadium is pretty fucking worthless.

      As for the battery factories, they may have to re-tool for a different type of non-lithium battery in a few years/decades but it's still going to be useful.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy enough. Switch to sodium ion batteries.

    5. Re: Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better start recycling. Those a lithium batteries from laptops and demolished EVâ(TM)s are a gold mine

    6. Re:Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmmm ... battery boom. Then bust. Dot-com bubble, just with the profiteers milling around lithium and cobalt?

    7. Re:Big Battery Factory by magarity · · Score: 3, Funny

      The largest football stadium in the world becomes rather fucking worthless without any football players.

      I thought football stadiums are best used for rock concerts.

    8. Re:Big Battery Factory by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The Panasonic/Tesla gigafactory isn't even that big compared to some of the ones being built now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      funny thing...

      additional lithium reserves are currently being developed, read up on Casa Grande where the Lithium perchlorate in the ground water _used_ to be considered contamination, but is now a mine on its own

    10. Re:Big Battery Factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lithium is cheap and near infinitely abundant, it's "mined" in dry lake beds like those right down the road from the Gigafactory and even if all of the land-based lithium on earth disappeared it's also available from seawater at about twice the price it is now.

  2. Wired Wireless by DarkRookie2 · · Score: 1

    One of the benefits, is that you don't need to replace batteries at all.
    Among other benefits.

    --
    http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
  3. No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The demand for batteries is not some fixed quantity irrespective of price.

    At 130$ /kWh there is demand for 300,000 units of 75 kWh batteris, may be a little more or little less. Model 3

    At 160$ /kWh there is demand for just 25,000 units, (Bolt)

    At 200$ /kWh there is demand for just 0 batteries. no one would buy it at that price

    At 100$/kWh there will be demand for about 3 million units of 75 kWh a year. Tesla's projection of breakeven price between BEV and ICEV

    At 80$/kWh there will be demand for something like 30 million units of 75 kWh battery packs a year or even more.

    At 50$ /kWh the whole world will run solar and wind. We can store two or three days electricity usage of the whole world at affordable prices.

    Moore' Law for batteries, is a 7 year half life. Energy density doubles and price halves every seven years for battery packs. Right now Tesla is at 130$ /kWh. In 7 years it will be at 65$/kWh. In 14 years, @ 32$ /kWh we are possibly looking at the greatest disruption the energy sector has seen since the switch from whale oil to coal, from coal to petroleum.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      When we switch to a pony based economy, we will go back to using whale oil.

      We'll extract it via whale liposuction (whale couches, video games and fast food).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The demand for batteries is not some fixed quantity irrespective of price.

      At 130$ /kWh there is demand for 300,000 units of 75 kWh batteris, may be a little more or little less. Model 3

      At 160$ /kWh there is demand for just 25,000 units, (Bolt)

      At 200$ /kWh there is demand for just 0 batteries. no one would buy it at that price

      At 100$/kWh there will be demand for about 3 million units of 75 kWh a year. Tesla's projection of breakeven price between BEV and ICEV

      At 80$/kWh there will be demand for something like 30 million units of 75 kWh battery packs a year or even more.

      At 50$ /kWh the whole world will run solar and wind. We can store two or three days electricity usage of the whole world at affordable prices.

      Moore' Law for batteries, is a 7 year half life. Energy density doubles and price halves every seven years for battery packs. Right now Tesla is at 130$ /kWh. In 7 years it will be at 65$/kWh. In 14 years, @ 32$ /kWh we are possibly looking at the greatest disruption the energy sector has seen since the switch from whale oil to coal, from coal to petroleum.

      (Wikipedia entry on Solar/Wind Power, circa 2025) - "Many people in the early parts of the 21st Century were predicting a massive shift towards solar and wind power, but sadly that never happened after the massive attacks on the worlds largest lithium mines, crippling production. While there is mounting suspicion that Big Oil was behind these attacks, so far there hasn't been any direct link established..."

      Greed is a bitch.

    3. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      At 50$ /kWh the whole world will run solar and wind. We can store two or three days electricity usage of the whole world at affordable prices.

      Adiabatic CAES. Batteries are for portable things; compressed air is for grid.

