teslamotorclub: What is Tesla's upcoming 'under your nose' announcement? part 5

I still don't think battery swap will work, not with Superchargers competing.

First I paid ~$40k for my battery, I don't want a 'similar' battery I want MY battery back when I am done. So you would have to rent a battery, have them store (and not use) your battery while you are off, then allow you to swap along your route. And it would have to be faster than Supercharging, since this will obviously cost something.

The facility costs are going to be much greater than a supercharge location. You will have to have at least one person on staff (if not a one person there 24/7). Or two separate systems at each location in case of a failure you don't strand a bunch of people, in the case of mechanical failure.

Capital costs are also going to be so much greater than a supercharger station. Most likely Tesla would have to have about the same amount of power pulled to the location. They would have to pay for battery packs, and a physical building. Robots, and automated lift tables to perform the swaps. Spare bolts, and coolant in case of any problems, misalignments.

And all this to have your battery charge in 10-15 minutes, instead of 60-75? That savings on a road trip wouldn't be worth more than $50 or so to me. And all that extra cost for a measly $100 once a year on Thanksgiving weekend from each Model S owner. It's not going to happen. Tesla has a solution with supercharging, battery swap adds too much cost without enough incremental benefit.

And Tesla will most likely have to size such a system for a Thanksgiving weekend, keeping lots of spare batteries on shelves most of the year just idle. If I didn't have the biggest battery it might be appealing to rent a larger pack for a road trip, but still I don't see the business case.

If on a battery lease program, maybe it could work. I could see it working for fleets, where you only need 1 location, where you already have buildings and staff present anyway. I could also see it if the rental/swap battery adds significant range over the standard battery.
�

orangesolar said: ?

Elon put a teaser on Twitter about the faster recharge than a gasoline car.

What could it be?

Swapping the battery?
Swapping the car?
Free airplane tickets ?
.
.
.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9505 mit Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Free airplane tickets. :tongue: If you need to go more than 1000 miles, Tesla will just fly you there...
�

JRP3 said: ?

As I said, swapping was only part of the BP fail. I'm not saying that Tesla can't pull it off, I just don't think it's a good idea for them at this point in time, if ever. Expensive swap stations to build, extra battery pack supplies to build and keep on hand, I don't see trucking them around as reasonable so they'd really need to keep enough on had at all stations at all times for the busiest holidays and weekends, which means a lot of expensive extra inventory sitting around doing nothing most of the time. If they don't have enough on hand for high demand times then the concept doesn't really work. Cars expecting a swap then clog up the superchargers and the whole thing is locked up and people are stuck.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to say battery swap is necessarily the way to go. Tesla is in a better position to figure it out than I am. But when I run the numbers it doesn't look crazy bad, especially if you think of it as a sales tool, just like Tesla is doing with SuperChargers.

In terms of the rest of the issues you mention, I feel I have marketable ideas on exactly how to solve many of those problems which makes me biased. That said, I've had a healthy skepticism that Tesla would actually do this, mainly because there has been commentary that the batteries are not swappable in a commercially efficient fashion.

- - - Updated - - -

ElSupreme said: ?

I still don't think battery swap will work, not with Superchargers competing.

First I paid ~$40k for my battery, I don't want a 'similar' battery I want MY battery back when I am done. So you would have to rent a battery, have them store (and not use) your battery while you are off, then allow you to swap along your route. And it would have to be faster than Supercharging, since this will obviously cost something.

The facility costs are going to be much greater than a supercharge location. You will have to have at least one person on staff (if not a one person there 24/7). Or two separate systems at each location in case of a failure you don't strand a bunch of people, in the case of mechanical failure.

Capital costs are also going to be so much greater than a supercharger station. Most likely Tesla would have to have about the same amount of power pulled to the location. They would have to pay for battery packs, and a physical building. Robots, and automated lift tables to perform the swaps. Spare bolts, and coolant in case of any problems, misalignments.

And all this to have your battery charge in 10-15 minutes, instead of 60-75? That savings on a road trip wouldn't be worth more than $50 or so to me. And all that extra cost for a measly $100 once a year on Thanksgiving weekend from each Model S owner. It's not going to happen. Tesla has a solution with supercharging, battery swap adds too much cost without enough incremental benefit.

And Tesla will most likely have to size such a system for a Thanksgiving weekend, keeping lots of spare batteries on shelves most of the year just idle. If I didn't have the biggest battery it might be appealing to rent a larger pack for a road trip, but still I don't see the business case.

If on a battery lease program, maybe it could work. I could see it working for fleets, where you only need 1 location, where you already have buildings and staff present anyway. I could also see it if the rental/swap battery adds significant range over the standard battery.
Click to expand...

Yes, this pretty much sums up the argument against. Personally I also think it adds relatively little economic value over the SuperChargers. But the key is reducing mental barriers to EV adoption. It might well succeed at that, and the process issues are "solvable" in the context of building a workable, scalable system at a cost that Tesla can afford.
�

They probably are using spare battery packs, just not where you think... How about they are putting them in the SuperCharger sites, for load leveling and rate arbitrage, to keep the demand charges down? At least that's what "Randy Carlson" came up with on his SA article "SuperCharging Tesla". Suppose they can now handle 2C, how about 3C? Makes battery swap totally obsolete.

SuperCharging Tesla - Seeking Alpha
�

JRP3 said: ?

As I said, swapping was only part of the BP fail. I'm not saying that Tesla can't pull it off, I just don't think it's a good idea for them at this point in time, if ever. Expensive swap stations to build, extra battery pack supplies to build and keep on hand, I don't see trucking them around as reasonable so they'd really need to keep enough on had at all stations at all times for the busiest holidays and weekends, which means a lot of expensive extra inventory sitting around doing nothing most of the time. If they don't have enough on hand for high demand times then the concept doesn't really work. Cars expecting a swap then clog up the superchargers and the whole thing is locked up and people are stuck.
Click to expand...

I think you are being to fast to dismiss this. The exact same argument would have been made against the SC network. That in itself does not prove that the swapping is a good idea, of course. My point is that you would have to do the math to know. What Tesla does so well is they start with the question: "Would it make for a great customer experience?". I guess the answer is "hell, yes, we would really like to drive in, get our battery swapped in two minutes, and drive out".

I agree with you that the variability of demand is the biggest challenge to the economics of this, because with a steady stream of cars to be swapped and batteries to be charged you would get low capital costs per swap. For instance, make the following assumptions (my numbers are probably off, as I have no sources, but all I care anout is being in the right order of magnitude):
* 3 minute cycle time through the swapping station
* 1 hour charging time for each pack
* cost to produce battery pack: $30k
* cost to produce 1 supercharger: $100k

At any point in time you need an inventory of 21 batteries, with 20 of them charging and 1 being swapped in or out of a car. Add $0.5m for the swapping bay itself, and your capex is $0.5m + 21x$30k + 20x$100k = ~$3m. Depreciate that over 5 years, and you have a cost of $600k per year.

In a year, that swapping bay does 262,800 swaps, which means the cost per swap is less than $2. This means you need a capacity utilisation of 5% to keep the cost of the swap at less than $40.

This still doesn't prove anything other than that we are in the ballpark. I would guess that the pumps at a gas station have less utilisation than 5%, so we are not necessarily all the way there. But I think our experience with Elon Musk is that if he gets this far, then he will find a way to go all the way. (For instance, if we are assuming less than 100% utilization, suddenly it makes sense to have more batteries and less chargers, and the cost goes down again.)
�

DonPedro said: ?

I think you are being to fast to dismiss this. The exact same argument would have been made against the SC network. That in itself does not prove that the swapping is a good idea, of course. My point is that you would have to do the math to know. What Tesla does so well is they start with the question: "Would it make for a great customer experience?". I guess the answer is "hell, yes, we would really like to drive in, get our battery swapped in two minutes, and drive out".

I agree with you that the variability of demand is the biggest challenge to the economics of this, because with a steady stream of cars to be swapped and batteries to be charged you would get low capital costs per swap. For instance, make the following assumptions (my numbers are probably off, as I have no sources, but all I care anout is being in the right order of magnitude):
* 3 minute cycle time through the swapping station
* 1 hour charging time for each pack
* cost to produce battery pack: $30k
* cost to produce 1 supercharger: $100k

At any point in time you need an inventory of 21 batteries, with 20 of them charging and 1 being swapped in or out of a car. Add $0.5m for the swapping bay itself, and your capex is $0.5m + 21x$30k + 20x$100k = ~$3m. Depreciate that over 5 years, and you have a cost of $600k per year.

In a year, that swapping bay does 262,800 swaps, which means the cost per swap is less than $2. This means you need a capacity utilisation of 5% to keep the cost of the swap at less than $40.

This still doesn't prove anything other than that we are in the ballpark. I would guess that the pumps at a gas station have less utilisation than 5%, so we are not necessarily all the way there. But I think our experience with Elon Musk is that if he gets this far, then he will find a way to go all the way. (For instance, if we are assuming less than 100% utilization, suddenly it makes sense to have more batteries and less chargers, and the cost goes down again.)
Click to expand...

^^This, though I use some different assumptions depending on how I model it. It's not hard at all to come up with affordable options that Tesla would implement, and it would demolish some big talking points against the Model S.
�

DonPedro said: ?

I think you are being to fast to dismiss this. The exact same argument would have been made against the SC network. That in itself does not prove that the swapping is a good idea, of course. My point is that you would have to do the math to know. What Tesla does so well is they start with the question: "Would it make for a great customer experience?". I guess the answer is "hell, yes, we would really like to drive in, get our battery swapped in two minutes, and drive out".

I agree with you that the variability of demand is the biggest challenge to the economics of this, because with a steady stream of cars to be swapped and batteries to be charged you would get low capital costs per swap. For instance, make the following assumptions (my numbers are probably off, as I have no sources, but all I care anout is being in the right order of magnitude):
* 3 minute cycle time through the swapping station
* 1 hour charging time for each pack
* cost to produce battery pack: $30k
* cost to produce 1 supercharger: $100k

At any point in time you need an inventory of 21 batteries, with 20 of them charging and 1 being swapped in or out of a car. Add $0.5m for the swapping bay itself, and your capex is $0.5m + 21x$30k + 20x$100k = ~$3m. Depreciate that over 5 years, and you have a cost of $600k per year.

In a year, that swapping bay does 262,800 swaps, which means the cost per swap is less than $2. This means you need a capacity utilisation of 5% to keep the cost of the swap at less than $40.

This still doesn't prove anything other than that we are in the ballpark. I would guess that the pumps at a gas station have less utilisation than 5%, so we are not necessarily all the way there. But I think our experience with Elon Musk is that if he gets this far, then he will find a way to go all the way. (For instance, if we are assuming less than 100% utilization, suddenly it makes sense to have more batteries and less chargers, and the cost goes down again.)
Click to expand...

You would also need a place to store individual peoples batteries, and a 'stock' of batteries to lend out. You would need a 24/7 staff (at least one person there at any given time) which is going to run you ~$200k a year. I know people that take at least a minute to park, so 3 minutes seems hopeless to me. I would expect 10 minutes for a pull through system at best, filling a tank of gas takes longer than that. But even considering your 3 minute swap, and people getting 5 swaps a year, you would need 52,560 Model Ss to saturate a single station, given your 5% (which seems high for a 24/7 operation) you would need ~2,600 Model Ss to support a single location that is way more expensive than a supercharger to install.

