Welcome back everyone, I'm Jordan Geesege and this is The Limiting Factor. Last week in Tesla's Q2-2023 earnings call, we found out that Tesla's 4680 battery cells have now reached energy density parity with conventional 2170 battery cells. Today I'm going to walk you through how that was likely done and the implications for Tesla's vehicles. But there's a lot more to talk about from the earnings call than just that, and in my view this was one of the most bullish earnings calls for Tesla's long-term prospects of the past few years. Let's get into it.
Before we begin, a special thanks to my Patreon supporters, YouTube members and Twitter subscribers, as well as RebellionAir.com. They specialize in helping investors manage concentrated positions. RebellionAir can help with covered calls, risk management, and creating a money master plan from your financial first principles.
I'm going to start with a 10,000 foot view of the earnings call and then get into Drew's comments about 4680 production in Texas. Feel free to jump to the section about the 4680 if that's your main interest.
The 10,000 foot view of the earnings call is that over the years Tesla's given us the vision for several other businesses within Tesla beyond EVs. Now they're at the point where the huge development expenses they've poured into those bets are at various stages of execution, scaling, and disruption. In my opinion, that means within the next two to three years. Collectively and in some cases individually, those other bets could rival Tesla's vehicle business or even dwarf it. Let's take a look at each.
First, my view is that Tesla will actually make self-trading vehicles a profitable business within the next two to three years. I've always been hesitant about making calls about robo taxis, but it seems like Tesla now has a good handle on the real world AI problem for vehicles. They have an enormous amount of training data collected around 300 million miles and they'll be investing over a billion dollars in compute in the next year to accelerate iteration times.
Second, building on that, I expect Tesla to keep expanding their dojo compute system to the point where they could start selling compute power to third parties. Whether they actually will is a different story. Tesla may find it more profitable to use that compute for robo taxis and the Optimus robot or more beneficial to share some of that compute with Elon's new artificial intelligence startup X.ai. It all really depends on how the exponential growth curves developed for each of those businesses. Regardless, if Tesla keeps scaling compute as aggressively as possible, at some point, I expect they will end up with compute that could be more profitably sold to third parties. When they do, the dojo compute business could eventually be as large as Amazon Web Services or NVIDIA.
Third, Tesla's supercharger network now has over 50,000 charging connectors. Nearly every major OEM in the US is switching to Tesla's charging standard and Tesla has the most reliable charging network. At an expected 30% gross margin and 10% profitability, the supercharger network is a huge and expanding asset with captive demand that will be a cash cow for years to come. That was always expected to be the case for Tesla's vehicle fleet. But now almost all EVs that will be sold in the US will be using the supercharger network, which expands the profit potential.
Fourth, on a percentage basis, Tesla's megapack energy storage business is expected to grow faster than the vehicle business and therefore will have an increasing impact on profitability. Although profits are uneven due to when the revenue is recognized, smoothed over time, the production rate is increasing steadily and rapidly. The ramp of Tesla's full-scale megapack production facility in California is going well, and it still has more room to reach full capacity. Furthermore, in the investor's slide deck, Tesla said the California megapack factory is just the first of many. This aligns with what I said a couple of weeks ago on Twitter, which is that in the next few years, I expect Tesla to announce megapack factories for each of the 10 largest global economies. That's because megapack factories may not need to be as large and complex as gigafactories to reach economies of scale, and because megapacks are more difficult to move around than vehicles. So it may make sense to localize production to reduce logistics costs.
On screen are the top 10 largest economies in the world. The green check indicates countries that Elon has personally visited and met with political leadership in the past year, where Tesla said they'd like to build a factory in the past year, or where Tesla already has a factory. That is, there seems to be an intent to expand into all these countries. Japan appears to be an exception, but it may just mean the plans aren't public yet.
For the countries that do have green checks, I doubt the intent is for every one of those countries to have a gigafactory in the near term. So my view is that many will likely be megapack factories. That's just my opinion, of course. Let me know what you think in the comments below.
The fifth technology bet is the Optimus robot. This one is a bit more far-fetched on a two to three year time frame. However, Tesla's beginning the production ramp of the bot later this year and expects to start using it in factories to a limited extent next year. Of course, it'll take time to develop its capabilities, so I expect it'll be 2025 to 2026 before it starts making any real impact on their production lines, and it may be even longer before it becomes a saleable product. Either way, it's good to see Tesla moving so quickly with Optimus, and there is some potential there on a two to three year time frame.