    4. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I concur.
      I recently was doing budgeting for an off-grid solar site (vacation use), and the batteries are a bigger expense than solar panels. (Assuming replacement every 5-8 years.)

    5. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the demand, I believe for Lithium-ion batteries, as the need and price points for Nicad and lead acid batteries is stable and has not moved much, except downward.

      But even these prices will move downward in the near future as different batteries technologies are introduced into mass production. Just recently zinc-air batteries which can be produced at less than $100 per kilowatt/hr have been introduced, and while they will not fit the niche for li-ion batteries as the power density/weight is not the same, it will take the load of products like stationary needs like battery walls who do not need the power density/weight benefits of li-ion.But can take advantage of the longer number of cycles in zinc-air, carbon, and sodium type batteries that are promises.

      The fact that the li-ion battery producers have sort of a cartel on production and prices also keep the battery prices up. With the introduction of new battery technologies, and production increases in existing battery production the cost per k/hr for all batteries will continue a downward trend, even though there may be more short term demand than supply.

    6. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      At 50$ /kWh the whole world will run solar and wind. We can store two or three days electricity usage of the whole world at affordable prices.

      Adiabatic CAES. Batteries are for portable things; compressed air is for grid.

      I've been saying that for about 20 years now...

    7. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 0

      Adiabatic CAES. Batteries are for portable things; compressed air is for grid.

      CAES has a round trip efficiency of about 70%. Lithium batteries have a RTE of about 90%. So if the batteries are cheap enough, they win.

      If peak power sells for 10 cents per kwh, and trough power costs 5 cents, then a 20% difference in efficiency is going to save you one cent per kwh per cycle. If the battery has a ten year life, then it is more cost effective when the capital cost difference between Lithium batteries and CAES falls below $36.50/kwh.

    8. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by ljw1004 · · Score: 3

      Moore' Law for batteries, is a 7 year half life.

      Where do you get this? I was interested to see some historical graphs to justify a "7-year" claim but I haven't yet found any.

      https://longtailpipe.com/2013/... - I found this article which suggested a 10-year half life

      https://www.upsbatterycenter.c... - this graph showed that improvement has flattened out completely. But the graph lacks no vertical axis so I don't even know what it's measuring.

    9. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      never mind about efficiency .. If you can't store something because of insufficient capacity, you have nothing. Just store the overproduction use it if neccessary.

    10. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Adiabatic CAES uses a different process than the last generation, whereby the energy lost in compression is retained and re-injected into the medium when driving a turbine.

      Lithium batteries require lifting, moving, monitoring, building, disassembling, and chemical scrubbing to recycle or dispose. A lot more goes into the battery around its life cycle.

      Grid-scale power is a utility service and not something you'd install at your house. Centralization of energy storage is economically more-efficient (i.e. in the end, people living with a giant building 10 miles away servicing a 10-mile radius are going to be able to buy more things per individual in total than people who have batteries strung out along the wire at intervals or install power storage at point-of-use). The arbitration of high-cost power against low-cost power doesn't apply because the energy supplier is operating the energy storage plant or contracting out to a third-party to do it for them.

      Likewise, if everyone is pulling power into the battery at off-peak, and drawing it on-peak, they're putting load on the grid during off-peak. That will strain the grid, and the grid operators will raise the price of power during those times to discourage use. I have a single-rate plan because it would cost me 85% more in monthly electricity bills to use the dual-rate plan and only charge my electric vehicle off-peak than it does to use the single-rate plan.

    11. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      LG Chem seems to be around the $100-110/kWh mark based on the pricing of their packs. The main limitation is the rate at which they can scale up manufacturing output.

      Competition is really driving down costs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no Moore's law for batteries. Progress on batteries has always been much slower (IIRC logarithmic rather than square-law).

    13. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by balbeir · · Score: 2

      Adiabatic CAES. Batteries are for portable things; compressed air is for grid.

      So, basically we're going to run the grid off unicorn farts?

    14. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Funny thing, the fossil fuel energy companies have about $107 TRILLION in fuel reserves that have not yet been pumped/mined

      This represents a staggering loss of value if the rest of the world moves to renewables, supplanted by batteries.

      Expect them to lie, foot drag and employ every delay tactic available while they try and glean money from their bad investment

    15. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      The first citation is 5 years old, 2013.

