DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
La final, capaz no es ni EV ni petróleo y el futuro está en el Hidrógeno como plantea la Unión Europea de cara al 2050, quien sabe..
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Wind, Solar and Fossil Fuel Consumption
On an operating basis, wind and solar power release very little carbon. But manufacturing them requires
huge quantities of fossil fuels. Entirely separate from the energy consumption, the manufacturing process
also requires pure carbon as an input or itself releases substantial amounts of CO2.
Solar:
− Solar panels are basically silicon semiconductor wafers that must, without exaggeration, be at least
99.99999% pure.
o Silicon dioxide, in the form of quartz, which is mined, is first heated to its 4,000°F melting point,
which requires fossil fuel power.
o Moreover, it must be heated in the presence of carbon (in the form of coal) to free an oxygen
atom from the silicon dioxide (SiO2 + 2 C → Si + 2 CO). 550 pounds of coal are required for every
1,000 pounds of quartz.
o That product is then intensely heated, again, with fossil fuel, to achieve the necessary purity and
produce the wafers.
o The wafers are then heated again, to near the melting point of silicon, 2,570°F, in order to dope the
silicon with various rare earth metals to enhance its conductivity.
− China produces about 50% of the world’s solar panels. It has been calculated that because of fewer
environmental standards and more coal-fired power plants, the carbon footprint of a solar panel from
China is twice that of one from Europe.
A typical solar panel weighs about 40 pounds, much of which is not only the silicon, but plastics: to
laminate the silicon wafer array, the backplate (mylar) and the plastic cover (plexiglass). Petroleum is
the unrefined feedstock for plastics.
− While direct solar radiation is free, the land upon which a utility-scale solar facility is placed is not free.
How much land would be needed to power a city of 100,000 homes (with no allowance for businesses,
schools, hospitals, street lamps, etc.)?
o A 1-megawatt solar farm, sufficient for roughly 100 homes, requires at least 70,000 square feet3
.
A football field is 57,600 square feet.
o For 100,000 homes, a 100MW plant would be needed, and the area required would be 70.2
million square feet (1,200 football fields or about 2.5 square miles).
o Even on a sunny day, this configuration only produces at capacity when the sun is at its optimal
position. The EIA reports that the capacity factor for utility scale solar energy in the U.S. in the last
12 months was 25%. Allowing for that, 4x that area, or 10 square miles of land would be required
to power 100,000 homes.
o For comparison, the town of Santa Clara, California, with 43,000 households, is supported by a
147MW natural-gas-fired electric power plant, which is 50% greater capacity than required in the
above example. The Santa Clara plant occupies 2.86 acres.
Wind:
Each blade on a 2 MW turbine can be 160 feet long, and the tower height can be 400 feet. A 50MW
wind power farm4 would use 6,820 kilograms of steel and iron, and 21,230 kg of concrete. A deep and
wide foundation is required because of the forces generated so high atop an otherwise slender pole.
− The steel for the tower as well as the rebar in the concrete is produced by heating iron ore in a blast
furnace at 3000° F, and the fuel used is coke, which is coal that has already been combusted in a hightemperature kiln.
− Concrete, made with cement, is not only particularly energy intensive but also accounts for about 8%
of global CO2 emissions. Global agriculture (including animal husbandry) accounts for 9.9% of
greenhouse emissions. Alternatively, Industry accounts for 22% of global emissions, so cement
production is about one-third of that.
o The high energy consumption is because cement manufacture requires heating limestone to
2,600°F, which requires fossil fuel, to produce calcium oxide.
o During the heating process, the lime is also combined with coal in order to convert the limestone,
which is calcium carbonate, to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide (CaCO3 → CaO + CO2). This
produces direct CO2 emissions.
o One cubic meter of concrete requires about 350 kilograms of cement, and it takes about 70 kg of
coal to produce that much cement.
One scientific study exploring less carbon intensive methods of cement production reviewed the
chemistry and process engineering of dozens of fuel alternatives5
. It could only identify some
marginal reductions in the use of coal in the lower-heat portion of the multi-stage combustion
process. Nevertheless, those reductions entailed burning other sources of carbon, ranging from
refinery waste gas to oil sludge to domestic refuse and plastics residues.
− The blades on a turbine are generally made of fiberglass, which is glass-fiber reinforced plastic. Glass
fiber production is highly energy intensive. Silicon dioxide must be melted in a furnace, which requires
high heat, and coal is the fuel. The plastic, like all plastics, is produced from petroleum.
o A 155-foot blade weighs about 27,000 lbs. Hundreds of thousands of tons of blades are produced
each year, and the volume is rising rapidly
On an operating basis, wind and solar power release very little carbon. But manufacturing them requires
huge quantities of fossil fuels. Entirely separate from the energy consumption, the manufacturing process
also requires pure carbon as an input or itself releases substantial amounts of CO2.
Solar:
− Solar panels are basically silicon semiconductor wafers that must, without exaggeration, be at least
99.99999% pure.
o Silicon dioxide, in the form of quartz, which is mined, is first heated to its 4,000°F melting point,
which requires fossil fuel power.
o Moreover, it must be heated in the presence of carbon (in the form of coal) to free an oxygen
atom from the silicon dioxide (SiO2 + 2 C → Si + 2 CO). 550 pounds of coal are required for every
1,000 pounds of quartz.
o That product is then intensely heated, again, with fossil fuel, to achieve the necessary purity and
produce the wafers.
o The wafers are then heated again, to near the melting point of silicon, 2,570°F, in order to dope the
silicon with various rare earth metals to enhance its conductivity.
− China produces about 50% of the world’s solar panels. It has been calculated that because of fewer
environmental standards and more coal-fired power plants, the carbon footprint of a solar panel from
China is twice that of one from Europe.
A typical solar panel weighs about 40 pounds, much of which is not only the silicon, but plastics: to
laminate the silicon wafer array, the backplate (mylar) and the plastic cover (plexiglass). Petroleum is
the unrefined feedstock for plastics.
− While direct solar radiation is free, the land upon which a utility-scale solar facility is placed is not free.
How much land would be needed to power a city of 100,000 homes (with no allowance for businesses,
schools, hospitals, street lamps, etc.)?
o A 1-megawatt solar farm, sufficient for roughly 100 homes, requires at least 70,000 square feet3
.
A football field is 57,600 square feet.
o For 100,000 homes, a 100MW plant would be needed, and the area required would be 70.2
million square feet (1,200 football fields or about 2.5 square miles).
o Even on a sunny day, this configuration only produces at capacity when the sun is at its optimal
position. The EIA reports that the capacity factor for utility scale solar energy in the U.S. in the last
12 months was 25%. Allowing for that, 4x that area, or 10 square miles of land would be required
to power 100,000 homes.
o For comparison, the town of Santa Clara, California, with 43,000 households, is supported by a
147MW natural-gas-fired electric power plant, which is 50% greater capacity than required in the
above example. The Santa Clara plant occupies 2.86 acres.