You might have that sort of density in Cali, but not really anywhere else. And I would expect about 40% or more of battery swaps to happen on Thanksgiving weekend. I fully expect that more than half of my Supercharges will be during Thanksgiving.
�

Just re-looked at your quickie model. You don't need 20 SuperChargers unless you really think that you need maximum throughput. That said, the model you posted allows a constant stream of cars to come through and take a fully charged battery.

That is a capability that is unlikely to be needed during the initial rollout. If you substitute HWPC levels of charging instead you get lower throughput (though still probably much more than required in early years) and much lower CapEx than you are estimating. Also reduces your demand charges from the electric company. My own models require much less CapEx.
�

ElSupreme said: ?

You would also need a place to store individual peoples batteries, and a 'stock' of batteries to lend out.
Click to expand...

You are still assuming that you will own "your" battery. This model assumes that you keep the battery you get -- until the next time you swap. That is the only way this makes sense. You want to hold on to "your" battery - fine, then don't use this extremely convenient charging method. But keep in mind that the batteries are guaranteed by Tesla, and will be taken out of the system if they are inadequate.
�

ElSupreme said: ?

You would also need a place to store individual peoples batteries, and a 'stock' of batteries to lend out. You would need a 24/7 staff (at least one person there at any given time) which is going to run you ~$200k a year. I know people that take at least a minute to park, so 3 minutes seems hopeless to me. I would expect 10 minutes for a pull through system at best, filling a tank of gas takes longer than that. But even considering your 3 minute swap, and people getting 5 swaps a year, you would need 52,560 Model Ss to saturate a single station, given your 5% (which seems high for a 24/7 operation) you would need ~2,600 Model Ss to support a single location that is way more expensive than a supercharger to install.

You might have that sort of density in Cali, but not really anywhere else. And I would expect about 40% or more of battery swaps to happen on Thanksgiving weekend. I fully expect that more than half of my Supercharges will be during Thanksgiving.
Click to expand...

Yes, the model he posted is overbuilt.

But I disagree with the notion that you need 24/7 onsite staff. It should be a mechanically simple, automated process or it shouldn't be done at all.

Other than that, I agree that you need to store batteries and return them to customers on the return trip. Not workable otherwise.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Just re-looked at your quickie model. You don't need 20 SuperChargers unless you really think that you need maximum throughput. That said, the model you posted allows a constant stream of cars to come through and take a fully charged battery.

That is a capability that is unlikely to be needed during the initial rollout. If you substitute HWPC levels of charging instead you get lower throughput (though still probably much more than required in early years) and much lower CapEx than you are estimating. Also reduces your demand charges from the electric company. My own models require much less CapEx.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. This was something I just threw together while I was typing - didn't give it much thought. Just wanted to shoot down the notion that this was inconceivable from a cap cost point of view. Tesla, having thought about this for some years, have surely been able to add a lot of smartness to the model, including some less obvious elements.
�

DonPedro said: ?

You are still assuming that you will own "your" battery. This model assumes that you keep the battery you get -- until the next time you swap. That is the only way this makes sense. You want to hold on to "your" battery - fine, then don't use this extremely convenient charging method. But keep in mind that the batteries are guaranteed by Tesla, and will be taken out of the system if they are inadequate.
Click to expand...

Under that model, they'd need to have stocks of both size batteries on hand, though I wouldn't complain about a free upgrade to the 85kWh the first time I used the swap station

I'd been assuming that a swap station would be all 85kWh batteries (or whatever the biggest at the time is), so especially for us 60kWh owners, one of the big benefits would be that you'd effectively be upgrading your car for the trip, which would be nice. As the battery capacities increase, even 85kWh owners could presumably do a temporary upgrade the same way.
�

DonPedro said: ?

You are still assuming that you will own "your" battery. This model assumes that you keep the battery you get -- until the next time you swap. That is the only way this makes sense. You want to hold on to "your" battery - fine, then don't use this extremely convenient charging method. But keep in mind that the batteries are guaranteed by Tesla, and will be taken out of the system if they are inadequate.
Click to expand...

I think you would lose about 1/2 of Model S owners. I paid ~$40k for my battery. Tesla does guarantee my battery for 8 years, and unlimited miles against DEFECT, not degradation. I would not accept a used, similar quality battery in replacement for my $40,000 battery. I think a LOT of people would be in my camp.

And what about people with 60kWh packs. Do they have their own pool of packs in your plan?

EDIT: Beat to the punch!
�

DonPedro said: ?

You are still assuming that you will own "your" battery. This model assumes that you keep the battery you get -- until the next time you swap. That is the only way this makes sense. You want to hold on to "your" battery - fine, then don't use this extremely convenient charging method. But keep in mind that the batteries are guaranteed by Tesla, and will be taken out of the system if they are inadequate.
Click to expand...

From an economic standpoint I agree. But here in the U.S. I don't think anyone would be interested in that service. And it opens up a legal can of worms for existing owners. Tesla has guaranteed only the first 8 years. After that nobody is going to be happy if a second hand battery dies on them. They will want their original battery back in any program like this, but I don't see that as a particularly difficult problem to solve.

Edit: Beat to the punch X 2
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

From an economic standpoint I agree. But here in the U.S. I don't think anyone would be interested in that service. And it opens up a legal can of worms for existing owners. Tesla has guaranteed only the first 8 years. After that nobody is going to be happy if a second hand battery dies on them. They will want their original battery back in any program like this, but I don't see that as a particularly difficult problem to solve.
Click to expand...

I guess just from a user's point of view I'd like to avoid having to go back to the same place. Kind of sucks if you want to do a non-linear road trip. It would still be inferior to gas, where you can go everywhere.

This could be a way of IMPROVING your battery guarantee. Basically, all batteries that are not acceptable are taken out of the pool, so you know you will never get a degraded battery.

Yes, yes, I see the legal and contractual challenges. But those have never stopped this company. So you give them the battery and that gets you the participation in the program. After the 8th year you start paying a yearly fee. Or whatever.
�

DonPedro said: ?

I guess just from a user's point of view I'd like to avoid having to go back to the same place. Kind of sucks if you want to do a non-linear road trip. It would still be inferior to gas, where you can go everywhere.

This could be a way of IMPROVING your battery guarantee. Basically, all batteries that are not acceptable are taken out of the pool, so you know you will never get a degraded battery.

Yes, yes, I see the legal and contractual challenges. But those have never stopped this company. So you give them the battery and that gets you the participation in the program. After the 8th year you start paying a yearly fee. Or whatever.
Click to expand...

They have detailed usage statistics on the battery. No reason they couldn't have a buyout program similar to the loaner program where you pay (or are refunded) the difference between the value of your original battery and the one you end up with. That would allow for the occasional non-linear trip for folks who are willing to permanently swap batteries.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

They have detailed usage statistics on the battery. No reason they couldn't have a buyout program similar to the loaner program where you pay (or are refunded) the difference between the value of your original battery and the one you end up with. That would allow for the occasional non-linear trip for folks who are willing to permanently swap batteries.
Click to expand...

I like.

Another hypothesis: EM tweets teasers of things that need to be fixed, and then monitors the forums as the users formulate possible solutions. Announce best one. ;-)
�

DonPedro said: ?

I like.

Another hypothesis: EM tweets teasers of things that need to be fixed, and then monitors the forums as the users formulate possible solutions. Announce best one. ;-)
Click to expand...

+1 that would of course be very wise, but not too likely, he's far too busy to monitor forums, maybe he has some intern assistances helping him monitor
�

ElSupreme said: ?

I think you would lose about 1/2 of Model S owners. I paid ~$40k for my battery. Tesla does guarantee my battery for 8 years, and unlimited miles against DEFECT, not degradation. I would not accept a used, similar quality battery in replacement for my $40,000 battery. I think a LOT of people would be in my camp.

And what about people with 60kWh packs. Do they have their own pool of packs in your plan?

EDIT: Beat to the punch!
Click to expand...

It's funny, I actually see it the other way around. It's great for you, awful for Tesla. Why wouldn't you want a different battery? Anytime you were seeing battery degradation, all you would have to do is stop by and get a new battery. Tesla would need to remove or refurbish any batteries that weren't up to snuff from the system.
�

I doubt it's battery swap because that seems to run counter to the super charger strategy. Tesla typically focuses on one solution to a problem and improving it. Swap locations would be a completely different approach the same core problem of long distance trips. They made the battery swap capable, but I think the case for that wouldn't be personal usage, but rather things like fleet vehicles or taxis that run in nearly continuous operation.
�

ElSupreme said: ?

I think you would lose about 1/2 of Model S owners. I paid ~$40k for my battery. Tesla does guarantee my battery for 8 years, and unlimited miles against DEFECT, not degradation. I would not accept a used, similar quality battery in replacement for my $40,000 battery. I think a LOT of people would be in my camp.

And what about people with 60kWh packs. Do they have their own pool of packs in your plan?

EDIT: Beat to the punch!
Click to expand...

$40,000 for your battery? Confused as to why?
�

It just dawned on me what Tesla needs to do. They need to rent people a Model S to a non owner to see if we would like driving it for extended time. Could I go from a SUV (hybrid 26 MPG) to a sedan??? I have driven the S and rode in them twice. I one time went from a SUV to a car for several years but am back with a SUV. Maybe they can arrange that rental payments can be used to buy a car either the rental or order one in a certain timeframe.
�

ckessel said: ?

I doubt it's battery swap because that seems to run counter to the super charger strategy. Tesla typically focuses on one solution to a problem and improving it. Swap locations would be a completely different approach the same core problem of long distance trips. They made the battery swap capable, but I think the case for that wouldn't be personal usage, but rather things like fleet vehicles or taxis that run in nearly continuous operation.
Click to expand...

The 10k stuff is pretty clear that battery swap is on their radar and it makes sense with Elon's tweets.

Your objection is the part that I'm having the most trouble resolving. Free vs premium is the best I could come up with.
�

It still seems like too much effort for a very low demand product. Trips longer than a single supercharger can handle are extremely rare other than a few holidays.
�

JRP3 said: ?

It still seems like too much effort for a very low demand product. Trips longer than a single supercharger can handle are extremely rare other than a few holidays.
Click to expand...

...and yet it resolves the Last Issue, that One Thing that so many people give for upholding the dominance of ICE.
�

DonPedro said: ?

...and yet it resolves the Last Issue, that One Thing that so many people give for upholding the dominance of ICE.
Click to expand...

and that would get the Model S up to a Consumer Reports score of 100. Also, could the $200 million CAPEX expenditures be related to all of this? I'm not quite a believer of the recent turn in this thread but I can't think of a better idea so, uh, I guess we will wait and see.
�

DonPedro said: ?

I like.

Another hypothesis: EM tweets teasers of things that need to be fixed, and then monitors the forums as the users formulate possible solutions. Announce best one. ;-)
Click to expand...

Lol. I participate in the forums at nasaspaceflight.com and starting last year we had a thread debating whether SpaceX should develop a Methane fueled Staged Combustion engine. I wont go into detail, but the thread resulted in a general consensus that they could and should develop such an engine. Elon announced that SpaceX would develop Methane fueled SC engine called "Raptor" earlier this year.

Ever since then we decided that SpaceX ends up with such brilliant ideas by simply watching the forum and waiting until everyone decides what would be smart to try
�

JRP3 said: ?

Trips longer than a single supercharger can handle are extremely rare other than a few holidays.
Click to expand...

Terribly blindered thinking, there. Your driving situation is not the same as John's or Bill's or Mary's....or mine.