      The second one is dated 2018 but it shows a plot that stops before 2000.

      This is the first hit on google search: https://www.google.com/imgres?...

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    16. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    17. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by ljw1004 · · Score: 2

      The first citation is 5 years old, 2013. The second one is dated 2018 but it shows a plot that stops before 2000. This is the first hit on google search: ...

      The link you provided is about prices. Your claim was about energy density as well. I haven't yet found any evidence for your "7 year half life for energy density" claim.

    18. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      Citation provided:https://evobsession.com/tesla-...

      You had said that (1) energy density doubles every seven years, and (2) prices halve every seven years. That link provides information about claim (2). Can you provide any evidence for claim (1)? I haven't been able to find any myself yet, after 15 minutes on google.

    19. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, the fossil fuel energy companies have about $107 TRILLION in fuel reserves that have not yet been pumped/mined

      Not to mention unproved reserves. When you have enough found for the next 25 years or so you lose drastically if you spend current money looking for more, which you won't use for decades, rather than waiting and using the money for something that will pay off sooner. So you only have more than that amount when a big discovery has pushed the total above that limit by accident.

      (That's why it always looks like we'll run out of mined/drilled resources in about 30 years, and has for well over 50.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    20. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Centralization of energy storage is economically more-efficient

      Not necessarily. Transmission losses are minimized if the power transmitted is steady. Steady transmission is achieved if the variations of the load are filtered out at the load, i.e. by storing excess of supply above use at the load.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose they wouldn't keep pushing the button if they didn't keep getting a Coke... or some shit like that

      The US needs some sort of inter-generational communication of 'old tricks' and 'bad outcomes'. You know the real dope, like I got from my older neighbors who had been savvy since before WW2, not the Disney-esque, corporate boot-lackey 'lessons' that get stuffed down the throats of 'Mericans these days.

      Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - George Santayana

    22. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      true. I did not provide energy density data. will try to dig it up. but i could be wrong on that point, too.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    23. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lithium batterys have a charge/discharge max cycle of about 300.

      Once you used it that many times fully up and fully down. you now have a paperweight.

      software tricks can get you to a higher number. but the actual lithium itself is still only good for about 300 cycles.

    24. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moore' Law for batteries, is a 7 year half life. Energy density doubles...every seven years for battery packs.

      true. I did not provide energy density data. will try to dig it up. but i could be wrong on that point

      Maybe you can also dig up why model year 2019 Tesla Model S still has the same range as the 7 year previous 2012 models?

    25. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      distributed power storage will be the best way. if all buildings had their own battery and they have EVs, those batteries could be accessible by the main or micro-grids in times of need. Lots of buildings will also have solar so they'll charge their own storage. Centralisation is too much of the old "put all the eggs in the one basket" idea. No real need for much centralised storage.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    26. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I don't mean transmission efficiency; I mean the efficiency of physically moving around, going to get things, storing them, transporting them, finding them, diagnosing them.

      We handle transmission efficiency by using HVDC, stepping down locally to HVAC, and then transforming to 240VAC at point-of-use. Three-phase power helps, too.

    27. Re:No. It is not making enough *cheap* batteries by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      That would put load on your electric vehicle batteries, cycle them more frequently, and require earlier replacement. What's the cost of replacing a battery in an EV versus replacing it in a giant wall of batteries?

  4. cobalt mines and rubber trees by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful
    At one time, the growth of the automobile industry was limited by the number of rubber tree plantations in the world (all those cars need tires you know). Then someone invented synthetic rubber made from the byproducts of the petroleum all those cars were using. Problem solved.

    Now the limit on electric cars is cobalt for lithium-ion batteries. Until some clever person develops zinc-air batteries or carbon nanotube batteries or something even better. One way or the other, electric cars are coming.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One way or the other, electric cars are coming.

      Great, you get to push while I drive. Should be easy w/o the battery weight.

    2. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by jellomizer · · Score: 2

      Perhaps the Rumors were true. The Flintstones didn't take place in the past but in the future. Where technology had peaked and dipped, while advancements in genetics and material management. So we create "Dinosaurs" and other large animals with boosted intelligence to perform complex jobs. With carbon and silicon based materials that looks like rock, but are actually strong and light weight material. So we can have a car that can maintain speed with just foot power.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no better mechanism for solving these problems than Capitalism. And I'm a Socialist. A free market and human ingenuity (greed?) always finds solution to technological problems. Problems like war, hatred and racism unfortunately are not so easily solved.