Overall, what these five startups within Tesla mean is that although Wall Street is penalizing Tesla in the short term, I expect they'll be rewarding them in the long term if and when these bets play out. Elon and Zach Kirkhorn each had excellent quotes from the earnings call to that effect. Elon said, quote, frankly, I think it's ridiculous that we have free positive cash flow in a capital intensive business while investing massive amounts of money in new technology. That is super hard, end quote. That is, Tesla is not just a profitable company in an extremely brutal industry, the auto industry. They have some of the highest operating margins, even after taking into account the money they've invested in new technology to plant the seeds for future growth.
Zach Kirkhorn said, quote, you know, soon enough, these quarters will be behind us. They won't be part of the present value of future cash flows of the business. And so we want to make sure we keep that view and make sure that the long term of the business is exactly the way we want it to be. End quote. That is quarterly financial reports are only part of the picture for Tesla. They don't reflect the profits Tesla expects from investments they have made and continue to make in technology. Tesla's a company for long term investors focused on the fundamentals. That's why on this channel, I don't focus on the stock price or quarterly earnings. I focus on the engineering and base technology. To me, that's more interesting and a better indicator of investor value. As always, that's not financial advice and always do your own research.
With the 10,000 foot view of the earnings call out of the way, let's move on to one of Elon's comments from the opening remarks. Quote, we continue to target 1.8 million vehicle deliveries this year, although we expect that Q3 production will be a little bit down because we've got some shutdowns for a lot of factory upgrades. So just probably a slight decrease in production in Q3 for global factory upgrades. End quote. The reason I bring this quote up is because there's rumors that Tesla will be upgrading the standard range Model 3 with a new M3P battery chemistry from CATL that provides 10% more range. I'd say there's about a 50-50 chance of that and I plan on releasing a video on the topic next month. The M3P battery chemistry is very promising, but like all chemistries, it does have strengths and weaknesses, so I wouldn't yet call it a sure thing. Overall, in the long term, I think M3P batteries will replace LFP batteries in most vehicles. So really, it's more a matter of when than if in my view. But again, as I said, I'll share what I know on the topic next month so that you can form your own view.
Next, let's move on to the meat of the earnings call from a battery perspective. Drew Baglino made several points about 4680 production on their first full-scale production line in Texas.
First, 4680 cell production increased by 80% in Q2 over Q1, and the team surpassed 10 million cells produced in Texas. The question is, 80% more than what? I played around with production ramp scenarios and on screen is the result. Bear in mind, the goal here wasn't to arrive at exact production numbers, but just to give an indication of how the production ramp is progressing.
Assuming production started in October of last year, 10 million cells were produced by June, and there was an 80% increase in production from Q1 to Q2. That would mean a run rate of about 70,000 cells per day in June, which is roughly 2.4 gigawatt hours per year. Depending on the pack size, 2.4 gigawatt hours of cells is enough for an annual run rate of 12 to 24,000 cyber trucks. If Tesla continues growing production speed by the 21% per month improvement rate seen between January to June, that would mean that they could reach 20 million total cells produced sometime in October.
That production volume, of course, depends on what Tesla's focusing on, whether it's cost or production rate. But the key message here is that now that Tesla's full-scale line is hitting multi-gigawatt hour annual production rates, it doesn't take large month-over-month percentage increases in production rate to see substantial gains in absolute production rate and total cell volume.
So the first data point alone from June is excellent news, especially if we pair it with another piece of information that we picked up at Investor Day in Texas. The people who received the tour of the 4680 line were told that both the cathode and anode were using Tesla's dry battery electrode process. That is, we're finally seeing Tesla start to head a decent production volume on the production system laid out at Battery Day three years ago.
Not yet what I'd consider volume production, which is about seven to eight times higher than the current 2.4-gigawatt hour run rate, but it's now at least potentially on the horizon. Bear in mind that as far as I'm aware, Tesla only has one 4680 line in production in Texas. If they're running more than one production line, I wouldn't view the increasing production rate as positively. That's potentially a good question for the next earnings call. How many 4680 lines are operational in Texas?
Drew's second point was that the 4680 line in Texas reduced its scrap build by 40% quarter over quarter, which resulted in a 25% lower production cost. One way to think about the significance of what Drew is saying here is that while the number of cells they produced was 80% higher than the previous quarter, the amount of waste was reduced by 40%, which means the efficiency of their material use roughly tripled.
As for the 25% reduction in production cost, that's good to know, but without a baseline, it doesn't give us a feel for Tesla's total cell cost, which is what we're really curious about.