Wind:
Each blade on a 2 MW turbine can be 160 feet long, and the tower height can be 400 feet. A 50MW
wind power farm4 would use 6,820 kilograms of steel and iron, and 21,230 kg of concrete. A deep and
wide foundation is required because of the forces generated so high atop an otherwise slender pole.
− The steel for the tower as well as the rebar in the concrete is produced by heating iron ore in a blast
furnace at 3000° F, and the fuel used is coke, which is coal that has already been combusted in a hightemperature kiln.
− Concrete, made with cement, is not only particularly energy intensive but also accounts for about 8%
of global CO2 emissions. Global agriculture (including animal husbandry) accounts for 9.9% of
greenhouse emissions. Alternatively, Industry accounts for 22% of global emissions, so cement
production is about one-third of that.
o The high energy consumption is because cement manufacture requires heating limestone to
2,600°F, which requires fossil fuel, to produce calcium oxide.
o During the heating process, the lime is also combined with coal in order to convert the limestone,
which is calcium carbonate, to calcium oxide and carbon dioxide (CaCO3 → CaO + CO2). This
produces direct CO2 emissions.
o One cubic meter of concrete requires about 350 kilograms of cement, and it takes about 70 kg of
coal to produce that much cement.
One scientific study exploring less carbon intensive methods of cement production reviewed the
chemistry and process engineering of dozens of fuel alternatives5
. It could only identify some
marginal reductions in the use of coal in the lower-heat portion of the multi-stage combustion
process. Nevertheless, those reductions entailed burning other sources of carbon, ranging from
refinery waste gas to oil sludge to domestic refuse and plastics residues.
− The blades on a turbine are generally made of fiberglass, which is glass-fiber reinforced plastic. Glass
fiber production is highly energy intensive. Silicon dioxide must be melted in a furnace, which requires
high heat, and coal is the fuel. The plastic, like all plastics, is produced from petroleum.
o A 155-foot blade weighs about 27,000 lbs. Hundreds of thousands of tons of blades are produced
each year, and the volume is rising rapidly
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
For wind turbines:
− Onshore wind turbines typically operate only 25% of the time, offshore turbines about 40%. Obviously,
there are periods of no wind, but at low wind speeds, power generation drops, and when wind speed
is too high, the turbine must stop to avoid damage.
− A ‘shadow’ fossil fuel plant must therefore accompany each set of wind turbines, in order to provide
in-feed power to the electric grid when the turbines aren’t producing.
− That fossil fuel power plant has to be an always-on base-load plant, so it constantly burns fuel. Utilities
can make use of peaking plants, which take time to fire up, because their activation can be timed in
advance for known periods of higher demand, but peakers can’t serve the intermittent power pattern
of a windmill.
− Because of the 25% expected load factor, for any given expected output from a wind farm, the total
generating capacity, by number of turbines, has to be about 4x larger to compensate.
For solar power plants:
− Utility-scale solar in the U.S. also operates, on average, at about 25% of rated capacity. The
intermittency is not only a function of the day/night cycle and cloudy days. There is also the sharp
drop-off in generation when the sun is not directly overhead; it falls significantly in late afternoon and
early evening, just as electricity demand begins to climb.
− Intermittency also occurs when clouds pass overhead, which has an impact on the ability of the electric
grid to handle ‘rolling waves’ of power decline and resurgence.
− The periods of power deficit to the electric grid must be supplied by alternate power sources.
Base-load power, which is the amount that is always required, cannot be intermittent. Rightly or wrongly,
the public requires, or at least desires, power on demand, whether for street lamps or internet use. This
power-on-demand function is accomplished with fossil fuels, even when using wind and solar power. That
is what partially explains the following seemingly conflicting facts:
1. Over 75% of new U.S. electric generating capacity this year will be provided by wind and solar
power. It is clearly growing very rapidly.
2. U.S. natural gas consumption reached all-time monthly highs in the most recent two months for
which information is available (June and July), in the depth of the pandemic and economic
recession. That is rather extraordinary, if you think about it.
− Onshore wind turbines typically operate only 25% of the time, offshore turbines about 40%. Obviously,
there are periods of no wind, but at low wind speeds, power generation drops, and when wind speed
is too high, the turbine must stop to avoid damage.
− A ‘shadow’ fossil fuel plant must therefore accompany each set of wind turbines, in order to provide
in-feed power to the electric grid when the turbines aren’t producing.
− That fossil fuel power plant has to be an always-on base-load plant, so it constantly burns fuel. Utilities
can make use of peaking plants, which take time to fire up, because their activation can be timed in
advance for known periods of higher demand, but peakers can’t serve the intermittent power pattern
of a windmill.
− Because of the 25% expected load factor, for any given expected output from a wind farm, the total
generating capacity, by number of turbines, has to be about 4x larger to compensate.
For solar power plants:
− Utility-scale solar in the U.S. also operates, on average, at about 25% of rated capacity. The
intermittency is not only a function of the day/night cycle and cloudy days. There is also the sharp
drop-off in generation when the sun is not directly overhead; it falls significantly in late afternoon and
early evening, just as electricity demand begins to climb.
− Intermittency also occurs when clouds pass overhead, which has an impact on the ability of the electric
grid to handle ‘rolling waves’ of power decline and resurgence.
− The periods of power deficit to the electric grid must be supplied by alternate power sources.
Base-load power, which is the amount that is always required, cannot be intermittent. Rightly or wrongly,
the public requires, or at least desires, power on demand, whether for street lamps or internet use. This
power-on-demand function is accomplished with fossil fuels, even when using wind and solar power. That
is what partially explains the following seemingly conflicting facts:
1. Over 75% of new U.S. electric generating capacity this year will be provided by wind and solar
power. It is clearly growing very rapidly.
2. U.S. natural gas consumption reached all-time monthly highs in the most recent two months for
which information is available (June and July), in the depth of the pandemic and economic
recession. That is rather extraordinary, if you think about it.
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Harry Forever escribió: ↑ Un articulo que habla de TESLA, el tema de las baterias y lo que estan haciendo algunos competidores tambien como GM.
Muy interesante.
KEY POINTS
As Tesla plans next-generation electric vehicle batteries, focus is turning to lithium iron, not the lithium ion that has been the fundamental chemical engineering science powering EVs to date.
Elon Musk’s car company and GM, among other auto companies, want much longer-range and more durable battery cells.
New battery technology is possible, allowing cars to go 400 miles or more between charges and lasting as long as 1 million miles. That could spur EV sales the same way the first 100,000-mile warranties on gas cars once did.
Eliminating the rare, expensive and controversial element cobalt from batteries is among the biggest aims.
The future of the auto industry may boil down to the difference made by a single letter: R. As in, the difference between a lithium-ion battery, like those found in today’s electric vehicles made by Tesla and others, and the lithium-iron phosphate batteries coming soon to market.