    4. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Trogre · · Score: 1

      You may not know this, but the all-time best-selling EV on the planet, the Nissan Leaf, does not use cobalt in its lithium-ion batteries.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    5. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
      Most cars lose 20% of value as you drive off the dealer's lot.

      Leaf loses 20% battery capacity on the drive home from the dealer.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    6. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the Rumors were true. The Flintstones didn't take place in the past but in the future. Where technology had peaked and dipped, while advancements in genetics and material management. So we create "Dinosaurs" and other large animals with boosted intelligence to perform complex jobs. With carbon and silicon based materials that looks like rock, but are actually strong and light weight material. So we can have a car that can maintain speed with just foot power.

      While you're here, would you mind explaining what "Pancreas denial" is exactly?

    7. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My leaf is now 15 months old, it reports no loss of battery capacity so far.
      Also according to KBB it gained value to me when I drove it off the lot, ~$32k car, ~$10k in local incentives (power company manages it), and $7,500 in federal tax incentives... means the car cost about $15k to me, (less than the Versa hatch that was parked next to in in the lot, starting at $17k) and KBB currently puts the current private seller value at about $15k after a year and 16,000 miles.

    8. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      I never heard of "Pancreas denial".
      My best guess would be people who do not believe Diabetes is a serious condition.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is great, but those are artificial elements that may not exist. Remove the incentives and it is no different than other vehicles.

    10. Re:cobalt mines and rubber trees by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Perhaps you're thinking of the widely advertised problems with the 30kWh batteries, which turned out to be an easily-fixed firmware problem.

      Or perhaps you live in Arizona, where batteries tend to cook.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  5. This needs to stop by shaitand · · Score: 0

    "Governments from California to China and South Korea -- even Donald Trump's Washington"

    Why this and not simply "Governments from California to China and South Korea and even the US Federal Government"

    This extreme bias is persistent and spreading.

    1. Re:This needs to stop by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not exactly. They were making the point that even an administration hostile to renewable energy still acknowledges the issue.

    2. Re: This needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because almost every action taken by the Trump administration as relates to any other aspect of the environment has been exclusively pro-fossil fuels, so this stands out?

    3. Re:This needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a bit surprising, but somebody probably told him you could charge the batteries with coal power plants.

    4. Re:This needs to stop by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      "Governments from California to China and South Korea -- even Donald Trump's Washington"

      Why this and not simply "Governments from California to China and South Korea and even the US Federal Government"

      This extreme bias is persistent and spreading.

      Calm down!

      We're not laughing at him, we're laughing with him!

    5. Re:This needs to stop by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump is just one guy not all of Washington. The EPA is not "Donald Trumps Administration", it is the EPA. The department of highway safety is not "the Trump administration", etc. These are government agencies and the US government is the US government not Donald Trump.

      As for battery shortages, batteries don't care about whether the power charging them came from a coal plant or not. There is nothing renewable about the electric cars and other portable and mobile devices requiring batteries. Most renewable installations are grid tied, the power running your solar house at night might well be coming from a coal powered plant.

    6. Re:This needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have not been hostile. The word you are looking for is ambivalent.

    7. Re:This needs to stop by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Donald Trump is just one guy not all of Washington. The EPA is not "Donald Trumps Administration", it is the EPA.

      It is the standard convention that you refer to departments of the government as "President's agency" or even the "President agency ." If you find this to be difficult to grasp, perhaps political debate is not for you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:This needs to stop by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 0, Troll

      This extreme bias is persistent and spreading.

      Not all bias is incorrect. There is also an extreme bias in the media for support of the "spherical earth" theory.

      The fact that the current chief of the US Federal Government is a fossil fuel-loving ignoramus is indisputable.

    9. Re:This needs to stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald Trump just gutted the EPA, so what is left of it is his agency.

      Now that coal is down to 30% of the generation in the USA, it is no longer the most likely source of power at night. Most of the new generation now comes from natural gas, running about 1/2 the CO2 emissions than coal.