To a great extent, every single time I get into a vehicle, I'm off to the store. The problem for me is that to get to the store - any store - it's either a 400- or 600-mile round trip. Over the highest mountain range in North America. And for 8 or so months out of each year, in temps well under freezing...under by 30 or 40 or 50 or 60 or 70 degrees.....
�

Jonathan Hewitt said: ?

and that would get the Model S up to a Consumer Reports score of 100. Also, could the $200 million CAPEX expenditures be related to all of this? I'm not quite a believer of the recent turn in this thread but I can't think of a better idea so, uh, I guess we will wait and see.
Click to expand...

That's ok, I've been participating in the recent discussions, but fundamentally I don't have a clue whats going to happen. If Elon hadn't been tweeting the tweets he's tweeted I'd consider all of this fanciful.

If not for the fact that the SuperCharger announcement was separate from the "Under your nose" announcement, I'd guess it was all just about an increase in SuperCharger speed.

Only it seems as if Elon was talking about the "mystery" announcement when he talked about charging faster than you can fill a tank. Plus, I seriously doubt they can do full charges "faster" than a gas refill. 15 minutes maybe, but refilling a tank only takes a couple of minutes.

So I am pretty confused and grasping at straws at this point. Who knows what the details of the SuperCharger announcement will be.

"Under your nose" probably means that Tesla has developed a new Angry Birds app for the touchscreen.
�

The announcement is just going to be that they are upgrading the superchargers to charge 1.5x faster. Combined with musk-math (it takes 15 minutes to fill your ICE tank because you drive around 5 minutes to find the best price and then you spend 5 minutes walking into the station to prepay for your tank with cash, and another 5 minutes to get change when you are done), you can recharge your tesla "faster" than filling up your ICE.

There will not be battery swaps.
�

ohmslaw said: ?

The announcement is just going to be that they are upgrading the superchargers to charge 1.5x faster. Combined with musk-math (it takes 15 minutes to fill your ICE tank because you drive around 5 minutes to find the best price and then you spend 5 minutes walking into the station to prepay for your tank with cash, and another 5 minutes to get change when you are done), you can recharge your tesla "faster" than filling up your ICE.

There will not be battery swaps.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the adding the amortized time cost savings of not having to perform yearly Smog Checks!
�

AudubonB said: ?

Terribly blindered thinking, there. Your driving situation is not the same as John's or Bill's or Mary's....or mine.
Click to expand...

Not blindered at all. He said trips needing more than one SC are extremely rare. They are, that's a perfectly statistically valid statement. The fact that you're someone that make such trips in no way invalidates the statistic.

Drives me bonkers when folks make perfectly valid statements about an overall statistic and someone inevitably goes "Uh, uh, can't be, I know one guy that's different." Well, of course there are exceptions, that has no relevance to the validity of the original statement.
�

DonPedro said: ?

...and yet it resolves the Last Issue, that One Thing that so many people give for upholding the dominance of ICE.
Click to expand...

Not the Last Issue, there is still price. Plus, unless swapping is nationally available then ICE's still dominate in range.

AudubonB said: ?

Terribly blindered thinking, there. Your driving situation is not the same as John's or Bill's or Mary's....or mine.
Click to expand...

Hardly, I'm using averages, not my own situation. Numbers do not lie, trips beyond the range of a single supercharger stop are so rare they are probably less than 1% of all passenger car travel.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Don't forget the adding the amortized time cost savings of not having to perform yearly Smog Checks!
Click to expand...

And three minutes to clean that gasoline smell off your hand.
�

wow, I was very skeptical about battery swaps, but it's starting to seem quite possible given everyone chipping away at it here as well as Capitalist Oppressor's remarks.

I could see a system within economic range (though some remaining logistical hurdles).

I think it would brilliantly complement the Supercharger Stations. It would satisfy those out there who think they'll never be okay wainting 40 minutes to charge. Perhaps more importantly, during holidays when the SuperChargers would otherwise run into log jams, customers would have another option, swap out their battery for hold until they return. Just like rental cars, Tesla could require a reservation at these times to help manage the system.

Why not just more Super Chargers to help at the high traffic times instead of complicating the system with battery swapping? Because unlike capex for Supercharger capacity well beyond everyday use, the battery inventory necessary for high volume time would NOT be extra expense.

Here's how all those batteries for the rare high volume times will not require underutilized capex: charge per mile of use on the rented battery. If Tesla can make an 85kWh battery for $25,000, and it has 125,000 useful miles to it, that comes to $.20/mile, or 20 mpg if gas is selling for $4/gallon.

So if Tesla charges customers $.20/mile used on the "rental batteries", once the battery has been used up, it's also been paid for.

How does this look to a Tesla customer?

20 mpg isn't far off from other cars in Tesla's class.

but here's the big kicker- the $.20/mile you pay on your "rental" battery would be entirely offset by the $.20/mile you would have depreciated on your own battery had you logged those miles on it instead of the rental.

(While this may not be 100% of how depreciation is calculated, for the battery usage is the basic driver in the calculation.)

Can they afford all the capex of all the swapping stations? I think so. If they basically had 1 or 2 swapping bays at or very close to Supercharger locations they could cover very high volumes. Two at locations in high traffic corridors, one in less populated, would mean roughly 150 of these bays, at $500K each, $75 million. Two shifts of modest costing labor would add $10 million per year (no need for 24/7, off peak hours with far less volume, if battery swap is out of order, you just deal with Supercharger. Not perfection, but big improvement.

So for roughly $85 million in year 1, and $10 million ongoing they could pay for this. I think 10X that spent in advertising wouldn't do them nearly as much to convince people to buy the cars. And it wouldn't hurt to have two shifts of staff available to help with any Supercharger glitches as well.

Edit: I overestimated that savings of $.20/mile on depreciation on your old battery... that's the cost of using up your existing battery, the cost of replacing those miles of use when you buy a newer more advanced battery will be as much as half as cheap depending how far off in the future you'll be replacing).
�

SteveG3 said: ?

that comes to $.20/mile, or 20 mpg if gas is selling for $4/gallon.
Click to expand...

Yea, no way I want to pay $4/gallon equivalent to "charge". I'd much rather have more SC's.

Part of the point in my getting a Tesla is not worrying about mileage costs.
�

Aargh, I see a big hole in my model, having just gone over a post from DonPedro. I have not included the cost of charging up all those batteries.

If I undersood Don his model suggested $100K/per supercharger. I just looked at this quickly, and a Business Week article I found wrote $250,000 per 5 cars charging. As I've not spent a lot of time on this, I couldn't say what is accurate. If it is $50,000 per one battery charging capacity, that would add $75 million (assuming capacity needed to charge 1,500 batteries, that is 10 batteries at each bay).

Adding $75 million would make this a tougher sell, $160 million in Year 1 now. One possible offset to the $75 million. Most of the battery swap capacity in this model is for peak times. If 95% of the time only 20% of the system is used, that would leave 75% of the power generated by the solar panels for the swap bay available to sell to the grid.

- - - Updated - -

- - - Updated - - -

ckessel said: ?

Yea, no way I want to pay $4/gallon equivalent to "charge". I'd much rather have more SC's.

Part of the point in my getting a Tesla is not worrying about mileage costs.
Click to expand...

ckessel did you read the part about how you're not using up miles on your own battery, depreciating it? This offsets at least a good chunk of the cost (granted not all the cost as I now realize your replacement battery will cost less than original battery).
�

gregincal said: ?

It's funny, I actually see it the other way around. It's great for you, awful for Tesla. Why wouldn't you want a different battery? Anytime you were seeing battery degradation, all you would have to do is stop by and get a new battery. Tesla would need to remove or refurbish any batteries that weren't up to snuff from the system.
Click to expand...

It is the same reason why I don't buy used cars. I don't know if or how that car was taken care of. I will take care of my battery. I don't want a used mystery battery in my car when my warranty is up. I have no idea if it is really a 2 year old battery, that has serious abuse, but only 28% degradation. When my 8 year old battery had 30% degradation. And that 2 year old battery is about to die, on my 8 year old warranty.

JerryNycom said: ?

$40,000 for your battery? Confused as to why?
Click to expand...

40kWh -> 60kWh = +$10k
60kWh -> 85kWh = +$10k

So you are paying ~$10k per 20kWh, so an 85kWh battery packs costs roughly $40k.

And if you want to buy a spare 85kWh battery pack, they run $44k from Tesla. I think that was an installed cost.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Wow. Me either. That's like perpetual motion territory right there...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's not. I'm very sensitive about PM scams, and love debunking them. This would be a "powered" roller. But it is definitely fanciful.
�

El Supreme - It's not clear if you're considering that this "mystery battery" would be in your car only for the length of time & miles it takes for you to deplete it, at which point you would be exchanging it for yet another. Put another way, I'm thinking it's darned analogous to the lack of knowledge you have regarding that gas station's fuel that you're about to put into your Bentley...or Yugo...every time you pull in for a fillup with your ICE.
I'm acutely aware of this: I spent a little over $4,300 and three days in southern Idaho back in February, as a result of eight ruined injectors and fuel pump in my diesel F-350, as a result of pouring in a helluvalot of water with bad diesel obtained on the road. Does that mean I never trust any diesel again? Hardly - don't have the choice!

ckessel & jrp3 - Your points are well taken. I was, admittedly, using my driving habits to validate what I consider a game-changing point Mr Musk has made - that "faster than filling up an ICE" tease. FOR ME, that is super-important as refueling is a part of effectively every trip I take.
�

Just to be clear, I am agnostic on what the announcement will be. I went crazy trying to figure out what the leasing announcement would be and was way off cause that option seemed too boring, lol.

But I do think that both faster SuperCharging and battery swapping are both credible options if this is going to be an actual major announcement, instead of just announcing more SuperCharger locations.

As to the battery swap the economics are fine if you justify it as public relations. Frankly, I think it would work extremely well in that sense. In terms of overall cost it would roll out in the same phased fashion as SuperChargers, and the yearly cost to Tesla would be relatively small.

One key barrier has to do with the inherent swappability of the batteries, and I've seen credible arguments on this both ways. Some think they can be swapped in minutes, some think it takes more like an hour once you count dealing with the battery coolant fittings and the coolant itself. If it can't be quickly swapped then it seems moot.

But another key issue is a scalable automated swapping station. It requires a custom engineered robotic device capable of quickly removing a battery, storing it, charging it, and swapping a charged battery in its place, while maintaining high levels of uptime and low maintenance costs.

All very doable and straightforward, but it is clearly a non-trivial bit of engineering. There are other management and logistic issues that need solving too. Developing a working system is probably more difficult than actually deploying it.

In a sense the idea that Tesla would delay announcing this until a year after the car was put in production makes a certain kind of sense. It is a substantial technology and process development project in its own right. Tesla would have needed to invest substantial resources before even beginning deployment.

So there is ample reason to be skeptical.
�

There is one single reason that kills battery swapping: different cars use different batteries.
Battery swap station must offer my kind of battery or it is of no use to me.

Model S now uses 2 kinds of battery, GenIII will for sure use physically smaller battery, very probably of two different capacities.
Add a truck and a newer chemistry that demands a bit different electronics on board and things multiply into horror.

Imagine you drive into a gas station nearly empty only to find out they do not have *your kind* of gas.
�

Battery swaping would make no sense, because its pretty clear that Battery swapping wont be needed anymore in 10-15 Years.
So Building a network of very very expensive Battery swapping Stations is not a longterm solution, that also why Betterplace failed, its a Business that has no future.
Supercharger Station is around 200k, Battery Swapping Station is around 2-3Million (thats what Betterplace had calculated)

My Money is on the Lithium-Ion / Metal Air battery Hybrid. Tesla has a Patent on it and that technology is capable of doing 1000Miles. It would be more expensive then recharging, but would once and for all solve the range anxiety issue. And since it will only be used on long distance trips, driver electric would still be much cheaper then Gas.