As Elon Musk’s Tesla has been talking up new battery technology development as part of the lead-up to the company’s first-ever Battery Day for investors, Wall Street is buzzing about the difference the next generation of batteries may make. Vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, also used in cellphones, are expected to give way over the next few years to cars and trucks made with lithium-iron phosphate and other chemistries. This will cut costs, extend vehicle ranges to 400 miles or more between charges and enable batteries to last as long as 1 million miles.
Reducing Tesla’s own costs and spurring mass adoption of EVs remain critical priorities for Tesla, as echoed in a message from Musk to employees on Monday saying it would be a challenge to break even right now.
The new technology will change the experience of owning a car, whether a Tesla or one made by rivals like General Motors, which is also working on new battery technologies, analysts said. In particular, the extremely long life of batteries soon to hit the market are likely to mean the batteries hold their value well enough to be resold when owners trade in their cars, possibly for use storing solar electricity for homes. And the next-gen batteries’ long lives may let them be used in ridesharing businesses that demand cars that can take the pounding of near-continuous use.
“If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer,” says Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. “Iron phosphate batteries are safer, and they can have second or third lives as electricity storage.″
Musk recently said its Battery Day is tentatively scheduled for September, the month and day to which Tesla recently pushed back its annual shareholder meeting. Originally, both events had been planned for June.
“We want to leave the exciting news for that day, but there will be a lot of exciting news to tell,” Musk said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call. “I think it would be one of the most exciting days in Tesla’s history.”
The company didn’t return requests for comment. An outside Tesla technical advisor, Jeff Dahn, a professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who is a battery and energy-storage expert with a Tesla research sponsorship, declined comment.
If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer.
Shirley Meng, a materials scientist and professor at the University of California San Diego who directs the school’s Sustainable Power and Energy Center, said efforts to reduce the use of cobalt have been ongoing for a few decades already, and Tesla has made significant strides with Dahn’s help. But Meng said one of the major advantages of building batteries with cobalt is how easily it allows complex chemical structures to be engineered.
“If I have to train a high school student to make a battery, cobalt makes it easy; it always works. Without cobalt the synthesis process gets much more sophisticated,” she said.
Lithium-iron phosphate, meanwhile, has never proved to be efficient in the space constraints of an electric car — it was originally designed for the grid storage market due to its energy density profile. But its chemistry is suited to fast-charging and cost efficiency because it does not rely on cobalt.
Meng, who has worked on battery chemistry and development with major auto companies, including Mercedes-Benz, GM and Nissan — as well as Maxwell Technologies, the battery start-up acquired by Tesla in 2019 — said battery experts are very curious to learn about the breakthrough Tesla has had, and she does believe the company could raise the profile of the lithium-iron phosphate approach in the EV market. The battery tech had once tried to make the successful jump from energy storage to cars in the Fisker Karma, an early, ultimately failed, EV contender produced by Fisker Automotive in 2012.
“I truly believe Tesla is planning to bring this back,” Meng said.
Why eliminating cobalt is key
The key difference in the lithium-iron phosphate batteries is that they do not need to use cobalt, a rare and expensive element that is a big part of the high cost of electric vehicle batteries, CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson said.
Cobalt prices have tanked during the global economic downturn, declining from as much as $95,000 per ton in 2018 to $30,000 this year, but it remains key to bringing down battery costs.
“Cobalt is by far the most expensive element in a lithium-ion battery,” Nelson said.
Canning cobalt is one of the biggest elements of cutting the cost of batteries below the $100/kWh threshold that is a rough proxy for making electric vehicles as cheap as those powered by internal combustion engines, said James Frith, head of energy storage at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. Today’s batteries cost about $147/kWh, down from about $1,000 in 2010 and $381 in 2015, he said.
Prices of electric vehicle batteries have fallen 80% this decade: CEO Tesla recently signed a new long-term deal with commodities giant Glencore to supply cobalt for its battery plants in Shanghai and Berlin.
Cobalt — which also is the focus of a new race by miners to extract minerals from the ocean floor — has long been a commodity challenge for major technology companies, not just Tesla but Apple as well, which needs cobalt for its phone batteries. The element has become a politically sensitive issue, too, with some of the largest supplies of cobalt coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where allegations of deadly child labor in mining have ensnared Apple, Tesla, Google and other tech firms in a recent international lawsuit.
Meng cautioned that there is a limit to the price improvements to come from reducing just cobalt, and that’s because the pricing differential between cobalt and nickel has narrowed in recent years. Tesla’s primary EV battery technology is NCA (based on nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide chemistry). Most of the auto industry uses an NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) battery chemistry. But with nickel an important part of both approaches, reductions in cobalt alone can’t drive continued step changes in pricing.
“It is going to be hard to get below $100 per kilowatt,” Meng said of current nickel-cobalt chemistry. “Tesla realized they can’t just get rid of cobalt.”
She said current battery technology, including NMC, remain a contender to reach the million-mile threshold, but won’t be able to do so on a cost-effective basis with today’s nickel concentrations. Nickel currently ranges in price from roughly one third to as much as one half the price of cobalt. With lithium-iron phosphate, which does not require nickel or cobalt, lab research shows there is a possible pathway to drive pricing down to as low as $80/kWh.
Tesla and the Chinese market
The new chemistries could push prices of EV batteries as low as $60–$80/kWh, said Ives. Bloomberg NEF expects prices to cross $100 by 2023 or 2024 and $60 by 2030, Frith said.
“At that point, you have choices, either as an automaker or a consumer,” Frith said. “You can go for a battery that’s bigger that will take you farther (between charges). Or you can get a battery that’s optimized for a longer lifetime cycle.″
A key emerging supplier for Tesla is Chinese battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, which also is working with Volkswagen. CATL’s chairman said recently that it’s ready to make batteries that last up to 16 years, or 1.2 million miles, according to a Bloomberg report.
In June a Chinese government ministry announced that Tesla had been granted approval to build a Tesla Model 3 with a lithium-iron phosphate battery.
While no public announcement about the battery supplier has been made, CATL batteries are believed to be a reason why Tesla is able to make Model 3 sedans more cheaply for the China market than for U.S. sales, Ives said.
Other carmakers are also innovating on batteries, but they are not eliminating cobalt completely yet.
At GM the batteries emerging now are cutting cobalt content to about 4.5% of the battery, down from 18%, with more manganese and nickel, plus some aluminum, making up the difference.
While a further reduction in the cobalt used in batteries is not the revolutionary change that lithium-iron phosphate offers, these efforts require decades of work, and GM is thinking in terms of what’s possible for it to accomplish in the next few years, Meng noted.
The reduction in cobalt will let GM cross the $100/kWh threshold while enabling flexible manufacturing that lets the company better tailor batteries to the different needs of cars, trucks and SUVs, Andy Oury, GM’s lead architect for EV batteries, told an investor conference in March.