Next, the bomb that Drew dropped that attracted the most attention was that they're preparing to launch their Cybertruck cell with 10% higher energy density than current production. There are a number of ways to interpret that, but by current production, I'm assuming he means the Generation 1 4680 cells currently going into model-wise versus the Generation 2 4680 cell that'll launch in the Cybertruck.
Although some people are assuming that the Cybertruck cell is an even newer third-generation cell or a cell with a different format, I think what Drew said next reinforces my view that it's just the Gen 2 cell. He said the 10% energy density improvement was achieved through process and mechanical design optimization.
As I've said in past videos, there are a number of opportunities to increase the energy density between the Gen 1 and Gen 2 cell designs purely through engineering rather than chemistry improvements. On screen is an x-ray of a Gen 1 cell, compliments of Antonio at Monroe and Associates. Notice the mostly empty space at the top and bottom of the cell between the active material and the cell can, and also the hollow space in the core.
Although the space in the core is to a certain extent necessary for the rolling spindle and because electrodes tend to delaminate when wound too tightly, there's definitely wasted space in the cell that could be utilized with design and manufacturing improvements to increase energy density. Additionally, although some people disagree, my view is that the cell can is too thick, making up a whopping 20% of the total weight of the cell. That is, overall, it's not hard to see how Tesla could increase the energy density by 10% with improvements to the design that we see in the Gen 2 cell.
What all this means is that although I do expect further improvements to the Gen 2 cell in the future, it'll likely be small percentage increases rather than the 10% increase that Drew's claiming. That means the Gen 2 cell and the Cybertruck cell are most likely one in the same.
The last key point from Drew was that the Cybertruck cell, or Cybertruck, is at their expectations on a like-for-like electrochemistry basis, and that they haven't yet integrated silicon or in-house cathode production, which will bring further energy density and cost improvements.
What Drew is saying here is that the 4680 is now on par with the 2170 battery cell, despite still not fully incorporating all the advantages that some 2170 cells have, like high energy density silicon.
Let's lay that out more clearly. On screen is a comparison of four different battery cells. The 4680 cell I tested last year with Shirley Mung's lab at UC San Diego, the Gen 2 cell with a 10% energy density improvement, the Panasonic 2170 cell that goes into Tesla's US-made long-range vehicles that uses silicon to boost its energy density, and an LG Chem 2170 battery cell that doesn't use silicon that's been used in Tesla's vehicles in China.
I've also added a row at the bottom, which is an average of the two 2170 cells. As you can see, the energy density of the silicon-free Gen 2 4680 cell comes in at 268 watt-hours per kilogram, which is higher than the energy density of the silicon-free LG 2170 with 252 watt-hours per kilogram and lower than the silicon-containing Panasonic 2170 that probably maxes out between 275 to 278 watt-hours per kilogram.
If we take an average of the two 2170 cells, the 4680 cell actually comes out slightly ahead by about three watt-hours per kilogram. Bear in mind, for the Gen 2 cell figures, I had to extrapolate using Tesla's advice of a 10% energy density increase. When one of those cells becomes available, I'll try to get my hands on one to test and confirm Tesla's claims.
The next question is, now that the 4680 cell is roughly on par with the average 2170 battery cell, what does that mean for Tesla's vehicles? Before we look at that, I want to give my thoughts on Tesla's progress here. Not only have they increased production rates over the past year, they've also reduced scrap and increased energy density while developing a new battery production technology in the form of the dry battery electrode coating process.
So, although the pace of the 4680 ramp has been moving slower than expected, the battery team at Tesla is working furiously behind the scenes to incorporate as many fundamental improvements as possible. So, when the 4680 line is copied, it'll be cheaper to copy, quicker to scale, and produce higher energy density cells.
Let's now look at what the Gen 2 4680 or cybercell means for Tesla's vehicles. We'll start with the 4680 pack in the Model Y to establish a baseline and work up from there. The 4680 battery pack currently being used in the standard range all-wheel drive Model Y produced in Texas is using Gen 1 battery cells from K-Toe Road. The usable energy density of that pack is around 67.5 kWh. If Tesla swapped out the Gen 1 cells in the standard range all-wheel drive Texas Model Y to Gen 2 cells, it would increase the pack energy to about 74 kWh and the range from about 279 miles to about 307 miles.