Im really surprised how the most people here totally ignore this incredibly awesome Patent that Tesla has there.
�

JRP3 said: ?

Numbers do not lie, trips beyond the range of a single supercharger stop are so rare they are probably less than 1% of all passenger car travel.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a bit off-topic, but whereas sometimes 1% is "just 1%" (e.g. a 297 mile range instead of 300 miles) other times 1% is a lot (when 1% of patients in a hospital die).

Sometimes a reliability of 99% really sucks. And some people might view this as a reliability thing.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

In a sense the idea that Tesla would delay announcing this until a year after the car was put in production makes a certain kind of sense. It is a substantial technology and process development project in its own right. Tesla would have needed to invest substantial resources before even beginning deployment.
Click to expand...

And, most importantly, people might have focused too much on the swapping and whether they believed in it or not. In this way it has become clear that you can be a perfectly happy Tesla owner without ever visiting a swapping bay, and so it is only an added benefit to owners.

I am also agnostic about what the announcement will be - only ended up in this discussion because I thought the discussion didn't reflect how big Elon tends to think.
�

TD1 said: ?

My Money is on the Lithium-Ion / Metal Air battery Hybrid. Tesla has a Patent on it and that technology is capable of doing 1000Miles. It would be more expensive then recharging, but would once and for all solve the range anxiety issue. And since it will only be used on long distance trips, driver electric would still be much cheaper then Gas.

Im really surprised how the most people here totally ignore this incredibly awesome Patent that Tesla has there.
Click to expand...

We've had people in and around the car long enough that I think we can be pretty sure there isn't a separate metal-air battery and support equipment (compressed O2 canister, pump, vent, etc) already hiding in there somewhere. And given that existing owners can't even get a full performance plus suspension as an retrofit from the company, retrofitting an entire power system seems unlikely.

Additionally, we have the existing evidence for battery swap from the 10K that needs explanation.

Personally, I've always thought of metal-air as more of a gen3 technology, as cool as it'd be to be able to just drop a long-range cruising battery in the frunk.
�

While I don't think Tesla will go the way of Better Place, If they were to offer Batt Swap I imagine they would offer a battery minimum guarantee as they have for resale value. They would simply cull out the weaker range batteries and refurb them later. All about making the customer feel comfortable.
�

WarpedOne said: ?

There is one single reason that kills battery swapping: different cars use different batteries.
Battery swap station must offer my kind of battery or it is of no use to me.

Model S now uses 2 kinds of battery, GenIII will for sure use physically smaller battery, very probably of two different capacities.
Add a truck and a newer chemistry that demands a bit different electronics on board and things multiply into horror.

Imagine you drive into a gas station nearly empty only to find out they do not have *your kind* of gas.
Click to expand...

That possibly might be a factor. But it seems likely that if Tesla actually did design for battery swap (which they have repeatedly claimed to do) they might well have made it possible to have a 60kWh car swap in an 85kWh battery. There is probably no reason why the connections need to have been different, so functionally the only change would be the weight. The suspension is tuned for a particular weight, but adding a couple hundred pounds to the car will not substantially impair it.

Traction and stability control is all controlled by software, so when you swap in an 85kWh battery the car would just load the appropriate control profile. If you have an air suspension, that is controlled by software as well and the car might come very close to being a full 85kWh car in terms of acceleration, braking and handling just from switching batteries and loading a different control profile. But even a standard suspension would not experience much in the way of difficulties.

So *IF* this was going to be done, it is likely that only one battery type is needed. When GenIII comes out that would be a second form factor that would need to be supported.

Any truck is likely to use one of those form factors, while "chemistry"; "different electronics"; or other horror multipliers all fall into the realm of software controllers. They don't affect the basic form factor. Future advanced batteries would be able to be seamlessly swapped in as long as they use a compatible form factor. If there is serious miniaturization in the future you might still be able to plug it in using an adapter. If a future advanced battery supported higher power output than the current generation motors could support, then that would just be software limited.

These are straightforward problems to solve when dealing with electrons. EV's are very much a digital platform.

- - - Updated - - -

TD1 said: ?

Battery swaping would make no sense, because its pretty clear that Battery swapping wont be needed anymore in 10-15 Years.
So Building a network of very very expensive Battery swapping Stations is not a longterm solution, that also why Betterplace failed, its a Business that has no future.
Supercharger Station is around 200k, Battery Swapping Station is around 2-3Million (thats what Betterplace had calculated)

My Money is on the Lithium-Ion / Metal Air battery Hybrid. Tesla has a Patent on it and that technology is capable of doing 1000Miles. It would be more expensive then recharging, but would once and for all solve the range anxiety issue. And since it will only be used on long distance trips, driver electric would still be much cheaper then Gas.

Im really surprised how the most people here totally ignore this incredibly awesome Patent that Tesla has there.
Click to expand...

I agree that battery swap is a short term fix. But your estimate from Better Place just goes to show how inexpensive this would be for Tesla. For the BP small battery swapping solution to work in the U.S. they needed to build swap stations every 25 miles. Thats a lot of investment to cover any significant area.

Tesla could cover most of the U.S. with just 100 stations in the initial rollout, and the "refill" fees could eventually make the system profitable as the vehicle fleet grows. Given that possibility Tesla might be well served by finding partners to share in the cost. Maybe they should package it as a CDO and sell it to Wall Street.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Maybe they should package it as a CDO and sell it to Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Haha, funny man. Only you got this the wrong way around - Wall Street sells CDOs to people they consider stupid. (Stupid defined as trusting the expert advice from Wall Street).
�

DonPedro said: ?

Haha, funny man. Only you got this the wrong way around - Wall Street sells CDOs to people they consider stupid. (Stupid defined as trusting the expert advice from Wall Street).
Click to expand...

Ya, no kidding.

That said there is potentially a money making opportunity in battery swap if that turns out to be the winning technology in the future.

There might only ever be 300 such stations built in the entire U.S. The CapEx isn't terrible and if they charge ~$20 per swap (for 150 miles of range between stations) that approximates paying $3.50/gallon in a car that gets 25mpg.

If the vehicle fleet starts @~15,000 in 2013, and increases by 15k each year until 2016, that is ~60,000 vehicles using the initial 100 stations. If 2.5% of vehicle days use a swap station a single time you get 60000*365*0.025=547,500 swaps for 2017 based only on vehicles built in 2012-2016. @$20/swap that is a pathetic $10.95m in revenue after investing ~$200m and having ongoing operational costs.

But in 2017, you build 15,000 more Model S and 100,000 GenIII. That is ~1.6m swaps in 2018, which is ~$32m in revenue to pay operational costs. After 2018 production 2019 yields ~$53m in revenue. At some point in this process the $200m investment becomes profitable, even accounting for incremental investment in extra battery capacity. Maybe.

Tesla doesn't care. They deploy this and SuperCharging and let the market decide which one wins. It's all advertising to them, and they might be able to get partners to take a risk on battery swap. That risk might be more palatable after Tesla has had its first profitable quarter and has won every car award available, than maybe it was in 2012.
�

I think this is plausible. The two credible alternatives that I have seen voiced at this point are this and the "Supercharger upgrade + Elon math". I think Elon is a guy that can learn from mistakes, so let's hope to avoid more bistromathics. In that case, the battery swap is the best match with the tweet.

Is there a third (or "1B") alternative that would go something like this: Install a "thingy" in the frunk, which has a receptacle. Here you can plug battery "cassettes" that you can exchange at the SC station? Probably not feasible in terms of weight and volume of cassettes to be replaced?
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Tesla doesn't care. They deploy this and SuperCharging and let the market decide which one wins. It's all advertising to them, and they might be able to get partners to take a risk on battery swap. That risk might be more palatable after Tesla has had its first profitable quarter and has won every car award available, than maybe it was in 2012.
Click to expand...

This is what I'm starting to see. Deploying swapping can make plenty of sense as a temporary solution, even it it costs $200 million.

That size deployment could cover Model S/X produced in next 5 years. Assuming they sell 100,000 of these in NA over the next 5 years, they could charge $1-2K to turn the feature on. If 50% take the feature at $2K they recoup half of the cost. Charging per mile usage at cost recoups cost of batteries, and customer knows they've also benefited by not putting these miles on their own battery.

Even $2,000 per car is a laughably cheaper short-term solution for range than what the competition has come up with... an ice engine as a range extender.

What about when Gen III swamps the system?

"They can let market decides what wins" (and science). Four years from now metal air battery may be ready. Put that in Gen III, offer choice in Model S/X, and Tesla wins whatever customer preference mix ends up between SCs, swapping, and metal air.

Even if the swapping is near, or completely, obsolete in 10 years it just all makes the path to 500 mile batteries (or beyond) more palatable to more people.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

This is what I'm starting to see. Deploying swapping can make plenty of sense as a temporary solution, even it it costs $200 million.
Click to expand...

That seems crazy to me. A $200 million for a temporary solution to a problem for the very tiny portion of people for which SC's aren't fast enough? That's not efficient use of capital and Tesla certainly hasn't been one to waste cash on dual "let the market choose" tactics.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

This is what I'm starting to see. Deploying swapping can make plenty of sense as a temporary solution, even it it costs $200 million.

That size deployment could cover Model S/X produced in next 5 years. Assuming they sell 100,000 of these in NA over the next 5 years, they could charge $1-2K to turn the feature on. If 50% take the feature at $2K they recoup half of the cost. Charging per mile usage at cost recoups cost of batteries, and customer knows they've also benefited by not putting these miles on their own battery.

Even $2,000 per car is a laughably cheaper short-term solution for range than what the competition has come up with... an ice engine as a range extender.

What about when Gen III swamps the system?

"They can let market decides what wins" (and science). Four years from now metal air battery may be ready. Put that in Gen III, offer choice in Model S/X, and Tesla wins whatever customer preference mix ends up between SCs, swapping, and metal air.

Even if the swapping is near, or completely, obsolete in 10 years it just all makes the path to 500 mile batteries (or beyond) more palatable to more people.
Click to expand...

Yes, if they partner with the customers themselves they can lower swap fees down to just the incremental cost for each swap. Good point.

Who knows what to do, but based on Elon's tweets and official Tesla statements as recently as the....

Well, I just looked. We have an answer in the most recent SEC filing -

our capability to rapidly swap out the Model S battery pack and the development of specialized public facilities to perform such swapping, which do not currently exist but which we plan to introduce in the near future
Click to expand...

�

DonPedro said: ?

Is there a third (or "1B") alternative that would go something like this: Install a "thingy" in the frunk, which has a receptacle. Here you can plug battery "cassettes" that you can exchange at the SC station? Probably not feasible in terms of weight and volume of cassettes to be replaced?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the exact same thing. Basically a block battery for the rear or frunk that has maybe 50-100 mi capacity. Problem is that it weighs too much (~ 400 pounds for 100 mi boost). Maybe lowered into frunk with a hoist. It wouldn't need active cooling if it only recharged the main battery at a slower rate. Kinda of like a gasoline gen set. You drive away and it's still recharging the main battery. Between this battery block and simlutaneous supercharging of the main battery, the driver may be on his way in 15min or less.
�

Quickie link for anyone interested.. just search for "swap"

Tesla Motors - Quarterly Report

- - - Updated - - -

ckessel said: ?

That seems crazy to me. A $200 million for a temporary solution to a problem for the very tiny portion of people for which SC's aren't fast enough? That's not efficient use of capital and Tesla certainly hasn't been one to waste cash on dual "let the market choose" tactics.
Click to expand...