“We are nowhere near the bottom of the battery cost curve,” Oury said.
The changes that breaching the $100/kWh barrier sets in motion could be dramatic.
The most obvious is that the cost of electric vehicles — which recently has reached parity with gasoline-powered cars and SUVs in some luxury niche segments — could catch up to internal combustion engines by about 2023, Bloomberg’s Frith said.
EVs may also become more useful as their ranges increase, and a better value proposition because the batteries should have resale value, possibly for storage of residential solar power, because they last longer than the cars they are sold with, Ives said.
A radical change in car ownership
The most radical idea is that these batteries could even change the nature of car ownership by letting them serve as robo-taxis that pile up miles shuttling passengers far more rapidly than personal-use vehicles, an idea GM chief executive Mary Barra endorsed in March.
But that idea, and some others, are probably too pie in the sky, said Brett Smith, director of technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The robo-taxi industry — which Musk has, at times, floated as the core of Tesla’s long-term vision, and analysts such as Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas have seen as central to the bull case for Tesla shares — depends more on software advances than on battery life, Smith said. Robo-taxis will only make a dent in individual car ownership when systems to avoid obstacles — like pedestrians — are reliable enough to work at scale, he said.
“There are a lot of challenges to get there,′ he said. “It would be phenomenal if it works, but it’s a long way away.″
The batteries could also make less difference in range for everyday drivers than bulls believe, Smith said. Like Frith, he notes that even emerging chemistries still suffer a degradation of their range during cold weather, when the car’s heater is used heavily.
But Smith said the new batteries will likely make one big difference that drives consumer acceptance of EVs: improving perceptions of their reliability and making buying one seem less exotic to consumers, boosting EVs’ 2% share of the 2019 market for new vehicles.
That move could be similar to the market share move Hyundai made in the mid-2000s when it began offering 100,000-mile warranties on new cars. U.S. consumers bought nearly 50% more Hyundais in 2005 than in 2002, and the brand doubled its market share by 2011. The million-mile battery could help EVs shake fears of their short range and high battery replacement cost just as the long warranties helped Hyundai shed a reputation for shaky quality control, he said.
“It’s going to signal beyond any doubt that the technology has arrived,” Smith said. “That’s what Hyundai did.″
Meng cautioned that scientists, unlike business executives, prefer to underpromise and overdeliver. “What I see is lots of breakthroughs, and we are already a few steps ahead. We have a pathway,” Meng said. But she added of CEOs, “They believe they can do it at scale. I am not sure we are there yet.”
In the laboratory it is becoming clear that it is possible to make a battery that is a long-lived asset, and the next-generation battery technology can achieve the million-mile potential in the next five years, Meng said. That would not only be a game changer for EVs, but for the energy grid storage market, which lithium iron phosphate technology was originally designed to supply. A major ramp in production would benefit the cost equation for both markets.
“We don’t want to overpromise and disappoint, but it’s really quite realistic,” she said. “I hope we get there sooner than 2025. Lithium-iron phosphate and its upgraded versions will have a major role in the future of EVs and fundamentally change large-scale energy storage.”
Primer punto se habla de competencia, segundo punto metales raros a baja escala. No habla de la electricidad, a cuanto el kw/h si se da el cambio, la electricidad se genera con gas natural en mayor escala, las granjas solares no funcionan sin petroleo ni metales, al igual que la energia eolica. Aca tenes un buen informe https://horizonkinetics.com/wp-content/ ... _FINAL.pdf
-
Harry Forever
- Mensajes: 6853
- Registrado: Vie Dic 16, 2011 1:07 pm
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Un articulo que habla de TESLA, el tema de las baterias y lo que estan haciendo algunos competidores tambien como GM.
Muy interesante.
KEY POINTS
As Tesla plans next-generation electric vehicle batteries, focus is turning to lithium iron, not the lithium ion that has been the fundamental chemical engineering science powering EVs to date.
Elon Musk’s car company and GM, among other auto companies, want much longer-range and more durable battery cells.
New battery technology is possible, allowing cars to go 400 miles or more between charges and lasting as long as 1 million miles. That could spur EV sales the same way the first 100,000-mile warranties on gas cars once did.
Eliminating the rare, expensive and controversial element cobalt from batteries is among the biggest aims.
The future of the auto industry may boil down to the difference made by a single letter: R. As in, the difference between a lithium-ion battery, like those found in today’s electric vehicles made by Tesla and others, and the lithium-iron phosphate batteries coming soon to market.
As Elon Musk’s Tesla has been talking up new battery technology development as part of the lead-up to the company’s first-ever Battery Day for investors, Wall Street is buzzing about the difference the next generation of batteries may make. Vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, also used in cellphones, are expected to give way over the next few years to cars and trucks made with lithium-iron phosphate and other chemistries. This will cut costs, extend vehicle ranges to 400 miles or more between charges and enable batteries to last as long as 1 million miles.
Reducing Tesla’s own costs and spurring mass adoption of EVs remain critical priorities for Tesla, as echoed in a message from Musk to employees on Monday saying it would be a challenge to break even right now.
The new technology will change the experience of owning a car, whether a Tesla or one made by rivals like General Motors, which is also working on new battery technologies, analysts said. In particular, the extremely long life of batteries soon to hit the market are likely to mean the batteries hold their value well enough to be resold when owners trade in their cars, possibly for use storing solar electricity for homes. And the next-gen batteries’ long lives may let them be used in ridesharing businesses that demand cars that can take the pounding of near-continuous use.
“If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer,” says Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. “Iron phosphate batteries are safer, and they can have second or third lives as electricity storage.″
Musk recently said its Battery Day is tentatively scheduled for September, the month and day to which Tesla recently pushed back its annual shareholder meeting. Originally, both events had been planned for June.
“We want to leave the exciting news for that day, but there will be a lot of exciting news to tell,” Musk said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call. “I think it would be one of the most exciting days in Tesla’s history.”
The company didn’t return requests for comment. An outside Tesla technical advisor, Jeff Dahn, a professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who is a battery and energy-storage expert with a Tesla research sponsorship, declined comment.
If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer.
Shirley Meng, a materials scientist and professor at the University of California San Diego who directs the school’s Sustainable Power and Energy Center, said efforts to reduce the use of cobalt have been ongoing for a few decades already, and Tesla has made significant strides with Dahn’s help. But Meng said one of the major advantages of building batteries with cobalt is how easily it allows complex chemical structures to be engineered.
“If I have to train a high school student to make a battery, cobalt makes it easy; it always works. Without cobalt the synthesis process gets much more sophisticated,” she said.
Lithium-iron phosphate, meanwhile, has never proved to be efficient in the space constraints of an electric car — it was originally designed for the grid storage market due to its energy density profile. But its chemistry is suited to fast-charging and cost efficiency because it does not rely on cobalt.
