Thoughts on TESLA

[Chuckanut]

One good way is solar roofs at businesses. There is an abundance of solar during the day while people are working. Drive to work, charge all day for free and drive home.

When I was in Turkey, the roof of the hotel I stayed in was covered with dozens of solar water heaters. All were neatly lined up in rows. I wish I had been able to go up to the roof and see how they were hooked up.


In any event, I soon learned that the best time for a hot shower was in late afternoon or early evening. Morning shower people? Fugetaboutit!

 

[aja8888]

And with less NG available and/or much higher prices for NG, that's
going to affect electricity prices. The more we replace dirty coal, and bring on intermittent RE (solar/wind), the more we need to rely on NG to fill the gaps. The stage seems to be set for less expensive gas/diesel, and more expensive electricity?

Does that fit your view?

-ERD50

Well, the oil & gas industry is complicated and made up of 1,000's of producers and processors. I believe there are 150+ refineries in the U.S. alone and hundreds of chemical plants and gas processors. It's not simple to say precisely what will happen if crude oil or natural gas production is cut back.

A lot of what we process (refined products and NGL's) are exported. Plus, we import about 1/3 of our crude oil needs. (strange, but that's true)

On hydrocarbon production:

1. Some well fields produce crude oil as a "major" product (brine, sand, gases are also brought along but act as non-revenue streams).

2. Some well fields produce crude oil and natural gas (and brine, sand, ect) and oil and gas are separated and sold.

3. Some well fields produce only natural gas with minor amounts of "other hydrocarbons" like condensate, and also water, sand, etc.

Gathering systems are designed around the field production and that might include gas compression into sales lines (utilities, retail sales) or processing plants. Or there may be tank farms built to store crude oil and water for removal by tank truck.

Some production leaves the producing fields by pipeline. In remote areas, like North Dakota, pretty much all crude is hauled from the well sites by tank truck and gas is either flared (no way to store it) or pipelined to a gas processing plant.

As you can see, it's a mixed bag as far as production/gathering/transport goes to get the hydrocarbons to processing plants (refineries/chemical pants/liquids plants).

Slowdowns at refineries would mean altering the so called product slate. Less gasoline would be more middle distillates (fuel oil, diesel, lube stocks, etc). Reduced outputs will follow. You don't shut these guys down without a REAL reason to do so.

The smaller refiners may go out of business if they lose contracts for fuels since they usually focus on a limited product slate (or are not equipped to make many other products).

The big refineries would survive as they are more flexible, some have chemical units onsite, and can sell overseas.

Natural gas wells can be easily shut in (curtail production) if demand drops. Or gas can be stored in old underground salt domes. Gas processing plants are also continuous plants and like to run 24/7, however, but they are geared to making liquid products or cleaning up the gas stream prior to sales.

I am not very knowledgeable on fuels pricing, but if there is a bad winter in the U.S., natural gas prices tend to rise to meet the increased demand for that fuel. We have quite a bit of natural gas in this country due to the shale discoveries and we can easily shut it in or store it. I suspect if electrical power demands were to increase dramatically, natural gas prices would increase also for those power plants that use it.

 

[ERD50]

I am certainly not trying to twist your words. So thank you for any corrections. You previously typed the words: "OK, but I'm not crazy about the word "concede", facts are facts, I will just acknowledge them, plain and simple. So yes, it's generally cheaper to power an EV with electricity than it is to power a car with gasoline/diesel - that's a fact." I read that to mean that the EV option uses less fuel for the same power as compared with ICE. That is why it would be "cheaper". Can EV's be "cheaper" without using less gas than an ICE (aside from additional maintenance savings)? ..

OK, I see where the disconnect is. Thanks for going into a little more depth.

A few posts back, I mentioned you were mixing/matching the terms efficiency and emissions. Here, you are mixing/matching the terms efficiency and economy.

I'm an engineer, in a discussion like this I use the scientific definition of "efficiency", (Power Out) / (Power In). That may or may not be related to "effective", "practical", "emissions" or "economy".