Maybe the SuperCharger announcement is that they are scaling them back in favor of a new strategy, lol
�

ckessel it serves two purposes.

1. the point that Consumer Reports said would take the Model S to a 110 out of 100, filling up as quickly as an ICE. It may be irrational, it may be only a temporary issue, but I think CR is right... the ability to drive long range as conveniently as an ICE is the biggest drawback in public opinion. In practice SCs may only be not fast enough for a minority, but it is currently the most successful point of attack against Tesla I know it's detractors to have.

2. it manages the growth of demand on Superchargers. If it swaps in 3 minutes and IF SCs shortly get to fully charging in 30 minutes, it is 10X faster a recharge. This will be critical during the 5% of the year of major holiday driving. It's one thing to wait 10 minutes behind 3 people on the battery swap line, another to wait 1.5 hours on line behind the SC line. Tesla either invests something like an extra $90 million for enough SCs to accomodate triple traffic at ultra peak times, or they get a lot of grief from press and customers about ridiculous lines around Xmas and Thanksgiving.

So that $200 million becomes more like $110 million. And again if they charge $1K or $2K for those unlike yourself who'd like the feature, the cost gets scaled way down or eliminated.

- - - Updated - - -

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Well, I just looked. We have an answer in the most recent SEC filing -
Click to expand...

Awesome find C.O. Who'd of thunk it would be tough keeping up to speed with a thread on a Saturday. This is not done, but it is very encouraging indeed!
�

I think that automated battery swap is the most likely option. Judging from several images showing the underside of Model S, it seems that the battery module design is such that the module can be unfastened very easily and hence dedicated robotics should be able to do the job. Keeping individual packs and recharging them until the real owner returns to the recharge station would be complicated and expensive, since storage space would be needed. On the other hand, using statistics and probability calculus should enable to have a really small underground storage&recharge chamber with some simple transport system, maybe some form of conveyor belt?

I may err, but IMHO there are several arguments against metal-air battery extension packs, as well as against using ultra capacitor packs.

Metal-air batteries do have a nice energy content, but how much space is there really left in the Model S to pack this thing in without annoying its driver and passengers? One of the great points about Model S is its spaciousness. Space equals value, hence IMHO reducing available space equals reducing the car's value. I can hardly imagine that this is Tesla's intent. Also, metal-air batteries need to be refurbished. If there is no compact automatic refurbishment for empty metal-air batteries on-site, there would have to be a logistics to be involved -> cost factor. Seems implausible from a business perspective. Keeping systems as simple as possible and as cheap as possible is the key factor to success.

Ultra capacitor packs are very nice, because they can basically be sucked dry close to 0V. But what good would they really do? I read somewhere on the forums about an idea to use ultra caps to quickly recharge and then let those refill the battery pack on the road. Tough luck, because half the energy of the ultra caps would be lost during the process. Plus, you'd e.g. need about 33 cubic meters (!) of commercially available ultra caps to get 85 kWh. Assuming a 100 fold improvement still requires 0.33 cubic meters of space. The numbers don't work out, even with science fiction .

Another aspect is the assumed increase from 90 kW to 120 kW super charger capability. Well, 90/120 is .75 or 75%. That's a meager 25% charging time reduction. So we need 22.5 minutes instead of 30 minutes? Elon said that this would be quicker than typical gasoline refilling. Hence I say, a 25% reduction is nice and dandy, but nothing dramatic. IIRC, there is a scene in the megafactory video where they show that Tesla workers were drilled to attach the battery pack in like 4:15 manually. My guess is that even this can be automated, and this is what I believe now works on the road. It would make sense.

There is a hint from Elon in the reign of "it has been under your nose", right? Which would make sense, if the super charger stations had already some extra infrastructure beneath them, still visually being sealed off from the outside. And the little tower structure next to the recharging spots seems like it could pack a punch and deliver an appropriate amount of cooling (for itself and possibly subterranean recharging, a kind of air conditioner). Maybe some men in black are working their S's off each night to install alien tech in those spare spaces.. .
�

Tesla is already charging $1,500 for SuperCharger hookups. Switch that money into investment for Swap Stations and you have ~$30m/year to invest in new stations. In 4 years that is $120m of investment which goes a fair distance towards covering the cost.

- - - Updated - - -

Just in case anyone missed the switch over. This thread is solved. Tesla has already announced Battery Swap in the 10Q filed yesterday.
�

Royal TS(LA) said: ?

I think that automated battery swap is the most likely option. Judging from several images showing the underside of Model S, it seems that the battery module design is such that the module can be unfastened very easily and hence dedicated robotics should be able to do the job. Keeping individual packs and recharging them until the real owner returns to the recharge station would be complicated and expensive, since storage space would be needed. On the other hand, using statistics and probability calculus should enable to have a really small underground storage&recharge chamber with some simple transport system, maybe some form of conveyor belt?
Click to expand...

As to storage Royal, one thing to remember, the SC stations are in between cities, basically the middle of no where. It may be tricky dealing with state governments that tend to manage these big highway rest stops and allow for construction, by the land itself, or worst case a couple miles from SCs, is cheap cheap.
�

I have to agree with ckessel on this. On the other hand, if they just use it as "range washing", i.e. 'look what we can do", just in a few token locations, they get the ability to say "faster fill up than an ICE", and string people along for a few years until larger packs with higher charge rates can be rolled out. This way they don't have a huge investment across the country, or around the world, on a soon to be obsolete technology.
�

Anyone wanna lay odds on whether Tesla charges a swap fee or just does it for free as long as you return to pick up your old pack?
�

Bet they charge a fee to truck your pack from one location to another, i.e. if you want to take a different route out than return, are a snow bird... Likely some extra fee if you hang onto swap battery longer than 2 weeks. Can't have people swapping out there 5 year old battery and forgetting about it in storage!
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Maybe the SuperCharger announcement is that they are scaling them back in favor of a new strategy, lol
Click to expand...

Who knows, maybe. As an investor, I'm not tickled if Tesla is throwing money at what are basically mutually opposing plans for addressing range issues. Yea, we hear about range from folks like Consumer Reports, but demand is fine regardless and reviewers that have tried the SC (including CR) were pretty happy with them. Tesla and Elon have been completely over the moon talking about SCs, how great they are, how competitive with gas, free for life, blanketing the whole USA and then Europe and on and on.

It seems it'd be knifing their very highly visibly touted SC in the back. If that's really the announcement, it'll certainly be interesting to see how they spin it as anything than saying SCs aren't the right solution.
�

JRP3 said: ?

I have to agree with ckessel on this. On the other hand, if they just use it as "range washing", i.e. 'look what we can do", just in a few token locations, they get the ability to say "faster fill up than an ICE", and string people along for a few years until larger packs with higher charge rates can be rolled out. This way they don't have a huge investment across the country, or around the world, on a soon to be obsolete technology.
Click to expand...

It's not so bad as all of that. Batteries will get denser, but to a certain extent those gains will need be realized in lighter and cheaper batteries over the next decade rather than extra range. If you build a swapping infrastructure why do you really need more than 200 miles of range except as a niche application?
�

JRP3 said: ?

I have to agree with ckessel on this. On the other hand, if they just use it as "range washing", i.e. 'look what we can do", just in a few token locations, they get the ability to say "faster fill up than an ICE", and string people along for a few years until larger packs with higher charge rates can be rolled out. This way they don't have a huge investment across the country, or around the world, on a soon to be obsolete technology.
Click to expand...

It may be an announcement and token implementation, but JRP3, do you really think it so unlikely a high percent of S/X buyers would drop $1.5M to have access to a swap network if they believe it will be built? If so, why not collect the cash and use it to actually build the darn thing.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

the ability to drive long range as conveniently as an ICE is the biggest drawback in public opinion.
Click to expand...

Disagree, it's price. If people could get a 200 mile range EV for $30K very few would care that much about the range issue, especially with the supercharger network in place. Sure some would still complain, they always will.

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Just in case anyone missed the switch over. This thread is solved. Tesla has already announced Battery Swap in the 10Q filed yesterday.
Click to expand...

The 10Q doesn't say when it may be happening. Plus, even if that's an announcement, is it a supercharger announcement or the under your nose announcement?
�

And don't forget charging times. Filling a 200kWh battery quickly is exceptionally difficult with the electric grid that exists. You might need heavy duty power generation right at the charging source to even make it practicable.

- - - Updated - - -

JRP3 said: ?

Disagree, it's price. If people could get a 200 mile range EV for $30K very few would care that much about the range issue, especially with the supercharger network in place. Sure some would still complain, they always will.

The 10Q doesn't say when it may be happening. Plus, even if that's an announcement, is it a supercharger announcement or the under your nose announcement?
Click to expand...

It say's "near future". The SEC would probably spank them if "near future" meant in 2014. It would be the under your nose announcement I would assume, based on Elon saying "faster than filling a car" in relation to the mystery announcement.
�

ckessel complementary, not opposing plans. Swapping avoids giant mess on the handful of days of dramatically higher usage, and for those who find 30-40 minutes at SC no issue, don't drop $1,500 on the option. If you're one of the ones who thinks the wait is unimaginable, fine, we've made an option available to you.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

ckessel complementary, not opposing plans. Swapping avoids giant mess on the handful of days of dramatically higher usage, and for those who find 30-40 minutes at SC no issue, don't drop $1,500 on the option. If you're one of the ones who thinks the wait is unimaginable, fine, we've made an option available to you.
Click to expand...

Well, that'll be the spin part. I'll be curious to see how they spin it because it doesn't look complementary at all.

To me, wearing my Tesla investor hat, Tesla is going to store dozens batteries in wait for the few high traffic days sounds equivalent to having piles of cash committed to something that's almost never used.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Anyone wanna lay odds on whether Tesla charges a swap fee or just does it for free as long as you return to pick up your old pack?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that the swapping infrastructure was already installed during construction work and that they tried to get the swapping station firmware to function properly until recently. The Model S is expensive enough to allow the assumption that this extra effort is already priced in. So, I think this is most probably for free, too. If not, maybe 10 bucks per quick swap?
�

ckessel said: ?

Well, that'll be the spin part. I'll be curious to see how the spin it because it doesn't look complementary at all.

To me, wearing my Tesla investor hat, Tesla is going to store dozens batteries in wait for the few high traffic days sounds equivalent to having piles of cash committed to something that's almost never used.
Click to expand...

ckessel, I'm an investor myself. I also really didn't like the idea of swapping. until yesterday. If they charge customers per mile at cost for the use of those batteries (probably $.20/mile), the batteries will be paid for, not cash going to something never used. To the customer it will be on par with the cost of gas, AND, they won't use up those miles on their own battery, actually making it considerably cheaper than gas (this is real, not fuzz Tesla lease math).
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

It's not so bad as all of that. Batteries will get denser, but to a certain extent those gains will need be realized in lighter and cheaper batteries over the next decade rather than extra range. If you build a swapping infrastructure why do you really need more than 200 miles of range except as a niche application?
Click to expand...

If you have a 400-500 mile pack do you really need a swap?

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

And don't forget charging times. Filling a 200kWh battery quickly is exceptionally difficult with the electric grid that exists. You might need heavy duty power generation right at the charging source to even make it practicable.
Click to expand...

Large storage pack on site that can dump charge, plus provide FR for the grid, which utilities might pay handsomely for.

Still, you've all made some pretty good points, and with the 10Q wording, I am leaning in the swap direction. I'm not yet convinced it's necessarily the right move but it may be.
�

JRP3 said: ?

If you have a 400-500 mile pack do you really need a swap?
Click to expand...