Meng, who has worked on battery chemistry and development with major auto companies, including Mercedes-Benz, GM and Nissan — as well as Maxwell Technologies, the battery start-up acquired by Tesla in 2019 — said battery experts are very curious to learn about the breakthrough Tesla has had, and she does believe the company could raise the profile of the lithium-iron phosphate approach in the EV market. The battery tech had once tried to make the successful jump from energy storage to cars in the Fisker Karma, an early, ultimately failed, EV contender produced by Fisker Automotive in 2012.
“I truly believe Tesla is planning to bring this back,” Meng said.
Why eliminating cobalt is key
The key difference in the lithium-iron phosphate batteries is that they do not need to use cobalt, a rare and expensive element that is a big part of the high cost of electric vehicle batteries, CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson said.
Cobalt prices have tanked during the global economic downturn, declining from as much as $95,000 per ton in 2018 to $30,000 this year, but it remains key to bringing down battery costs.
“Cobalt is by far the most expensive element in a lithium-ion battery,” Nelson said.
Canning cobalt is one of the biggest elements of cutting the cost of batteries below the $100/kWh threshold that is a rough proxy for making electric vehicles as cheap as those powered by internal combustion engines, said James Frith, head of energy storage at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. Today’s batteries cost about $147/kWh, down from about $1,000 in 2010 and $381 in 2015, he said.
Prices of electric vehicle batteries have fallen 80% this decade: CEO Tesla recently signed a new long-term deal with commodities giant Glencore to supply cobalt for its battery plants in Shanghai and Berlin.
Cobalt — which also is the focus of a new race by miners to extract minerals from the ocean floor — has long been a commodity challenge for major technology companies, not just Tesla but Apple as well, which needs cobalt for its phone batteries. The element has become a politically sensitive issue, too, with some of the largest supplies of cobalt coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where allegations of deadly child labor in mining have ensnared Apple, Tesla, Google and other tech firms in a recent international lawsuit.
Meng cautioned that there is a limit to the price improvements to come from reducing just cobalt, and that’s because the pricing differential between cobalt and nickel has narrowed in recent years. Tesla’s primary EV battery technology is NCA (based on nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide chemistry). Most of the auto industry uses an NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) battery chemistry. But with nickel an important part of both approaches, reductions in cobalt alone can’t drive continued step changes in pricing.
“It is going to be hard to get below $100 per kilowatt,” Meng said of current nickel-cobalt chemistry. “Tesla realized they can’t just get rid of cobalt.”
She said current battery technology, including NMC, remain a contender to reach the million-mile threshold, but won’t be able to do so on a cost-effective basis with today’s nickel concentrations. Nickel currently ranges in price from roughly one third to as much as one half the price of cobalt. With lithium-iron phosphate, which does not require nickel or cobalt, lab research shows there is a possible pathway to drive pricing down to as low as $80/kWh.
Tesla and the Chinese market
The new chemistries could push prices of EV batteries as low as $60–$80/kWh, said Ives. Bloomberg NEF expects prices to cross $100 by 2023 or 2024 and $60 by 2030, Frith said.
“At that point, you have choices, either as an automaker or a consumer,” Frith said. “You can go for a battery that’s bigger that will take you farther (between charges). Or you can get a battery that’s optimized for a longer lifetime cycle.″
A key emerging supplier for Tesla is Chinese battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, which also is working with Volkswagen. CATL’s chairman said recently that it’s ready to make batteries that last up to 16 years, or 1.2 million miles, according to a Bloomberg report.
In June a Chinese government ministry announced that Tesla had been granted approval to build a Tesla Model 3 with a lithium-iron phosphate battery.
While no public announcement about the battery supplier has been made, CATL batteries are believed to be a reason why Tesla is able to make Model 3 sedans more cheaply for the China market than for U.S. sales, Ives said.
Other carmakers are also innovating on batteries, but they are not eliminating cobalt completely yet.
At GM the batteries emerging now are cutting cobalt content to about 4.5% of the battery, down from 18%, with more manganese and nickel, plus some aluminum, making up the difference.
While a further reduction in the cobalt used in batteries is not the revolutionary change that lithium-iron phosphate offers, these efforts require decades of work, and GM is thinking in terms of what’s possible for it to accomplish in the next few years, Meng noted.
The reduction in cobalt will let GM cross the $100/kWh threshold while enabling flexible manufacturing that lets the company better tailor batteries to the different needs of cars, trucks and SUVs, Andy Oury, GM’s lead architect for EV batteries, told an investor conference in March.
“We are nowhere near the bottom of the battery cost curve,” Oury said.
The changes that breaching the $100/kWh barrier sets in motion could be dramatic.
The most obvious is that the cost of electric vehicles — which recently has reached parity with gasoline-powered cars and SUVs in some luxury niche segments — could catch up to internal combustion engines by about 2023, Bloomberg’s Frith said.
EVs may also become more useful as their ranges increase, and a better value proposition because the batteries should have resale value, possibly for storage of residential solar power, because they last longer than the cars they are sold with, Ives said.
A radical change in car ownership
The most radical idea is that these batteries could even change the nature of car ownership by letting them serve as robo-taxis that pile up miles shuttling passengers far more rapidly than personal-use vehicles, an idea GM chief executive Mary Barra endorsed in March.
But that idea, and some others, are probably too pie in the sky, said Brett Smith, director of technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The robo-taxi industry — which Musk has, at times, floated as the core of Tesla’s long-term vision, and analysts such as Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas have seen as central to the bull case for Tesla shares — depends more on software advances than on battery life, Smith said. Robo-taxis will only make a dent in individual car ownership when systems to avoid obstacles — like pedestrians — are reliable enough to work at scale, he said.
“There are a lot of challenges to get there,′ he said. “It would be phenomenal if it works, but it’s a long way away.″
The batteries could also make less difference in range for everyday drivers than bulls believe, Smith said. Like Frith, he notes that even emerging chemistries still suffer a degradation of their range during cold weather, when the car’s heater is used heavily.
But Smith said the new batteries will likely make one big difference that drives consumer acceptance of EVs: improving perceptions of their reliability and making buying one seem less exotic to consumers, boosting EVs’ 2% share of the 2019 market for new vehicles.
That move could be similar to the market share move Hyundai made in the mid-2000s when it began offering 100,000-mile warranties on new cars. U.S. consumers bought nearly 50% more Hyundais in 2005 than in 2002, and the brand doubled its market share by 2011. The million-mile battery could help EVs shake fears of their short range and high battery replacement cost just as the long warranties helped Hyundai shed a reputation for shaky quality control, he said.
“It’s going to signal beyond any doubt that the technology has arrived,” Smith said. “That’s what Hyundai did.″
Meng cautioned that scientists, unlike business executives, prefer to underpromise and overdeliver. “What I see is lots of breakthroughs, and we are already a few steps ahead. We have a pathway,” Meng said. But she added of CEOs, “They believe they can do it at scale. I am not sure we are there yet.”