So as I said back then, yes, it's a fact that it generally costs less for the kWh to move an EV than it does for the gas/diesel to move the same distance. But those costs are likely due to having cheap coal and NG delivered right to a non-mobile plant. It might be 'fun' to calculate how much it would cost to drive a car mile directly on coal or NG, with a truck riding alongside, dumping coal in o with an NG hose connected (assuming some reasonable conversion efficiency). I read just recently that Rudolph Diesel first experimented with powdered coal, but his experimental engine blew up!

So it's not about the amount of fuel, but the cost of that fuel. And recall, there are taxes in gasoline that are not in a kWh, so if adjustments are made there, the cost delta will shrink some - but you can see that does not change the operation of the engine or power plant or their emissions. Efficiency is a separate measure from economy.

... I will say, again, that I have no issues with hybrids until chargers are ubiquitous and EV range improves to the point where hybrids will offer no extra value. ...

I agree! I'll add "environmental concerns" to that list. And as far as the angle that I view it from, I wouldn't say "I have no issues with" xyz technology - if it is better, I'm for it! EV, hybrid, hamster wheel, rubber band - just show me the numbers!

... Your argument makes little sense, if I am understanding it. You acknowledge, above, that we can currently produce electricity at a 50% to 60% efficiency and that it is improving all the time. ....

I don't think I said that. 60% co-gen seems to be the top end of anything I'm aware of. Though overall efficiencies will come closer to 60% overall if we keep getting more co-gen in the mix. But I'm not aware of improvements past 60%.

... At the same time you say you don't care (are agnostic) as to whether Tesla and others produce vehicles that can utilize this more efficient source of energy right now (more efficient than ICE). Just how efficient do you believe the best ICE engines are? How about the average efficiency of an ICE? Isn't any improvement better than nothing? ...

I'm interested in the overall package - emissions, cost, practicality. It isn't just how efficient an EV uses the energy from the wall. ICEs can be very efficient, and progress is still being made. And as hybrid tech gets better, the engineers will have more flexibility to keep the ICE running in a 'sweet spot', and let the battery/motor take over. You are freed from even having an engine that has to idle. The battery/motor can propel the car at say, under 25 mph, and a simple transmission can keep the ICE in a limited RPM/power range and work with the motor and generator.

For comparison, today's most efficient gasoline engines are achieving about 42-43% thermal efficiency, while diesels are closer to around 50% efficient. Mazda's latest SPCCI SkyActiv-X engine is around 43%, though they have announced the following generation will be achieving 56% efficiency.

So the gap between these engines, and getting a large % of power from co-gen on the grid is pretty narrow, and since cars are replaced faster than power plants, likely ahead of efficiency of power plants on average.

.... It seems obvious that the best solution, until we can get to near zero emission electric generation across the board, is to build the most efficient natural gas electric plants while we all switch to EV's or hybrids. Heck, it would not surprise me to learn that Musk is planning on building some natural gas plants just to fuel his cars and trucks. Are you on board?

I need to back and absorb aja8888's post on this. But from that chart I posted, An EV on 100% NG is only marginally better than the 2013-2014 era hybrid, and hybrids have already progressed, and as I just wrote, have room to go. But again, whatever gets results. I'd actually be happy it was EVs, like I said, when I was younger I looked forward to them, but then I learned of the emissions issues from the power plants, and never imagined ICEs would have improved so much in reliability, driveabilty, emissions, efficiency, etc. I come from the days of carburetors, manual chokes and spark plugs and points that you replaced/cleaned regularly. I still like the simplicity of the EV, it's just not making great sense over-all. Or at least the sense isn't anywhere close to the hype from many.

-ERD50

 

[JoeWras]

When I was in Turkey, the roof of the hotel I stayed in was covered with dozens of solar water heaters. All were neatly lined up in rows. I wish I had been able to go up to the roof and see how they were hooked up.

It is the first thing I noticed when the plane was getting ready to land in Greece.