JRP3 it may well be obsolete in 10 years (with 500+) packs, but if it pays for itself and opens hearts and minds, why not? and fwiw, I really believe that while Elon Musk has no issue with making billions, he really does aim to accelerate the adoption of EVs as well.
�

Now the $1M question is: How will this affect the share price.

I'm thinking a lot depends on how good a job they do of selling it at the demo - it is not an automatic win. People have now gotten used to the idea of how a Model S works, and this is a radical modification of the concept. There could fear that Tesla has doubts about the current concept, while the new one is unproven.

If there is some unforeseen smartness/technology or other hidden gem (partnership?), that could help a lot.
�

So my quickie model.

There is a clear upper limit on the number of swap locations required. This simplifies life, because even scaled to support the entire vehicle fleet in the U.S. you only probably need hundreds of locations, not tens of thousands like with gas stations (actual number 121,446 as of a year ago). Scaling to achieve high swap volumes is straight forward, because typical usage is so low (only used on road trips).

In a decade swap volumes will make those locations wildly profitable if Tesla charges swap fees inline with gas costs, or else they charge customers upfront and then a nominal fee per swap, and might even make it completely free after the upfront charge. Any method allows for road trips that are cheaper and faster than ICE, with power supplied by Solar Panels.

They pirate the Better Place model and promise to support batteries from other manufacturers. Improve on Better Place by enforcing standardized form factors for batteries. Improve it more by selling the batteries to other manufacturers. Regardless of method the infrastructure is in place to encourage other manufacturers to adopt the model.
�

DonPedro said: ?

Now the $1M question is: How will this affect the share price.

If there is some unforeseen smartness/technology or other hidden gem (partnership?), that could help a lot.
Click to expand...

share price impact tougher to figure out than what an Elon Tweet is really about

as to unforseen smartness... we are talking about a guy whose building a rocket at a fraction of Boeing came up with decades more time.
�

Just a thought: Is this the "Egg of Columbus" in terms of solving the Gen III equation? As far as I understand, the challenge there has been to make a car that has a sufficient range, yet get it down to the right price point.

The battery swapping would maybe allow Tesla to successfully launch a Gen III with a smaller battery pack?
�

SteveG3 said: ?

ckessel, I'm an investor myself. I also really didn't like the idea of swapping. until yesterday. If they charge customers per mile at cost for the use of those batteries (probably $.20/mile), the batteries will be paid for, not cash going to something never used. To the customer it will be on par with the cost of gas, AND, they won't use up those miles on their own battery, actually making it considerably cheaper than gas (this is real, not fuzz Tesla lease math).
Click to expand...

Yea, I saw that too and it again seems to completely counter Tesla's other statements. Tesla has been pushing SCs with the free for life bit which is inline with the whole cheaper to operate angle they (very correctly) tout.

Then turn around and introduce a model that's not free and costs roughly the same as gas?

I get what battery swapping brings, it just seems to run counter to all that Tesla's currently promoting. As for winning hearts and minds, they've already raised guidance for this year and 50% for sometime in the future at 30,000 a year. They don't need to win hearts and minds any faster than they already are.
�

JRP3 said: ?

If you have a 400-500 mile pack do you really need a swap?

Large storage pack on site that can dump charge, plus provide FR for the grid, which utilities might pay handsomely for.

Still, you've all made some pretty good points, and with the 10Q wording, I am leaning in the swap direction. I'm not yet convinced it's necessarily the right move but it may be.
Click to expand...

I don't know. But in 4 years it MIGHT be technically possible for a Model S class vehicle to achieve 500 miles (I actually assume it will). You will still need to charge $70k for the car and it will still be the same size. Think about that, it requires a doubling of power density and a reduction in price per unit of power by half over the next 4 years to achieve the same size and price point as the Model S.

Or you can plow that into a battery which is half the size and costs half as much and put it into a smaller car. And that is assuming a 100% improvement in just 4 years, along with all of the attendant logistical problems of actually charging the battery at an acceptable speed, both at home and at public stations.

Swapping might be necessary to achieved rapid adoption of EV's.

- - - Updated - - -

DonPedro said: ?

Just a thought: Is this the "Egg of Columbus" in terms of solving the Gen III equation? As far as I understand, the challenge there has been to make a car that has a sufficient range, yet get it down to the right price point.

The battery swapping would maybe allow Tesla to successfully launch a Gen III with a smaller battery pack?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Once the infrastructure is in place, there is no real need for cars with 300+ mile ranges at all. 250 gets you to any swap station in the country, or else it gets you home.
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, I saw that too and it again seems to completely counter Tesla's other statements. Tesla has been pushing SCs with the free for life bit which is inline with the whole cheaper to operate angle they (very correctly) tout.

Then turn around and introduce a model that's not free and costs roughly the same as gas?

I get what battery swapping brings, it just seems to run counter to all that Tesla's currently promoting. As for winning hearts and minds, they've already raised guidance for this year and 50% for sometime in the future at 30,000 a year. They don't need to win hearts and minds any faster than they already are.
Click to expand...

I see it differently ckessel, I see them offering an option to those who can't see waiting 30-40 minutes, without taking the SC option away from those who can. There's a ton of software online where you can get the free version or pay up for the premium. I don't resent Adobe or Google for having premium products they charge for... I'm psyched they also have PDF software and Gmail for free.

ckessel, can you really blame Tesla not wanting to have to spend 3X the SC budget to accomodate holiday traffic for free and have those SCs go unused all the rest of the year? the SCs that would power battery swap system would be covered in something like a $1,500 option price to owners.
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, I saw that too and it again seems to completely counter Tesla's other statements. Tesla has been pushing SCs with the free for life bit which is inline with the whole cheaper to operate angle they (very correctly) tout.

Then turn around and introduce a model that's not free and costs roughly the same as gas?

I get what battery swapping brings, it just seems to run counter to all that Tesla's currently promoting. As for winning hearts and minds, they've already raised guidance for this year and 50% for sometime in the future at 30,000 a year. They don't need to win hearts and minds any faster than they already are.
Click to expand...

Yes, this might end up being just as free as SuperCharging. Once the infrastructure is in place the marginal cost isn't much higher than the energy cost. The batteries are virtually indestructible, and you get the most use out of them by putting tons of miles on them.
�

What if Tesla announces a partnership with some existing company that already has facilities -- even if it's just a roof and four walls and a source of power -- that Tesla will be able to use?

Me, I'd be game for a partnership with In-n-Out. You enter the drive-thru, pull up to order your food, and there's a Tesla Model S detector that asks not only if you'd like fries with that, but would you like to swap out your battery...

But on a serious note -- what would be involved with battery swapping? All done robotically? Requiring technicians? Requiring lifting the car or not? Or, like with Jiffy Lube, requiring you to pull over a special "hole" (being careful not to drive into it) through which they go to work on your battery?

Seems like a huge amount of infrastructure investment.

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.
�

Just to re-emphasize, the money they are making from the "SuperCharger" hardware can basically finance this. There is no reason at all not to replace the SuperCharger program with swapping stations.

If you build a swap station, adding a couple of SuperChargers is a tiny additional cost. Just a few thousand dollars really to install the pylon chargers.

The big money was always in the transformers and other infrastructure associated with the SuperChargers, and all of that needs to be built into the SuperSwapper.
�

brianstorms said: ?

[..]

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.
Click to expand...

Leasing the battery pack should bring down the initial cost nicely, right? Good for mass market stimulus IMHO.
�

brianstorms said: ?

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking this. It makes for the most sensible logistics, both for customers and for the company.
�

brianstorms said: ?

What if Tesla announces a partnership with some existing company that already has facilities -- even if it's just a roof and four walls and a source of power -- that Tesla will be able to use?

Me, I'd be game for a partnership with In-n-Out. You enter the drive-thru, pull up to order your food, and there's a Tesla Model S detector that asks not only if you'd like fries with that, but would you like to swap out your battery...

But on a serious note -- what would be involved with battery swapping? All done robotically? Requiring technicians? Requiring lifting the car or not? Or, like with Jiffy Lube, requiring you to pull over a special "hole" (being careful not to drive into it) through which they go to work on your battery?

Seems like a huge amount of infrastructure investment.

Perhaps Tesla introduces an entirely new way of buying the car. You buy the car with a leased battery. You own the car, but not the battery. The battery belongs to Tesla, and is part of the network of batteries which you swap in and out from.
Click to expand...

Not really. They might be able to license the stations directly from Better Place, and just modify it slightly to meet the Tesla form factor. It would all be completely automated, with the main robotic assembly being underground.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Just to re-emphasize, the money they are making from the "SuperCharger" hardware can basically finance this. There is no reason at all not to replace the SuperCharger program with swapping stations.

If you build a swap station, adding a couple of SuperChargers is a tiny additional cost. Just a few thousand dollars really to install the pylon chargers.

The big money was always in the transformers and other infrastructure associated with the SuperChargers, and all of that needs to be built into the SuperSwapper.
Click to expand...

Good point, even though swapping robots, battery inventory and charging points are going to cost a bit, too.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

I see it differently ckessel, I see them offering an option to those who can't see waiting 30-40 minutes, without taking the SC option away from those who can.
Click to expand...

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -

SteveG3 said: ?

ckessel, can you really blame Tesla not wanting to have to spend 3X the SC budget to accomodate holiday traffic for free and have those SCs go unused all the rest of the year? the SCs that would power battery swap system would be covered in something like a $1,500 option price to owners.
Click to expand...

I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

Can someone explain how swapping places doesn't obsolete the SC? Someone said they'd be complementary, but I don't see how that's possible. Long distance travel is rare enough now as a % of miles driven. I can't imagine there'd be enough demand for 2 different solutions.

Maybe obsoleting the SC is the plan, but Tesla barely has them installed now and is actively touting them, so why do that if swapping will end up being the norm and they're staring "soon" according to the 10Q?
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.
Click to expand...

What if it's still free and covered with the $1,500 SuperCharger fee (or some fee recognizably close to that)? I don't see what the objection would be. As a customer its a vastly better product (with the exception of the requirement to return to pick up your battery). As an investor its a larger (but affordable) investment that could increase the size of the market for the primary product. The revenue from increased market share easily trumps the relatively small costs that are largely being offset by customer fees anyways.

Anyone not wanting to swap can just use the SuperChargers which are co-located with the SuperSwappers anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

Darn. Better Place is listed on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange.
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.
Click to expand...

Those extra SCs just get built and only used as the very rare peak peak times. The batteries, however, get used until they have no useful life... whether that takes a year or ten years. By charging a customer the cost/mile of the battery, I estimate at $.20/mile, the battery gets paid for.

(as to your point about small percentage of people not wanting this. I think up until February, Tesla may well have seen it as you do now. Why build this Super Swapper out, even if we charge for it as an option if not enough people will want it to recoup money? While Elon never budged an inch on Broder's report being non-sense, he did say Tesla would make a concerted effort to respond to the situation. In other words, they may have been on the fence about battery swap, and then decided it was worth it to put all the flak to rest even if they don't recoup the investment).

by the way "Super Swapper", nice C.O.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

What if it's still free and covered with the $1,500 SuperCharger fee (or some fee recognizably close to that)? I don't see what the objection would be.
Click to expand...

Yea, that's fine. Just my previous question of why push SCs at all if swapping will be better and Tesla is starting swap stations "soon"? I can't see any reason Tesla wouldn't completely pull the plug on SC if swapping is faster and could be free/cheap.
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, I guess I see that % of people as small enough it's not worth spending money on them.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't get how that's any different than all the batteries they'd have to keep around for holiday traffic as well as the expense of a non-trivial physical building and robots and such.