    10. Re:This needs to stop by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It really is. There's a reason that 'The [president]'s administration' is a common term. The president appoints a large number of officials that head important government agencies, and once a new president takes office one of the first things they do is set about expelling everyone who might be loyal to the last president or their policies and replace them with people who are loyal to the new president and their policies. These people in turn hurry to replace lower level administrators with people more sympathetic to the new regime. True, Trump does not head the EPA... but he personally selected the person who does. When the president changes, management of a large part of the federal government changes soon after.

  6. It sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Tesla's technology is obsolete already. Also, Tesla's batteries are round. Automakers prefer flat batteries.

    Add in the fact that Tesla is a money losing, cash flow negative, deeply in debt failure run by a liar and a narcissist, that factory won't be around - unless Musk can continue to lie and convince stupid people to dump money into the bottomless pit known as TEsla.

    The ONLY reason Tesla is still around is because Musk is a great con-artist and convinces stupid people to give him more money. Tesla is incapable of sustaining itself because it is poorly managed by an idiot know as Elon Musk.

    Oh, all the fanboys here on the Slashdot Tesla/Musk praising echo site are all retards.

    Now, cue up the losers who are going to parrot Musk's bullshit and add in their own.

    *Sold long position at $365, shorted and covered at $265. Kiss my dick while I rest on my pile of cash - taxed at 0% and 10% respectively. All taken out of the fanboy's pockets because the financial markets are a zero sum game.

    AH! Hahahahahahahahahahhahahahah!

    I'm Robin The Wall Street guy: I take from the stupid and give to myself!

    1. Re:It sucks by olddoc · · Score: 0

      Apple Inc in 1997 had money losing ugly computers. It was close to bankruptcy and Steve Jobs' personality made Donald Trump look like a saint. The con artist Jobs convinced stupid Bill Gates to give him money. If you shorted $50,000 of Apple in 1997 you would now need about $22,500,000 to buy it back. I've loved driving my Tesla for the past 3 years. It has not had any significant issues and has been a total joy.

      --
      Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    2. Re:It sucks by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 2

      Apple Inc in 1997 had money losing ugly computers.

      Not compared to anyone else...

      If you look at this timeline of Apple computer models in that time period (say 1995-1999), Apple was the ONLY computer company NOT making computers utterly devoid of style.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ...That is, except for the MANY others that were essentially COPYING Apple's case-designs...

    3. Re:It sucks by bobbied · · Score: 1, Troll

      Apple Inc in 1997 had money losing ugly computers. It was close to bankruptcy and Steve Jobs' personality made Donald Trump look like a saint. The con artist Jobs convinced stupid Bill Gates to give him money. If you shorted $50,000 of Apple in 1997 you would now need about $22,500,000 to buy it back. I've loved driving my Tesla for the past 3 years. It has not had any significant issues and has been a total joy.

      Glad you like your Tesla, but the previous poster, while rude and somewhat based on the wrong things, is correct in his analysis. Tesla is rapidly falling deeper and deeper into trouble and has a lot of reasons it's not going to make it and very few reasons to think it will. Shorting Tesla is a good plan in my view and if the original poster is telling the truth about his trades, he's got results to prove it.

      Your example of Apple, fits the model, their stock price took a beating. Funny you should pick 97, clearly that was it's low point. Had you shorted Apple back in 95, you could have made money covering in 97. Again, in 2000 you could have shorted at $4/share and make $3/share within a year. But hindsight is 20/20. Personally, I think we are in a similar cycle with Tesla, It's on the way down, until they can meet their performance numbers and get their Model 3 production rolling, if they ever can. Maybe if they survive the coming dark days it will be a value buy and hold play, but right now, It's a high risk volatile stock suitable for day traders and "true believers" who want to ride out the storm.

      It's not that I'm opposed to other's investing in Tesla. Just understand that it's way overpriced P/E wise (it's loosing money still, even if you add back in the R&D costs) and there is absolutely zero reason to support a $300+ stock price beyond the personality cult of Musk. If they miss their next Q's numbers again, it's going to be bloody, but if they meet their numbers, I don't see much in the way of an upturn in price. They are going to need to show a profit here and soon, or it doesn't seem to be much that can push the price up.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    4. Re: It sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Credibility of a punter who doesn't know loose from lose is low. No offense, you probably got a piss-poor education.