 

[NW-Bound]

I was in Israel for a business trip, and observed the same. I was told that a rooftop solar water heater was mandatory for a new dwelling, or if the owner renovated.

Note that these places often have clear sky, and the risk of the panels freezing in the winter is low or non-existent.

 

[ERD50]

FYI, there was also this thread, for a discussion on the future of the IE, somewhat separate from Tesla specifically.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/internal-combustion-engine-has-a-future-88129.html

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

OK, just for 'yuks'. Coal delivered to a power plant averages ~ $2.23 per million BTU, and gasoline ~ $22.98.

So coal ~ 1/10th the cost of gasoline assuming similar efficiencies, NG prices are all over, I saw $2 to ~ $7 in 2018, usually ~ $3, so not so much more than coal generally.

So if that fuel could be delivered to, and used by, a car directly, cost/mile would be less than half of an EV. Lots of fudge in there anyhow, retail versus wholesale prices, etc. No road tax in either. Like I said, just for yuks.

-ERD50

 

[Chuckanut]

Tesla up 8% today. Obviously many people followed and agreed with my analysis of Mr Musk’s interview.

 

[cyber888]

Up today. Tesla's Model 3 just beat all the BMW car sales combined for August. Walmart just added orders for the Tesla Electric Truck. The Swedish supercar Keoningnegg (?) felt defeated by the Tesla Roadster - that can do 1.9 seconds 0-60 and get 620 miles range on one charge. Tesla's China production unit about to go full speed and production capacity at 250,000 cars and create batteries at the same time..

 

[aja8888]

Buy a used Chevy Volt. Best use of both worlds and no worry about being in West Texas 200 miles from the grid!

 

[corn18]

Up today. Tesla's Model 3 just beat all the BMW car sales combined for August. Walmart just added orders for the Tesla Electric Truck. The Swedish supercar Keoningnegg (?) felt defeated by the Tesla Roadster - that can do 1.9 seconds 0-60 and get 620 miles range on one charge. Tesla's China production unit about to go full speed and production capacity at 250,000 cars and create batteries at the same time..

I went to Tesla's site to see about putting down a deposit for the roadster (that thing is beautiful!). I selected the founders series and crapped my pants when they wanted full price ($250k) up front. I'll wait.

 

[oneill225]

An EV on 100% NG is only marginally better than the 2013-2014 era hybrid, and hybrids have already progressed, and as I just wrote, have room to go. But again, whatever gets results. I'd actually be happy it was EVs, like I said, when I was younger I looked forward to them, but then I learned of the emissions issues from the power plants, and never imagined ICEs would have improved so much in reliability, driveabilty, emissions, efficiency, etc. I come from the days of carburetors, manual chokes and spark plugs and points that you replaced/cleaned regularly. I still like the simplicity of the EV, it's just not making great sense over-all. Or at least the sense isn't anywhere close to the hype from many.-ERD50

It is finally dawning on me that your overriding concern is a desire to not build anymore electric plants driven by natural gas or coal. I respect that desire and I will support it when "clean energy" sources are developed enough to handle the load. That day is much further down the road than the day we can all drive an EV, however.

Wouldn't it be nice if when that day comes we have already transitioned off of regular ICE driven cars including hybrids? What is the downside? Overall green house emissions will be lower during the transition period (despite building new natural gas plants) and we will get all of the other benefits of EVs like less noise pollution and lower maintenance costs.

Back to the topic for this thread: Thoughts on Tesla deserve more than agnostic recognition if Tesla is the driving force behind making the transition happen. Before you can believe in Tesla you need to be onboard with the shift to full electric. If that transition also requires more hybrids and new natural gas electric generation, bring it on.

A final note, Tesla also is currently building huge battery farms to hold the energy created by clean energy. This is a big step in making solar and wind power more viable. Here is info on one such project, but there are others: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator. More support for Tesla is a good thing; not just for EV fanboys like me.