Can someone explain how swapping places doesn't obsolete the SC? Someone said they'd be complementary, but I don't see how that's possible. Long distance travel is rare enough now as a % of miles driven. I can't imagine there'd be enough demand for 2 different solutions.

Maybe obsoleting the SC is the plan, but Tesla barely has them installed now and is actively touting them, so why do that if swapping will end up being the norm and they're staring "soon" according to the 10Q?
Click to expand...

It might well obsolete them. It's to early to tell. If it can be offered for free it obviously does on primary corridors. SuperCharging might be relevant on secondary routes. I have no idea.

- - - Updated - - -

ckessel said: ?

Yea, that's fine. Just my previous question of why push SCs at all if swapping will be better and Tesla is starting swap stations "soon"? I can't see any reason Tesla wouldn't completely pull the plug on SC if swapping is faster and could be free/cheap.
Click to expand...

Yes, that was the reason why I asked folks to lay odds on whether the "SuperCharger" announcement is going to cancel the program, lol.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

Those extra SCs just get built and only used as the very rare peak peak times. The batteries, however, get used until they have no useful life... whether that takes a year or ten years. By charging a customer the cost/mile of the battery, I estimate at $.20/mile, the battery gets paid for.
Click to expand...

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.

- - - Updated - - -

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Yes, that was the reason why I asked folks to lay odds on whether the "SuperCharger" announcement is going to cancel the program, lol.
Click to expand...

Well, if they announce swappers then I certainly hope they kill the SC. Waste of resources supporting and building out both.
�

Anyone wanna lay odds that Tesla SuperCharger strategy was both a backup (in case the business case for swapping didn't close) and FUD to jam Better Place out of the market and help Tesla get favorable pricing on a contract with Better Place to build swap stations? Or do we think that Tesla developed stations in house?
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.
Click to expand...

All year you have to have 3X the SC spots for July 4th, almost all waste. Cost of one Super Swapper same whether it's used one per hour or 20 times. Cost of batteries the same, whether 7% of inventory in use or 70% in use. How is that? Because a battery in the system lives it's life in the system, is paid for 1 mile at a time by customers, whether that's over 1 year because there are X batteries or 10 years because there are 10X batteries. Does that make more sense?
�

ckessel said: ?

Yea, but you've got to have a stack of just as many batteries sitting around waiting for customers as you had SC stations waiting unused. You have to have enough that on the July4th weekend when everyone is driving that there's a battery for every single person that wants one, just like you'd need an SC for every single person that wants one.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if they announce swappers then I certainly hope they kill the SC. Waste of resources supporting and building out both.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't see any real reason to have them both on primary travel corridors if you can offer the service for free. Out in the boonies though SuperChargers are a much more economical option.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Anyone wanna lay odds that Tesla SuperCharger strategy was both a backup (in case the business case for swapping didn't close) and FUD to jam Better Place out of the market and help Tesla get favorable pricing on a contract with Better Place to build swap stations? Or do we think that Tesla developed stations in house?
Click to expand...

C.O. I do think part of wait on swapping was to watch how Better Place played out, and not validate their program somewhat by Tesla doing same. I really doubt they'll license Better Place. SpaceX has way out-engineered Boeing, I suspect same here with BP (though they wouldn't be hard to negotiate with at this point).

- - - Updated - - -

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Yes, I don't see any real reason to have them both on primary travel corridors if you can offer the service for free. Out in the boonies though SuperChargers are a much more economical option.
Click to expand...

I still see a place for both. Do I want to pay for those miles with Swap battery? Am I stopping to get a meal anyway? Why not SC. That said, it's not clear until they get the thing going and they see how demand says. I've heard Elon say more than once he is agnostic about battery tech of the future, I'd imagine he has the same approach to range solution... whatever proves to work in the real world.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

All year you have to have 3X the SC spots for July 4th, almost all waste. Cost of one Super Swapper same whether it's used one per hour or 20 times. Cost of batteries the same, whether 7% of inventory in use or 70% in use. How is that? Because a battery in the system lives it's life in the system, is paid for 1 mile at a time by customers, whether that's over 1 year because there are X batteries or 10 years because there are 10X batteries. Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I totally don't get it.

An SC slot is wasted when it's unused, got it.

Batteries are wasted sitting around unused too. If a swap station has to stock 20 batteries for peak travel days, but only use 10% of that on non-peak days then 18 batteries are, on average, sitting around unused.

Either way, the investment in capital is sitting around unused. What am I misunderstanding?
�

I was gonna say. Does TSLA acquire Better Place?
�

SteveG3 said: ?

All year you have to have 3X the SC spots for July 4th, almost all waste. Cost of one Super Swapper same whether it's used one per hour or 20 times. Cost of batteries the same, whether 7% of inventory in use or 70% in use. How is that? Because a battery in the system lives it's life in the system, is paid for 1 mile at a time by customers, whether that's over 1 year because there are X batteries or 10 years because there are 10X batteries. Does that make more sense?
Click to expand...

Everyone should keep in mind that a larger battery inventory allows for more rate arbitrage, and also marginally lowers the overall unit costs for battery production (though not by much). So needing a relatively large inventory isn't unproductive.

And switch that around to look at the SuperCharger case. If 1 hour charge times is the norm going forward, you have truly huge bottleneck issues when you factor high holiday volumes.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

I still see a place for both. Do I want to pay for those miles with Swap battery?
Click to expand...

If Tesla is using the $1500 SC access fee to pay for it, they really can only afford to build one or the other.

I still think if they go the swap route it's going to be a big PR blow. They're going to be admitting their touted solution wasn't the right choice. Which in turn means admitting all the effort they spent on the specialized plug for high amperage wasn't needed, nor is all the super charger hardware, etc. It's going to be hard to spin all that spent effort and money as a positive.
�

ckessel said: ?

If Tesla is using the $1500 SC access fee to pay for it, they really can only afford to build one or the other.
Click to expand...

I remembered the reason you co-locate the SuperChargers with SuperSwappers. Some people need to take their battery with them on long trips, or permanent moves.

Also, there is an associated problem in inventory management for long trips. How can there not be some kind of rental involved? Can someone really hang out at their parents house for a month without causing some kind of disruption? I should probably stop talking because we are getting into areas that I had patentable ideas on, lol.
�

Seems to me SC sites and swap sites could co-exist happily. And some sites might offer both facilities.

I particularly like the idea of SC sites being relegated, ultimately, to largely remote, rural areas, say the 101 corridor north and south of Paso Robles in CA, whereas Tesla builds out three or four swap sites on I-5 between Sacramento and San Diego. Maybe all the service centers become swap sites too?
�

Hello, I'm still a newbie when it comes to batteries but based on what I read so far in this post I figured I would post my thoughts...worst that can happen people will think : "This guy is crazy and they'll have a good laugh". Either that or Tesla will take the idea and I'll regret not filling a patent before discussing it here. Anyways...
Here it goes. I think that swapping the main battery cannot be done in a matter of minutes. For multiple reasons already mentioned here, that would also be complex to manage. This said, swapping an extra (secondary and optional) battery could be done in a matter of minutes. Think of that extra battery as something about the size of current 12V batteries in cars today. The only difference is that they would be Metal-Air (getting back to that patent Tesla already filed). This wouldn't frustrate those who paid extra for the 85 pack and it would complement longer trips for that 1% of the time when you need it. There would be a cost for that extra battery of course and therefore those who are fine with their 60 or 85 pack could spend years without using that feature (i.e. not going back to the oil dependency paradigm). However for those who can't afford to wait, they can pay the premium, leave the empty one if any (that the SC would refill), take a new one and pop it in in less than a minute i.e. "faster than filling your gas tank"!

This said, this doesn't answer the "charging" piece of riddle since it's just a swap... What I think they have in mind and that I haven't seen posted anywhere is that the extra battery could/would be used to charge the main 85 (or 60) battery while you drive. It's like having an extra regen (almost like an onboard electricity generator) while you drive and even when you're completely stop your mileage would still go up due to that energy transfer. This Metal-Air thing has a limited capacity and an extra cost of course (around between 30-50$ for 500 miles transferred) but keep in mind that this is only when you need that extra range. Might sound like a crazy idea but it's the only thing I can see that makes sense with the riddle. I hope that I'm not stealing Tesla's thunder but this would be quite revolutionary and worthy of being one of the last announcements of the trilogy...
�

The SuperCharger rollout has been exceptionally slow, that's for sure. The issue with the "SuperSwaper" concept is space & ground leases. They've had a hard enough time just procuring parking spots with high power availability nearby, can you imagine now they'd need a dedicated building/area. I'd speculate even if they do introduce battery swap, it's only going to be in limited/extremely high traffic/busy locations, and I'm betting that will be mostly in California only, since I seem to remember they sell nearly half the North American Model S in CA.

BTW, Better Place is in deep financial trouble and nearly bankrupt, the specialized car that was made for their swap stations in Israel by Renault has basically been cancelled by them, as they where contracted to buy 100,000 of them, they've taken less than 3,000 worldwide

Link: Renault Fluence ZE To Be Only Battery-Swap Car; One For The Books?

So sure, Elon can probably get a great deal on the Better Place's IP/technology, even if Tesla has developed their own method, Better Place already has it done, why wouldn't they use whatever elements they can to lower the engineering costs, especially since Better Place is probably inexpensive now.

I'm betting SuperChargers will still be deployed in areas they can't locate real estate or a big enough location, the SC is a "good enough" solution for most people, especially if at a highway rest stop where food/free WiFi is availble (that BTW describes the 2 locations on the East Coast to date)
�

ckessel said: ?

No, sorry, I totally don't get it.

An SC slot is wasted when it's unused, got it.

Batteries are wasted sitting around unused too. If a swap station has to stock 20 batteries for peak travel days, but only use 10% of that on non-peak days then 18 batteries are, on average, sitting around unused.

Either way, the investment in capital is sitting around unused. What am I misunderstanding?
Click to expand...

ckessel. Let's say you have a favorite style of New Balance sneakers. You know you'll never like any other type of sneaker ever as much as these. Each given pair of sneakers has 6 months of life to it. You could pay $200 for 2 pairs each year of these NBs or $2,000 for 20 pairs today. If you buy the 20 pairs you pay no attention to which pair you put on each day, but throw away when it's useful life is expired. Whether you've bought 2 pairs once a year, or 20 pairs all at once, in ten years you'll drop $2000. The 6 months of useful life for each pair of sneakers corresponds to the 125,000 miles of useful life on the battery. Yes, you could factor in time value of money, but it's a fraction of the cost and you can pass it over to the customer if you like.
�

SteveG3 said: ?

ckessel. Let's say you have a favorite style of New Balance sneakers.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, you've completely lost me. One of your points was the waste of SC stations going unused frequently. I get the analogy, but it seems to completely skip addressing the fact that the swap strategy still leaves lots of capital (be it batteries or sneakers) sitting around unused frequently. If disuse was a knock on SCs it seems like it'd be a knock on swap stations too.
�

To develop the notion of "Buy the Car, Lease the Battery" a little more.

Let's say Tesla does this. Wouldn't it make sense to only offer one capacity battery, if for no other reason, for storage purposes? One pile of batteries, all, say, the 85Kwh form.

Maybe at some point soon all Model S's will ship with a special revised battery pack that's more easily swappable. And all the existing owners can get a free (or fee?) upgrade to have their old battery packs made swappable?