    5. Re:It sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason for the share price is the potential market in cars and energy is so enormous, and the incumbents are far behind. Shorts may make some money, but the longs may make a lot more. The problem I have with the big shorts is the narrative they are pushing in the media. It's a braking force on a potential huge success story that we desperately need for the sake of the planet.

    6. Re: It sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why_is_teslapanasonic_producing_round_batteries

      A quick search shows there are good reasons to made round batteries.

    7. Re:It sucks by jezwel · · Score: 1
      When I last looked at their financials I couldn't work out what was spending on expanding facilities vs. what was general costs of doing business. They make good margin making cars and that margin plus more is eaten away until they're running negative. Either they:
      * reign in expansion and generate a profit to pay down some of their debt, or
      * continue ramping volume without ramping general expenses at the same scale.

      Otherwise they're in for a world of hurt - or going to need a big cash injection.

    8. Re: It sucks by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Credibility of a punter who doesn't know loose from lose is low. No offense, you probably got a piss-poor education.

      So, do you have a salient point to make or are you simply going to correct my grammar?

      I think you are just trying to make yourself feel good because you lack a positive self image, but my college degree is in engineering so I'm obviously not qualified to judge your addled state of mind.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  7. No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Though, All the women will have to give up their vibrators.

    Sorry Ladies, plenty of men around.

    caption - winers

  8. Kwh costs too by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    I might be interested for 5-10 cents per kwh and 400+ miles range.

    The problem is that where I live, it is 28+ cents per Kwh, usage based, price goes up with usage, and we have vulnerable, limited capacity wires.

    1. Re:Kwh costs too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      28 cents/kWh means solar is very lucrative in most locations.
      Also no time of use rates? Usually you charge at off peak times.

    2. Re:Kwh costs too by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

      Naw, the price is just a govt grab. Night or day. I have neighbors that operate air conditioned event houses at 20 - 50 kW, mostly evenings to midnight or so. Their rates can range 28 - 50 cents per Kwh.

    3. Re:Kwh costs too by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      If your utility charges you 28 cents /kWh, why are you not using solar or wind or both?

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    4. Re:Kwh costs too by romanval · · Score: 1

      How much is your car's fuel cost?

  9. Volkswagen AG says..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah I believe them. They would never lie to us. /end sarcasm

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per German newspaper today - there is no car company that did not lie about exhaust and there is hardly any that did not manipulate SW to get the norms. The massive attack on VW is just that. When people died because of SW faults in Toyotas the shouting was much smaller which to me shows that it is ideology and hidden agendas that played a role in VW affair. BTW I would not buz VW unless the price fell 20% as these things are just too expensive.

    2. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, they (and other car makers) really have no other choice. The EU has imposed fleet average CO2 targets that will make it more or less necessary to make EVs a large fraction of new car sales. China has also mandated that a large and increasing part of new car sales will be electric in the near future.

    3. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. VW was the only car maker that at least admitted and apologised, recalled all affected vehicles and sacked those responsible. The other car makers, which all had cars with higher real-world emissions, continue to deny to this day.

    4. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3

      > there is no car company that did not lie about exhaust

      Back in 2002 or so, Ford and Honda cars failed emissions, but that was an honest mistake (the US had introduced new, stricter standards). Both Ford and Honda fixed the mistake immediately. . In contrast Volkswagen KNOWINGLY removed the Urea Equipment that is used to neutralized NOx pollution in all other diesel cars..... and then they designed the software to detect an EPA emissions test, and run the engine in a self-damaging condition to pass that test. (After which it returned to normal operation of emitting upto 40 times the NOx limit.)

      This was not a design mistake like Ford and Honda made. This was a deliberate plan to cheat & cover it up..

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    5. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      The only carmakers to fail emissions were Ford and Honda (circa 2002) and YES they did recall those cars and fix them. They also paid appropriate fines. To say they didn't do recalls smacks of an EXTREME amount of ignorance. Use google; do some damn research.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reality does not agree with you.