 

[NW-Bound]

I went to Tesla's site to see about putting down a deposit for the roadster (that thing is beautiful!). I selected the founders series and crapped my pants when they wanted full price ($250k) up front. I'll wait.

If Tesla is in default, say bye bye to that money.

 

[ERD50]

Well, the oil & gas industry is complicated ...

Slowdowns at refineries would mean altering the so called product slate. Less gasoline would be more middle distillates (fuel oil, diesel, lube stocks, etc). Reduced outputs will follow. You don't shut these guys down without a REAL reason to do so.

The smaller refiners may go out of business if they lose contracts for fuels since they usually focus on a limited product slate (or are not equipped to make many other products).

The big refineries would survive as they are more flexible, some have chemical units onsite, and can sell overseas.

Natural gas wells can be easily shut in (curtail production) if demand drops. Or gas can be stored in old underground salt domes. Gas processing plants are also continuous plants and like to run 24/7, however, but they are geared to making liquid products or cleaning up the gas stream prior to sales.

I am not very knowledgeable on fuels pricing, but if there is a bad winter in the U.S., natural gas prices tend to rise to meet the increased demand for that fuel. We have quite a bit of natural gas in this country due to the shale discoveries and we can easily shut it in or store it. I suspect if electrical power demands were to increase dramatically, natural gas prices would increase also for those power plants that use it.

Thanks for all that, I knew there were lots of pieces in the puzzle, and that helps put some of it together.

NG pricing - wow, when I went to get some scale of NG fed to a power plant versus if we could run a car directly on it (fantasy land - not compressed or anything, like a hose to your car - just a thought experiment), there was a really sharp spike from below $3 to near $7 for mmBTU Natural Gas in Jan 2018. That's really something for a utility to deal with (though as a regulated industry, I guess it is built in to pass the cost on to the consumer). Must still cause a lot of disruption across industry though.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

Thanks for all that, I knew there were lots of pieces in the puzzle, and that helps put some of it together.

NG pricing - wow, when I went to get some scale of NG fed to a power plant versus if we could run a car directly on it (fantasy land - not compressed or anything, like a hose to your car - just a thought experiment), there was a really sharp spike from below $3 to near $7 for mmBTU Natural Gas in Jan 2018. That's really something for a utility to deal with (though as a regulated industry, I guess it is built in to pass the cost on to the consumer). Must still cause a lot of disruption across industry though.

-ERD50

I would think that the utilities have long term contracts and the price you see is spot..

 

[ERD50]

It is finally dawning on me that your overriding concern is a desire to not build anymore electric plants driven by natural gas or coal....

Hadn't really thought of it that way, but I guess that's true. Though maybe not strictly - the more intermittent RE we add, the more we need NG peaker plants to handle the intermittents. I don't like coal, it is dirty to burn and dirty to mine. 'Clean coal', IIRC, takes ~ 20% more coal for the same output, so that's more mining. Might still make sense in the interim though, I dunno.

... Wouldn't it be nice if when that day comes we have already transitioned off of regular ICE driven cars including hybrids? What is the downside? Overall green house emissions will be lower during the transition period (despite building new natural gas plants) and we will get all of the other benefits of EVs like less noise pollution and lower maintenance costs. ...

Several downsides. First, it does not appear that green house emissions would be much lower (if at all) during the transition period - that's one of the points I'm making. The bars on that chart on post #377 are only marginally better for EVs on 100% NG versus the 2013~2014 hybrid. Hybrids are getting better faster than the NG part of the grid is getting efficient. I'm not sure, but I think the efficient co-gen turbines are more for base load, not so much for peaker (I'll try to look that up later). The Prius mpg improved ~ 26% in 10 years. And recall that EVs are currently so efficient, there just is not much room for improvement there. If you are 85% from battery to wheels, you can't get to 100%, there just isn't much there that hasn't already been rung out. In an odd way, the ICE being inefficient means it still has room to grow.