In the laboratory it is becoming clear that it is possible to make a battery that is a long-lived asset, and the next-generation battery technology can achieve the million-mile potential in the next five years, Meng said. That would not only be a game changer for EVs, but for the energy grid storage market, which lithium iron phosphate technology was originally designed to supply. A major ramp in production would benefit the cost equation for both markets.
“We don’t want to overpromise and disappoint, but it’s really quite realistic,” she said. “I hope we get there sooner than 2025. Lithium-iron phosphate and its upgraded versions will have a major role in the future of EVs and fundamentally change large-scale energy storage.”
Muy interesante.
KEY POINTS
As Tesla plans next-generation electric vehicle batteries, focus is turning to lithium iron, not the lithium ion that has been the fundamental chemical engineering science powering EVs to date.
Elon Musk’s car company and GM, among other auto companies, want much longer-range and more durable battery cells.
New battery technology is possible, allowing cars to go 400 miles or more between charges and lasting as long as 1 million miles. That could spur EV sales the same way the first 100,000-mile warranties on gas cars once did.
Eliminating the rare, expensive and controversial element cobalt from batteries is among the biggest aims.
The future of the auto industry may boil down to the difference made by a single letter: R. As in, the difference between a lithium-ion battery, like those found in today’s electric vehicles made by Tesla and others, and the lithium-iron phosphate batteries coming soon to market.
As Elon Musk’s Tesla has been talking up new battery technology development as part of the lead-up to the company’s first-ever Battery Day for investors, Wall Street is buzzing about the difference the next generation of batteries may make. Vehicles with lithium-ion batteries, also used in cellphones, are expected to give way over the next few years to cars and trucks made with lithium-iron phosphate and other chemistries. This will cut costs, extend vehicle ranges to 400 miles or more between charges and enable batteries to last as long as 1 million miles.
Reducing Tesla’s own costs and spurring mass adoption of EVs remain critical priorities for Tesla, as echoed in a message from Musk to employees on Monday saying it would be a challenge to break even right now.
The new technology will change the experience of owning a car, whether a Tesla or one made by rivals like General Motors, which is also working on new battery technologies, analysts said. In particular, the extremely long life of batteries soon to hit the market are likely to mean the batteries hold their value well enough to be resold when owners trade in their cars, possibly for use storing solar electricity for homes. And the next-gen batteries’ long lives may let them be used in ridesharing businesses that demand cars that can take the pounding of near-continuous use.
“If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer,” says Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives. “Iron phosphate batteries are safer, and they can have second or third lives as electricity storage.″
Musk recently said its Battery Day is tentatively scheduled for September, the month and day to which Tesla recently pushed back its annual shareholder meeting. Originally, both events had been planned for June.
“We want to leave the exciting news for that day, but there will be a lot of exciting news to tell,” Musk said on the company’s first-quarter earnings call. “I think it would be one of the most exciting days in Tesla’s history.”
The company didn’t return requests for comment. An outside Tesla technical advisor, Jeff Dahn, a professor at Dalhousie University in Canada who is a battery and energy-storage expert with a Tesla research sponsorship, declined comment.
If you’re talking about batteries that can last twice as long for the same price, it completely changes the math for the consumer.
Shirley Meng, a materials scientist and professor at the University of California San Diego who directs the school’s Sustainable Power and Energy Center, said efforts to reduce the use of cobalt have been ongoing for a few decades already, and Tesla has made significant strides with Dahn’s help. But Meng said one of the major advantages of building batteries with cobalt is how easily it allows complex chemical structures to be engineered.
“If I have to train a high school student to make a battery, cobalt makes it easy; it always works. Without cobalt the synthesis process gets much more sophisticated,” she said.
Lithium-iron phosphate, meanwhile, has never proved to be efficient in the space constraints of an electric car — it was originally designed for the grid storage market due to its energy density profile. But its chemistry is suited to fast-charging and cost efficiency because it does not rely on cobalt.
Meng, who has worked on battery chemistry and development with major auto companies, including Mercedes-Benz, GM and Nissan — as well as Maxwell Technologies, the battery start-up acquired by Tesla in 2019 — said battery experts are very curious to learn about the breakthrough Tesla has had, and she does believe the company could raise the profile of the lithium-iron phosphate approach in the EV market. The battery tech had once tried to make the successful jump from energy storage to cars in the Fisker Karma, an early, ultimately failed, EV contender produced by Fisker Automotive in 2012.
“I truly believe Tesla is planning to bring this back,” Meng said.
Why eliminating cobalt is key
The key difference in the lithium-iron phosphate batteries is that they do not need to use cobalt, a rare and expensive element that is a big part of the high cost of electric vehicle batteries, CFRA Research analyst Garrett Nelson said.
Cobalt prices have tanked during the global economic downturn, declining from as much as $95,000 per ton in 2018 to $30,000 this year, but it remains key to bringing down battery costs.
“Cobalt is by far the most expensive element in a lithium-ion battery,” Nelson said.
Canning cobalt is one of the biggest elements of cutting the cost of batteries below the $100/kWh threshold that is a rough proxy for making electric vehicles as cheap as those powered by internal combustion engines, said James Frith, head of energy storage at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London. Today’s batteries cost about $147/kWh, down from about $1,000 in 2010 and $381 in 2015, he said.
Prices of electric vehicle batteries have fallen 80% this decade: CEO Tesla recently signed a new long-term deal with commodities giant Glencore to supply cobalt for its battery plants in Shanghai and Berlin.
Cobalt — which also is the focus of a new race by miners to extract minerals from the ocean floor — has long been a commodity challenge for major technology companies, not just Tesla but Apple as well, which needs cobalt for its phone batteries. The element has become a politically sensitive issue, too, with some of the largest supplies of cobalt coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, where allegations of deadly child labor in mining have ensnared Apple, Tesla, Google and other tech firms in a recent international lawsuit.
Meng cautioned that there is a limit to the price improvements to come from reducing just cobalt, and that’s because the pricing differential between cobalt and nickel has narrowed in recent years. Tesla’s primary EV battery technology is NCA (based on nickel-cobalt-aluminum oxide chemistry). Most of the auto industry uses an NMC (nickel-manganese-cobalt) battery chemistry. But with nickel an important part of both approaches, reductions in cobalt alone can’t drive continued step changes in pricing.
“It is going to be hard to get below $100 per kilowatt,” Meng said of current nickel-cobalt chemistry. “Tesla realized they can’t just get rid of cobalt.”
She said current battery technology, including NMC, remain a contender to reach the million-mile threshold, but won’t be able to do so on a cost-effective basis with today’s nickel concentrations. Nickel currently ranges in price from roughly one third to as much as one half the price of cobalt. With lithium-iron phosphate, which does not require nickel or cobalt, lab research shows there is a possible pathway to drive pricing down to as low as $80/kWh.