    7. Re:Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in 2002 or so, Ford and Honda cars failed emissions, but that was an honest mistake (the US had introduced new, stricter standards). Both Ford and Honda fixed the mistake immediately

      It's nice that you hace found two cases long ago and far away, but why are you ignoring all the car makers caught in the past three years engineering their cars to meet NOx emissions only during the test? Also, even in the two cases you mention, US authorities did not seem convinced it was an 'honest mistake'.

      In contrast Volkswagen KNOWINGLY removed the Urea Equipment that is used to neutralized NOx pollution in all other diesel cars

      Very few Euro 5 diesel cars had SCR (urea equipment). Only Mercedes-Benz, Peugeot and BMW used it and even then not in every model. In fact, some of the first Euro 6 diesels that actually met the standard in realistic driving conditions did so without SCR.

      (After which it returned to normal operation of emitting upto 40 times the NOx limit.)

      This is a purposefully misleading claim from the Americans, referring to very short periods during regeneration cycles which happen from time to time in every diesel car with a particulate trap. Average emissions, altough indeed far beyond the official limit, were nowhere near 40 times that limit.

    8. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      Notice that article says "in real world driving" HOWEVER every one of those cars (except VW) passes the EU government's testing **inside the lab** (which is all the Law requires they do). They are 100% compliant with the law.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    9. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The law also prohibits the use of defeat devices. Renault, Ford, Fiat, etc. may meet the limits in a test (just like VW), but they still violate the law because they have developed their engine management software in such a way that the test has become useless. Unfortunately, it is very hard to act unless the manufacturer confesses because of a legal loophole that allows measures to protect the engine. Moreover, type approval occurs at the national level and only Germany is willing to prosecute its domestic car industry over violations.

    10. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, just like the VW cars did. In real world driving their emissions failed, but during emissions testing (aka, **inside the lab**) they passed.

      Honestly, I cannot believe you actually tried to claim "when a non-VW company does it, it is not illegal".

    11. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2

      The difference is Volkswagen actually CHEATED by having the computer software recognize "Oh we're in a lab. Change the engine's running conditions to pass this test."

      Ford, Honda, the rest don't have cheat code in their software. The engine runs exactly the same, whether in the Emissions lab or not in the lab. That makes them legally-compliant.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    12. Re: Volkswagen AG says..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is simply not true. They did the exact same thing as VW, only with higher real-world emissions. The only difference is that VW admitted and recalled the affected cars, while the others denied and claim their defeat devices are necessary to protect the engine.

  10. You mean Zinc Air batteries? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

    Dude, we are making them.

    Maybe you fail to realize that the entire West Coast is going to 100-120 percent Renewables. And, yes, we're using those batteries.

    Wake me when you guys stop whining and start doing. We're most of North America's economy.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, no. California is 11%, Oregon is about 1% and Washington is about 3% of the US economy (apparently you don't know what North America is). You have a wild overblown sense of your importance.

    2. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by nwaack · · Score: 1

      Wake me when you guys stop whining and start doing. We're most of North America's economy.

      Wake me when you West-coasters get your heads out of your arses and stop being so incredibly self-important and arrogant.

    3. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Those numbers are ignoring the pot exports. All three states number one cash crop.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Only someone from back East would think WA OR CA were the West Coast.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by jezwel · · Score: 1

      As someone from another country entirely, those three states (plus Alaska and Hawaii I guess) make up the West Coast. Am I missing something?
      Are you counting states *not* on the coast?

    6. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The west coast is going to collapse after they pay their real federal tax bill in april for the first time in decades...

      State taxes are no longer deductable from your fed bill. Enjoy the exodus.

    7. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, no. California is 11%, Oregon is about 1% and Washington is about 3% of the US economy (apparently you don't know what North America is). You have a wild overblown sense of your importance.

      I don't know who you're arguing with, but I had no idea that California made up 11% of the entire US economy. I assume your argument is that all the rednecks had better learn to suck hippy cock in future?

    8. Re:You mean Zinc Air batteries? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      The west coast is going to collapse after they pay their real federal tax bill in april for the first time in decades...

      State taxes are no longer deductable from your fed bill. Enjoy the exodus.

      Um, a number of our states don't have income taxes, sunshine.

      The only places really affected are the Northeast.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  11. Its a good thing by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    batteries still got a ways to go.