So if everyone gets on the EV bandwagon, and further developments in hybrids keep putting hybrids in the lead, we may have actually missed out on cleaner air. I just don't see it as any slam-dunk, where we decide to put all our eggs in the EV basket. Let the fans buy them (w/o subsidies), and we will see how it goes. May the best win (or co-exist?).

We are so far from the day of regular RE excesses for EVs, that we can wait and watch and re-evaluate. It won't happen so fast that we miss the on-ramp.

The other benefits, reduced maintenance, noise, fuel costs, can be determined by each individual. Those are personal choices, and pretty transparent. But not everyone is 'getting' the environmental side of it, and a twisted story is being pushed by people like Musk, and people listen to him.

... Back to the topic for this thread: Thoughts on Tesla deserve more than agnostic recognition if Tesla is the driving force behind making the transition happen. Before you can believe in Tesla you need to be onboard with the shift to full electric. ...

And of course, I'm not onboard with the shift to full electric, not yet anyway. It will be apparent in plenty of time (as I said above).

...
A final note, Tesla also is currently building huge battery farms to hold the energy created by clean energy. This is a big step in making solar and wind power more viable. Here is info on one such project, but there are others: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/8/14854858/tesla-solar-hawaii-kauai-kiuc-powerpack-battery-generator. More support for Tesla is a good thing; not just for EV fanboys like me.

Here's a good example. The 'fans' see this and are excited, I see it and get a bit depressed.

That "huge" battery farm is 52 MW-hrs. A typical coal plant in IL (probably anywhere in the US), is ~ 800 MW, and we have about 20 of them in IL. So that "huge" battery farm could supply the power of that coal plant for 3.9 minutes. Well, actually it couldn't, that would be too high of a discharge rate, but that gives a sense of the scale. So if you want a battery farm like that to back up the output of a single coal plant that you replace with some intermittent RE, and want to cover a 24 hour period, you need...
about 370 of those battery farms. Now multiply by 20 for all of IL, and we are at 7,400 of them! Now what about a week of overcast in winter, only getting maybe 10% expected power from RE? 7,400 x 7 x .9 ~ 46,500 of those battery farms. Now that would be HUGE! Just for IL. I'll let you figure a cost number on that, along with battery replacements in 10 years or so (daily cycling will take a toll)...

Sure, there are some mitigating factors in there, but it gives a sense of scale. I think it is far more likely that we will see more NG plants built as RE increases (and maybe coal taken down slower?) - I'm pretty sure they will be cheaper than batteries for a long long time.

Batteries will be increasingly used for load-leveling. First to cover seconds and minutes of small gaps as turbines ramp up. Then minutes and hours of gaps (not the entire production), so that a coal plant could ramp down earlier, or ramp up later. But batteries to actually supply days of backup for large amounts of intermittent RE just isn't adding up. Search on the "Duck Curve", the gap between solar dropping off in the afternoon, and the demand surge as people arrive home. It's hard to fill that gap.

-ERD50

 

[aja8888]

Here's a good example. The 'fans' see this and are excited, I see it and get a bit depressed.

That "huge" battery farm is 52 MW-hrs. A typical coal plant in IL (probably anywhere in the US), is ~ 800 MW, and we have about 20 of them in IL. So that "huge" battery farm could supply the power of that coal plant for 3.9 minutes. Well, actually it couldn't, that would be too high of a discharge rate, but that gives a sense of the scale. So if you want a battery farm like that to back up the output of a single coal plant that you replace with some intermittent RE, and want to cover a 24 hour period, you need...
about 370 of those battery farms. Now multiply by 20 for all of IL, and we are at 7,400 of them! Now what about a week of overcast in winter, only getting maybe 10% expected power from RE? 7,400 x 7 x .9 ~ 46,500 of those battery farms. Now that would be HUGE! Just for IL. I'll let you figure a cost number on that, along with battery replacements in 10 years or so (daily cycling will take a toll)...

Sure, there are some mitigating factors in there, but it gives a sense of scale. I think it is far more likely that we will see more NG plants built as RE increases (and maybe coal taken down slower?) - I'm pretty sure they will be cheaper than batteries for a long long time.