I'm really intrigued with the idea that you might be able to buy the car without a battery, or, just one that's leased. And maybe you could start with a 60, and get an 85 later for a higher lease? Swapping seems to make a lot of these notions be seen in an entirely new light.
�

DTB said: ?

Hello, I'm still a newbie when it comes to batteries but based on what I read so far in this post I figured I would post my thoughts...worst that can happen people will think : "This guy is crazy and they'll have a good laugh". Either that or Tesla will take the idea and I'll regret not filling a patent before discussing it here. Anyways...
Here it goes. I think that swapping the main battery cannot be done in a matter of minutes. For multiple reasons already mentioned here, that would also be complex to manage. This said, swapping an extra (secondary and optional) battery could be done in a matter of minutes. Think of that extra battery as something about the size of current 12V batteries in cars today. The only difference is that they would be Metal-Air (getting back to that patent Tesla already filed). This wouldn't frustrate those who paid extra for the 85 pack and it would complement longer trips for that 1% of the time when you need it. There would be a cost for that extra battery of course and therefore those who are fine with their 60 or 85 pack could spend years without using that feature (i.e. not going back to the oil dependency paradigm). However for those who can't afford to wait, they can pay the premium, leave the empty one if any (that the SC would refill), take a new one and pop it in in less than a minute i.e. "faster than filling your gas tank"!

This said, this doesn't answer the "charging" piece of riddle since it's just a swap... What I think they have in mind and that I haven't seen posted anywhere is that the extra battery could/would be used to charge the main 85 (or 60) battery while you drive. It's like having an extra regen (almost like an onboard electricity generator) while you drive and even when you're completely stop your mileage would still go up due to that energy transfer. This Metal-Air thing has a limited capacity and an extra cost of course (around between 30-50$ for 500 miles transferred) but keep in mind that this is only when you need that extra range. Might sound like a crazy idea but it's the only thing I can see that makes sense with the riddle. I hope that I'm not stealing Tesla's thunder but this would be quite revolutionary and worthy of being one of the last announcements of the trilogy...
Click to expand...

This was already proposed earlier in the thread. As of yesterday Tesla has (quietly) announced battery swapping in their 10Q.
�

Missed that part... Thanks for pointing that out CapO.
�

no worries ckessel. let's just say, as to the extent I think I understand it, the economics of swapping make way more sense to me now than they did a couple of days ago. We wont have to wait long to see what hey announce.

ckessel said: ?

Sorry man, you've completely lost me. One of your points was the waste of SC stations going unused frequently. I get the analogy, but it seems to completely skip addressing the fact that the swap strategy still leaves lots of capital (be it batteries or sneakers) sitting around unused frequently. If disuse was a knock on SCs it seems like it'd be a knock on swap stations too.
Click to expand...

�

ckessel said: ?

Sorry man, you've completely lost me. One of your points was the waste of SC stations going unused frequently. I get the analogy, but it seems to completely skip addressing the fact that the swap strategy still leaves lots of capital (be it batteries or sneakers) sitting around unused frequently. If disuse was a knock on SCs it seems like it'd be a knock on swap stations too.
Click to expand...

I think his point is that the batteries will eventually wear out through use. There is certainly some degradation that happens purely through age however, so I don't know that we should use that as a model.

If batteries only "wore out" by using them then you could keep the batteries at the SuperSwapper until they had worn out completely. So a 200,000 mile battery would last until 200,000 miles had elapsed, regardless of the number kept in storage. The more batteries in storage, the longer before an individual battery needs replacement.

However, batteries also degrade with age. So there are real losses from just letting them sit. The magnitude of those losses in an optimum environment as maintained by the battery controllers and cooling systems is unknown.

- - - Updated - - -

mitch672 said: ?

The SuperCharger rollout has been exceptionally slow, that's for sure. The issue with the "SuperSwaper" concept is space & ground leases. They've had a hard enough time just procuring parking spots with high power availability nearby, can you imagine now they'd need a dedicated building/area. I'd speculate even if they do introduce battery swap, it's only going to be in limited/extremely high traffic/busy locations, and I'm betting that will be mostly in California only, since I seem to remember they sell nearly half the North American Model S in CA.

BTW, Better Place is in deep financial trouble and nearly bankrupt, the specialized car that was made for their swap stations in Israel by Renault has basically been cancelled by them, as they where contracted to buy 100,000 of them, they've taken less than 3,000 worldwide

Link: Renault Fluence ZE To Be Only Battery-Swap Car; One For The Books?

So sure, Elon can probably get a great deal on the Better Place's IP/technology, even if Tesla has developed their own method, Better Place already has it done, why wouldn't they use whatever elements they can to lower the engineering costs, especially since Better Place is probably inexpensive now.

I'm betting SuperChargers will still be deployed in areas they can't locate real estate or a big enough location, the SC is a "good enough" solution for most people, especially if at a highway rest stop where food/free WiFi is availble (that BTW describes the 2 locations on the East Coast to date)
Click to expand...

Do we know that they really have delayed SuperCharger rollout for these reasons? Or were they playing for time until SuperSwapper business case closed?
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

I think his point is that the batteries will eventually wear out through use. There is certainly some degradation that happens purely through age however, so I don't know that we should use that as a model.

If batteries only "wore out" by using them then you could keep the batteries at the SuperSwapper until they had worn out completely. So a 200,000 mile battery would last until 200,000 miles had elapsed, regardless of the number kept in storage. The more batteries in storage, the longer before an individual battery needs replacement.

However, batteries also degrade with age. So there are real losses from just letting them sit. The magnitude of those losses in an optimum environment as maintained by the battery controllers and cooling systems is unknown.
Click to expand...

As to effect of battery life over time... this will be minimal if at all. Remember when these swapping batteries are in use they will have a substantial multiple of normal use... most of the time at least the 150 miles to the next station. I think they'd likely be used up in about the same time as an owner's battery. Secondly, I am not a battery expert at all, but second hand I'm pretty sure I've seen both on TMC and from JB or Elon that sitting on the shelf has VERY slow degradation, slow to non-issue point.

Edit: and yes, that was the point of the sneaker analogy.
�

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Do we know that they really have delayed SuperCharger rollout for these reasons? Or were they playing for time until SuperSwapper business case closed?
Click to expand...

Unknown why the rollout has been so slow, probably not 1 single over riding factor, but more likely a combination of:

Location procurement with availble power, near a major travel route at the "ideal" distance from other SC locations
Capital and Resources to deploy at the location above (they have been more focused on shipping product)

Or maybe they have been going slowly intentionally, if battery swap was always on the roadmap.

Updated: or the evil genius (we call him Elon) was waiting for a deal to be inked with Better Place, maybe they'll work together on it, for a practical use of their technology... There are already more Model S's in the U.S. than Renault Fluence ZE's ever produced
�

mitch672 said: ?

Or maybe they have been going slowly intentionally, if battery swap was always on the roadmap.
Click to expand...

could be.
�

Regarding battery swapping, remember, those of us who have bought our batteries and maintained them carefully might not be happy with permanently swapping them for batteries of unknown states status or provenance. The first swapping station would have to store my battery and not lend it out. It makes battery swapping harder and harder....
�

SteveG3 said: ?

As to effect of battery life over time... this will be minimal if at all. Remember when these swapping batteries are in use they will have a substantial multiple of normal use... most of the time at least the 150 miles to the next station. I think they'd likely be used up in about the same time as an owner's battery. Secondly, I am not a battery expert at all, but second hand I'm pretty sure I've seen both on TMC and from JB or Elon that sitting on the shelf has VERY slow degradation, slow to non-issue point.
Click to expand...

Yes, certainly possible. But there are basic unknowns. I've been seeing a lot of anecdotal chatter from a lot of different sources (not always talking about Tesla) which indicate that a temperature controlled battery like the Model S (especially the 85kWh model) might be the next thing to indestructible. But without actual lab data, its hard to model that without engaging in serious speculation.

I see value in a large battery inventory for surge capacity, and increased revenue from rate arbitrage. Equivalent surge capacity with SuperChargers requires vast parking lots full of chargers, vs underground stacks of 4" thick battery sheets. The incremental cost of the larger battery inventory is relatively small IMHO and the advantages are clear.
�

neroden said: ?

Regarding battery swapping, remember, those of us who have bought our batteries and maintained them carefully might not be happy with permanently swapping them for batteries of unknown states status or provenance. The first swapping station would have to store my battery and not lend it out. It makes battery swapping harder and harder....
Click to expand...

I think they can work with this complexity, but it is part of why I think keeping the original SCs helps... helps them manage the size of the more complex swapping system. Keep it to something only in high use like holidays when they can require a reservation to help manage the kind of issue you've brought up.

- - - Updated - - -

CapitalistOppressor said: ?

Yes, certainly possible. But there are basic unknowns. I've been seeing a lot of anecdotal chatter from a lot of different sources (not always talking about Tesla) which indicate that a temperature controlled battery like the Model S (especially the 85kWh model) might be the next thing to indestructible. But without actual lab data, its hard to model that without engaging in serious speculation.

I see value in a large battery inventory for surge capacity, and increased revenue from rate arbitrage. Equivalent surge capacity with SuperChargers requires vast parking lots full of chargers, vs underground stacks of 4" thick battery sheets. The incremental cost of the larger battery inventory is relatively small IMHO and the advantages are clear.
Click to expand...

You've reminded me of one place I heard the longevity of the battery described. Again either Elon or JB making the point that ironically the cold is fantastic for battery longevity when discussing something like Broder's trip. I seem to remember they gave a gaudy stat as to how long battery can sit around. This is second hand and off memory, but to me more solid than speculation.
�

mitch672 said: ?

Unknown why the rollout has been so slow, probably not 1 single over riding factor, but more likely a combination of:

Location procurement with availble power, near a major travel route at the "ideal" distance from other SC locations
Capital and Resources to deploy at the location above (they have been more focused on shipping product)

Or maybe they have been going slowly intentionally, if battery swap was always on the roadmap.

Updated: or the evil genius (we call him Elon) was waiting for a deal to be inked with Better Place, maybe they'll work together on it, for a practical use of their technology... There are already more Model S's in the U.S. than Renault Fluence ZE's ever produced
Click to expand...

There is probably a reason that Better Place originally set up in Palo Alto. I am operating on the assumption that Tesla jammed them, either because they didn't want to share the pie, or else because they wanted to extract favorable terms before committing to a swap strategy.

If Tesla is going to license BP Swappers, then a mid 2013 announcement looks smart for many reasons.

1. You don't invest in swapping unless you can assure vehicle sales enough to make the business case close.

2. You don't invest in swapping unless you have the funding available to pay for it.

3. You don't invest in swapping unless you can build swapping stations for cheap.

All of those are reasons to give Better Place the cold shoulder and downplay swapping possibilities until ALL of the stars are in alignment. You certainly don't keep advertising it to customers without all three factors being satisfied.

If Tesla isn't going with Better Place, it just means they can do it themselves for cheaper. But Better Place is groveling in the bargain bin right now. Who knows what kind of deal is available.

- - - Updated - - -

neroden said: ?

Regarding battery swapping, remember, those of us who have bought our batteries and maintained them carefully might not be happy with permanently swapping them for batteries of unknown states status or provenance. The first swapping station would have to store my battery and not lend it out. It makes battery swapping harder and harder....
Click to expand...

I totally agree with this. Tesla would have to perform some serious legal backflips and also sell customers on a completely unproven concept otherwise. Storing batteries looks to be massively easier IMHO.
�

teslamotorclub

Thứ Năm, 24 tháng 11, 2016

What is Tesla's upcoming 'under your nose' announcement? part 5

Không có nhận xét nào:

Đăng nhận xét