Tesla and the Chinese market
The new chemistries could push prices of EV batteries as low as $60–$80/kWh, said Ives. Bloomberg NEF expects prices to cross $100 by 2023 or 2024 and $60 by 2030, Frith said.
“At that point, you have choices, either as an automaker or a consumer,” Frith said. “You can go for a battery that’s bigger that will take you farther (between charges). Or you can get a battery that’s optimized for a longer lifetime cycle.″
A key emerging supplier for Tesla is Chinese battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology, or CATL, which also is working with Volkswagen. CATL’s chairman said recently that it’s ready to make batteries that last up to 16 years, or 1.2 million miles, according to a Bloomberg report.
In June a Chinese government ministry announced that Tesla had been granted approval to build a Tesla Model 3 with a lithium-iron phosphate battery.
While no public announcement about the battery supplier has been made, CATL batteries are believed to be a reason why Tesla is able to make Model 3 sedans more cheaply for the China market than for U.S. sales, Ives said.
Other carmakers are also innovating on batteries, but they are not eliminating cobalt completely yet.
At GM the batteries emerging now are cutting cobalt content to about 4.5% of the battery, down from 18%, with more manganese and nickel, plus some aluminum, making up the difference.
While a further reduction in the cobalt used in batteries is not the revolutionary change that lithium-iron phosphate offers, these efforts require decades of work, and GM is thinking in terms of what’s possible for it to accomplish in the next few years, Meng noted.
The reduction in cobalt will let GM cross the $100/kWh threshold while enabling flexible manufacturing that lets the company better tailor batteries to the different needs of cars, trucks and SUVs, Andy Oury, GM’s lead architect for EV batteries, told an investor conference in March.
“We are nowhere near the bottom of the battery cost curve,” Oury said.
The changes that breaching the $100/kWh barrier sets in motion could be dramatic.
The most obvious is that the cost of electric vehicles — which recently has reached parity with gasoline-powered cars and SUVs in some luxury niche segments — could catch up to internal combustion engines by about 2023, Bloomberg’s Frith said.
EVs may also become more useful as their ranges increase, and a better value proposition because the batteries should have resale value, possibly for storage of residential solar power, because they last longer than the cars they are sold with, Ives said.
A radical change in car ownership
The most radical idea is that these batteries could even change the nature of car ownership by letting them serve as robo-taxis that pile up miles shuttling passengers far more rapidly than personal-use vehicles, an idea GM chief executive Mary Barra endorsed in March.
But that idea, and some others, are probably too pie in the sky, said Brett Smith, director of technology at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The robo-taxi industry — which Musk has, at times, floated as the core of Tesla’s long-term vision, and analysts such as Morgan Stanley’s Adam Jonas have seen as central to the bull case for Tesla shares — depends more on software advances than on battery life, Smith said. Robo-taxis will only make a dent in individual car ownership when systems to avoid obstacles — like pedestrians — are reliable enough to work at scale, he said.
“There are a lot of challenges to get there,′ he said. “It would be phenomenal if it works, but it’s a long way away.″
The batteries could also make less difference in range for everyday drivers than bulls believe, Smith said. Like Frith, he notes that even emerging chemistries still suffer a degradation of their range during cold weather, when the car’s heater is used heavily.
But Smith said the new batteries will likely make one big difference that drives consumer acceptance of EVs: improving perceptions of their reliability and making buying one seem less exotic to consumers, boosting EVs’ 2% share of the 2019 market for new vehicles.
That move could be similar to the market share move Hyundai made in the mid-2000s when it began offering 100,000-mile warranties on new cars. U.S. consumers bought nearly 50% more Hyundais in 2005 than in 2002, and the brand doubled its market share by 2011. The million-mile battery could help EVs shake fears of their short range and high battery replacement cost just as the long warranties helped Hyundai shed a reputation for shaky quality control, he said.
“It’s going to signal beyond any doubt that the technology has arrived,” Smith said. “That’s what Hyundai did.″
Meng cautioned that scientists, unlike business executives, prefer to underpromise and overdeliver. “What I see is lots of breakthroughs, and we are already a few steps ahead. We have a pathway,” Meng said. But she added of CEOs, “They believe they can do it at scale. I am not sure we are there yet.”
In the laboratory it is becoming clear that it is possible to make a battery that is a long-lived asset, and the next-generation battery technology can achieve the million-mile potential in the next five years, Meng said. That would not only be a game changer for EVs, but for the energy grid storage market, which lithium iron phosphate technology was originally designed to supply. A major ramp in production would benefit the cost equation for both markets.
“We don’t want to overpromise and disappoint, but it’s really quite realistic,” she said. “I hope we get there sooner than 2025. Lithium-iron phosphate and its upgraded versions will have a major role in the future of EVs and fundamentally change large-scale energy storage.”
-
flipperjeeper
- Mensajes: 2373
- Registrado: Lun Abr 20, 2015 1:32 pm
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Puede ser, veremos. Time will tell. Quizas sea un iluso. Buena rueda de todas formas para todos los que estamos en este juego. Cheers mate
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
flipperjeeper escribió: ↑ La tenes que mirar como una empresa que crew tecnologia y software. Tenes que verla como una empresa integrada verticalmente como varias start ups autonomas. Tenes que verla como una sinergia con SpaceX en donde adopta tecnologia aeroespacial - fijate que el Crew Dragon utiliza FSD para el docking con la ISS.
En cuanto al Big Oil, entiendo que siguen haciendo lobby y tiemblan por dejar su posicion relevante en el mundo. Pero ya se esta hablando de que el ICE sea un objeto de museo y que todas las empresas tradicionales fabricantes de autos lo reemplacen por motores electricos.
Bien, veamos el tema de las baterias. Viste la presentation del battery day? Los manes eficientizaron la produccion para bajar en un 56% los costos por Gigawatt. Asimismo, sus Gigafactories van a producir en escala geometrica si no me equivoco. Tambien tendran sus propias minas de Litio - entonces estan pensando tener posicion dominante en Toda la supply chain.
Leiste algo sobre nanotubes? Quizas esa sea la clave para que la densidad aumente mientras el peso baje. Que vengan competidores pero Tesla ya tiene la delantera en R&D.
Tengo 34. Bueno, te juro que este mensaje NO fue auspiciado por Elon Musk.
Y quizas estemos errados en solo evaluar Tesla mirando forward P/E y/o normal P/E ratio. El market es irrational, esquizofrenico. Solo trato de seguir la plata y hacer una moneda. Quizas todo esto sea una ilusion pero creo que tenemos un futuro brillante.
El oil se tiene que reinventar.