Batteries will be increasingly used for load-leveling. First to cover seconds and minutes of small gaps as turbines ramp up. Then minutes and hours of gaps (not the entire production), so that a coal plant could ramp down earlier, or ramp up later. But batteries to actually supply days of backup for large amounts of intermittent RE just isn't adding up. Search on the "Duck Curve", the gap between solar dropping off in the afternoon, and the demand surge as people arrive home. It's hard to fill that gap.

-ERD50

Where will all these batteries come from and what about maintenance and replacement? This is sounding like something I would read in a 1960's comic book!

Oh, as Texas Proud said, NG contracts are for several years and at hedged pricing. Spot prices are a function of local conditions and supplies. Crude pricing is also hedged or spot. It's a complicated game.

 

[dixonge]

TSLA finally dropped low enough I felt comfortable getting in. Excited to add this to my portfolio

 

[Fedup]

I missed buying another put on a TESLA this morning, it keeps going down since. I admit, it’s very hard to short TESLA in the pass, there is a cult following this stock.

 

[Totoro]

Can refineries be tweaked to provide a far higher ratio of heating oil/kerosene? I assume there are fairly tight limits on this?

Way I understand it (no expert) is that most refineries are constantly being retooled and flow adjusted to respond to shifting markets of different fuel types, as well as feedstock. It's almost a living organism.

Shorter is typically high quality for example (jet fuel), you can shorten hydrocarbons (cracking) to do that. If you have a surplus of high quality (lower demand of gasoline) you can obviously sell it or mix it with low quality (like in the chip industry) as well.

Some reading:
https://interestingengineering.com/oil-refineries-process-turning-crude-oil-into-jet-fuel
http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.co...-challenges-in-today-s-global-refining-market

 

[bobandsherry]

Regardless of the benefits of EV, specific to Tesla it's really concerning when you see the number of executives who have left. The money for exec's is in their options, so they must feel Tesla isn't going to have a payoff with stock price and bailed. Or it could be they see shadiness within the company and leave for moral and ethics.

The COA left last month, within one month after starting with Tesla (his predecessor left in March).... and now the VP of Finance and Operations has left this month.... seems to indicate there's a bad smell on the books.

https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-executive-departures-list-2018-9

 

[NW-Bound]

Regardless of the benefits of EV, specific to Tesla it's really concerning when you see the number of executives who have left...

Yes. I believe that EVs have a future, but it will take time for the support infrastructure to be built. Batteries will have to be less expensive and last longer. It's difficult to predict how long that will take. And combustion engines will always be used for some industrial/commercial applications.

The survival of Tesla is something else. It does not look good, unless Musk can pull something out of the hat. Strange things have happened before, so who knows?

 

[NYEXPAT]

TSLA finally dropped low enough I felt comfortable getting in. Excited to add this to my portfolio

I bought a few thousand NIO on their IPO yesterday. Lets see if it is the "TESLA KILLER" in China which owns 65% of the EV market.

 

[aja8888]

I bought a few thousand NIO on their IPO yesterday. Lets see if it is the "TESLA KILLER" in China which owns 65% of the EV market.

Good luck with the IPO purchase. Some quick reading is indicating they have been burning through cash at an alarming rate:

From Market Watch today:

Nio began showing revenue this year (2018), reporting $6.7 million in vehicle sales and $7 million in total revenue for the first six months of 2018, when net losses topped $502 million. The company reported a net loss of $758.8 million for all of 2017.

Through June, Nio had burned through $549 million in cash to operate, compared with $691 million for all of 2017. Capital expenditures hit $163 million in the first six months of this year, compared with $168 million for all of last year.

Looks like the offering revenue from the IPO (not including investment banker purchases) will cover them for another year.

 

[i-like-gin-2]

I'll throw my name in the ring:


I wouldn't touch the stock with a ten-foot pole. Nor would I buy a car that relies so heavily on servicing from a company that -- according to the debt market -- is pretty darn likely to go bankrupt.