    --
    [($)]
  12. No need for range if you charge your car every day by KayakFun · · Score: 1

    Range of gas/diesel cars has historically grown to save you driving to a gas station every day or every few days. But what if you live next to a gas station, or in the case of electric vehicles, your house is the electric charge point?
    We have gotten used to plugging in our smartphones into a charger every night, didn't we? Treat your car like a smartphone and you only need 1 day of electric range, plus a bit extra for that small road deviation.
    A smaller battery is cheaper, and lighter, so your car and its brakes can be lighter too, making it cheaper once more. And suddenly the world does not need that many batteries.

  13. It's up to Hasbro by tepples · · Score: 1

    When we switch to a pony based economy, we will go back to using whale oil.

    That largely depends on the relationship that Hasbro chooses to have with its fans.

  14. And batteries have to go someplace as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Happy that the interest in energy storage through chemical technology is strong and growing. Just one minor detail that needs addressing... what to do with the old units. Recycling for lead-acid has had a century to be developed and is widely available. Not so much for the other metal/chemical technologies that are in use. While the demand for high energy capacity batteries may be soaring, in a few years there will be a big pile of spent batteries to go someplace. Don't know about anyplace else... we turn ours in to the hazardous waste people, who have said they go to a special landfil. Not a great idea for very long, considering the supply of some battery components is not unlimited.

  15. where are the materials coming from? by lkcl · · Score: 1

    where is the cobalt (a conflict resource) coming from? where's the lithium coming from? and how's the recycling coming along? also, do we have enough copper to supply absolutely everyone currently owning a car with their own personal 2 tonne electric vehicle? and what's the environmental cost of neodymium refining? https://www.theguardian.com/en...

  16. Don't blame them by TimMD909 · · Score: 1

    In today's world, it costs a lot to raise batteries. Anodes and cathodes are thus waiting until they're older, while also having less batteries in total.

  17. Re:No need for range if you charge your car every by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Range of gas/diesel cars has historically grown to save you driving to a gas station every day or every few days.

    Within the constraint of being able to make cross-country trips without long pauses for refueling.

    Because battery charging, even when blazingly fast with recent cell types, is still longer than a human-maintenance pit stop, they don't do well on long trips. So they need to have larger range than a fuel car or they are limited to a subset of the service types and you need two vehicles.

    For instance: With something close to 300 miles of range an electric in Silicon Valley could handle both commutes and weekend excursions to Tahoe-area ski resorts or Reno-area entertainment and gaming, with a safety margin for contingencies like getting stuck in traffic jams during foul mountain weather. Under 250 miles of range and forget it.

    (Don't say "rent something else for those non-commute trips". The time and hassle comes out of the precious vacation time, the cost from the budget, a breakdown is more likely and kills the vacation, and it leaves you driving a strange vehicle, a safety issue. You might consider that for a two-week vacation. But it kills weekenders, which is a drastic drop in quality of life.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  18. Re:No need for range if you charge your car every by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    For instance: With something close to 300 miles of range an electric in Silicon Valley could handle both commutes and weekend excursions...

    Los Angels - Las Vegas similarly, with a minimum of 350 miles range.

    SF - LA is nearly 400 miles (383.1 center-to-center), the cities are spread out and the traffic is snared at both ends. So you need about 500 mile range for an electric to be practical for trips between them.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  19. Re:No need for range if you charge your car every by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    You start everyday with a full tank. You are saving 10 min every week by not filling up at the gas station. The time you save is what you spend on trips

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  20. Is there enough lithium? by aglider · · Score: 1

    In the world, I mean

    --
    Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
    1. Re:Is there enough lithium? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is plenty. But a lot of it is more expensive to mine/win, so it depends on what price you find acceptable (or inventions to make those options cheap).
      I heard other materials are of bigger concern.

  21. Re:No need for range if you charge your car every by superdave80 · · Score: 1

    But you then have to waste an hour or two recharging your vehicle every time you go on a weekend trip that even slightly exceeds your range. Sounds like you aren't really 'saving' any time.

  22. Re:No need for range if you charge your car every by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if you can't charge at home? Running a long extension cord down the street would not be doable. So you'll need a working week of range plus extra, and then find a powerful public charger once a week.