Mira las reservas mundiales de litio, mira cuanto utiliza por batería y cuanto se lleva del costo del auto, tenes que entender que el mundo fabrica y utiliza muchos autos, y las resevas son acotadas, para empezar a hablar tienen que cambiar el litio, tienen que fabricar baterías con elementos abundantes, si no se puede mala suerte no tiene futuro.
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Por otro lado el petróleo es petróleo, no hay nada que reinventar, eso déjaselo a los vendedores de cuentos.
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
flipperjeeper escribió: ↑ La tenes que mirar como una empresa que crew tecnologia y software. Tenes que verla como una empresa integrada verticalmente como varias start ups autonomas. Tenes que verla como una sinergia con SpaceX en donde adopta tecnologia aeroespacial - fijate que el Crew Dragon utiliza FSD para el docking con la ISS.
En cuanto al Big Oil, entiendo que siguen haciendo lobby y tiemblan por dejar su posicion relevante en el mundo. Pero ya se esta hablando de que el ICE sea un objeto de museo y que todas las empresas tradicionales fabricantes de autos lo reemplacen por motores electricos.
Bien, veamos el tema de las baterias. Viste la presentation del battery day? Los manes eficientizaron la produccion para bajar en un 56% los costos por Gigawatt. Asimismo, sus Gigafactories van a producir en escala geometrica si no me equivoco. Tambien tendran sus propias minas de Litio - entonces estan pensando tener posicion dominante en Toda la supply chain.
Leiste algo sobre nanotubes? Quizas esa sea la clave para que la densidad aumente mientras el peso baje. Que vengan competidores pero Tesla ya tiene la delantera en R&D.
Tengo 34. Bueno, te juro que este mensaje NO fue auspiciado por Elon Musk.
Y quizas estemos errados en solo evaluar Tesla mirando forward P/E y/o normal P/E ratio. El market es irrational, esquizofrenico. Solo trato de seguir la plata y hacer una moneda. Quizas todo esto sea una ilusion pero creo que tenemos un futuro brillante.
El oil se tiene que reinventar.
Sabes lo que pasa es que es un tema de "creer" por lo visto y yo no soy así, mi formación no lo permite. Quizás cuando lo vea será tarde pero estoy seguro que no lo vamos a ver con estos precios del oil, porque es una realidad que la industria vive de subvenciones del estado, cuando eso se termine daré el primer paso, que con Biden parece ser muy lejano, porque de lo único que habla es de mas subsidios.
-
flipperjeeper
- Mensajes: 2373
- Registrado: Lun Abr 20, 2015 1:32 pm
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Matu84 escribió: ↑ A no?? A ver dale explica que es lo que hace, ademas de baterias que no sirven a menos que el petroleo este arriba de 100. Que estupidez la de dinosaurio, te lavaron la cabeza, se lama competitividad. No entienden que sin los "dinosaurios" el mundo se sumerje en la pobreza, te vas a enterar cuando suba el precio, te vas a enterar lo que es la inflación y por que se genera, quedate tranquilo que va a pasar. Hace unos años el mundo estaba loco porque se quedaba sin etroleo, cuantos años tenes??
La tenes que mirar como una empresa que crew tecnologia y software. Tenes que verla como una empresa integrada verticalmente como varias start ups autonomas. Tenes que verla como una sinergia con SpaceX en donde adopta tecnologia aeroespacial - fijate que el Crew Dragon utiliza FSD para el docking con la ISS.
En cuanto al Big Oil, entiendo que siguen haciendo lobby y tiemblan por dejar su posicion relevante en el mundo. Pero ya se esta hablando de que el ICE sea un objeto de museo y que todas las empresas tradicionales fabricantes de autos lo reemplacen por motores electricos.
Bien, veamos el tema de las baterias. Viste la presentation del battery day? Los manes eficientizaron la produccion para bajar en un 56% los costos por Gigawatt. Asimismo, sus Gigafactories van a producir en escala geometrica si no me equivoco. Tambien tendran sus propias minas de Litio - entonces estan pensando tener posicion dominante en Toda la supply chain.
Leiste algo sobre nanotubes? Quizas esa sea la clave para que la densidad aumente mientras el peso baje. Que vengan competidores pero Tesla ya tiene la delantera en R&D.
Tengo 34. Bueno, te juro que este mensaje NO fue auspiciado por Elon Musk.
Y quizas estemos errados en solo evaluar Tesla mirando forward P/E y/o normal P/E ratio. El market es irrational, esquizofrenico. Solo trato de seguir la plata y hacer una moneda. Quizas todo esto sea una ilusion pero creo que tenemos un futuro brillante.
El oil se tiene que reinventar.
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
flipperjeeper escribió: ↑ Y todavia hay gente que cree que Tesla es una empresasl que fabrica autos...que dinosaurios por dios. Sigan con el oil nomas
A no?? A ver dale explica que es lo que hace, ademas de baterias que no sirven a menos que el petroleo este arriba de 100. Que estupidez la de dinosaurio, te lavaron la cabeza, se lama competitividad. No entienden que sin los "dinosaurios" el mundo se sumerje en la pobreza, te vas a enterar cuando suba el precio, te vas a enterar lo que es la inflación y por que se genera, quedate tranquilo que va a pasar. Hace unos años el mundo estaba loco porque se quedaba sin etroleo, cuantos años tenes??
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
flipperjeeper escribió:Y todavia hay gente que cree que Tesla es una empresasl que fabrica autos...que dinosaurios por dios. Sigan con el oil nomas
Yo era uno de esos, por desconocimiento. luego me empece a enterar del verdadero potencial
Enviado desde mi SM-A505G mediante Tapatalk
-
flipperjeeper
- Mensajes: 2373
- Registrado: Lun Abr 20, 2015 1:32 pm
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Y todavia hay gente que cree que Tesla es una empresasl que fabrica autos...que dinosaurios por dios. Sigan con el oil nomas
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
Con la inclusión de TSLA al S&P500, ¿que valor podría tener el nuevo indice a partir del 21/12?
Re: DIA Dow Jones 30 (ETF)
avisale a la industria automotriz que todavia no se dio cuenta, si fuera el caso te desaparecen TESLA en 2 ruedas, salvo que sean los mismos dueños 
¿Quién está conectado?
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: Ahrefs [Bot], Al_pacino, algunavezlavoyapegar, Amazon [Bot], avanzinn, Bing [Bot], cabeza70, CAIPIRA HARLEY, Capitan, carpincho, charlyk88, Chumbi, come60, danidani, DuckDuckGo [Bot], el indio, elcipayo16, excluido, GARRALAUCHA1000, Google [Bot], Gua1807, Guardameta, heide, hernan1974, iceman, Itzae77, jose enrique, jpcyber2006, Kamei, kechi, ljoeo, magnus, mcv, Morlaco, nl, OMG, Peitrick, pepelui, pipioeste22, Pirujo, Raider on the storm., samas, sebara, Semrush [Bot], TELEMACO, Tipo Basico, Yahoo [Bot] y 534 invitados