Note, at this point, I think it's unlikely that Tesla will upgrade the 4680 pack in the Model Y because I expect they'll launch the second generation cell in one vehicle at a time. The reason I picked the Model Y is to work from a familiar battery pack to more hypothetical battery packs.
Moving along, if they used a Model Y battery pack upgraded with Gen 2 cells in the Model 3, which is slightly more efficient, it would provide a range of about 339 miles. The new Long Range Model 3 is slated to have about 333 miles of range. Does that mean the new Model 3 is using the new 4680 pack with the Gen 2 cell? In my view, no, because the current battery packs in the Model 3 use an older design that's non-structural and may not be compatible with a 4680 structural pack.
It's more likely that the Long Range Model 3 will be using a battery pack that contains lower energy density LG Chem battery cells from China. Let's move on to the next level of speculation for the Gen 2 4680 cell. Some people might remember that the 4680 battery pack in the Model Y doesn't fully utilize all the space in the pack and there was room for more cells. In a previous video, I calculated that if the excess space were filled with battery cells, the nominal energy of the pack would increase from 71.6 kilowatt hours to 83.5 kilowatt hours and the energy density would increase from about 160 watt hours per kilogram to 167 watt hours per kilogram.
If those cells were swapped out with Gen 2 cells, that would mean a pack energy of around 91.85 kilowatt hours and a pack level energy density of around 183 watt hours per kilogram.
That brings us neatly to what's possible with the Cybertruck. Over the last six months, a lot of people were speculating that the Cybertruck wouldn't use the 4680 because the energy density of the Gen 1 cell was too low. I didn't share that view because I saw all the potential areas where Tesla could improve the total pack energy and energy density from the Gen 1 4680 cells and the structural pack that went into the Model Y.
If Tesla can hit 183 watt hours per kilogram with the 4680 and structural pack, it would be on par with the battery pack that's in the Plaid Model S. As Elon said a year ago, they could have made a 600 mile range Model S two years ago if they wanted to. The reason they didn't is because it would have made acceleration, handling and efficiency worse, but the Cybertruck is a different product with different priorities like pewing range.
如果特斯拉能够利用4680结构型电池包达到每公斤的183瓦时水平,那将与Plaid Model S中的电池组相媲美。正如埃隆一年前所说,如果他们愿意,两年前他们就可以制造出一款续航600英里的Model S。之所以没有这样做是因为这会导致加速、操控和效率变差,但Cybertruck是一个具有不同优先级(如超长续航)的不同产品。
So the Gen 2 cell or Cybertruck means there's no reason why the Cybertruck couldn't hit 500 miles of range. I'm not saying that the Cybertruck will come with a 500 mile range version, but rather it's possible. So whether Tesla actually offers a 500 mile range version is really a product and cell supply decision.
As a final note, Drew said it's important to remember that rather than energy density, the focus of battery day and the 4680 production system was factory density, capital cost and utility cost reductions, and they're starting to realize those benefits in Texas as they scale up. That is, energy density aside, it's always worth remembering that the whole point of the 4680 is to improve the speed of scaling, improve cell availability and reduce costs over time. Increased energy density and larger battery packs are a secondary priority.
While we're on the topic of energy density, for those curious, when Tesla adds silicon to the 4680 battery cell and as they continue to make improvements to the manufacturing process and cell design, energy density could approach 300 watt hours per kilogram around mid decade in the next two to three years. As I've said before, they'll likely start with small amounts of silicon and increase as they gain confidence. So it's unlikely we'll see a 4680 battery cell with much greater than 300 watt hours per kilogram of energy density before 2026.
In summary, although Tesla's become a profitable company in the past few years, it still may be early days in terms of growth potential, with several startups within the company that could rival their vehicle business or at the very least give them massive market leverage and or scaling advantages for the products and services that aren't sold to third parties.
Beyond that, in the Q2 2023 earnings call, it also appears that we finally got confirmation that Tesla has a full scale 4680 production line hitting decent production volumes using a dry battery electrode process. If they can continue to ramp that line at the rate they have been, they would hit the 4680 production line's capacity of 20 to 25 gigawatt hours per year sometime mid next year. Note that's not a prediction or forecast, but rather just a projection based on past improvements.
Given the challenges of the last few years, I'm not holding my breath and a lot of challenges remain, but we may finally be climbing out of the trough of disillusionment with the 4680 production system.
If you enjoyed this video, please consider supporting the channel by using the links in the description. A special thanks to my YouTube members, Twitter subscribers, and all the patrons listed in the credits. I appreciate all your support, and thanks for tuning in.