5 ms·

(a) It takes several years to plan a project and then build it. So, this decision was made years ago, not "today". (b) Battery prices (and pricing for the bala

(a) It takes several years to plan a project and then build it. So, this decision was made years ago, not "today". (b) Battery prices (and pricing for the balance of the system) have dropped pretty rapidly, I'm not sure why you're claiming otherwise. There have been recent years where these systems have dropped in price by ~25%[1]. That's not insignificant. [1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/not-so-fast-battery-prices-will-continue-to-decrease-but-at-a-slower-pace/518776/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/not-so-fast-battery-prices-...

benj111 8y ago
By "that quickly" I was thinking orders of magnitude per year. This would have been competitive at 4 times the price. Depending on the details it might have been competitive at 10 times the (battery) price. Was the decision taken years ago? This is the 100 days or free battery. But yes I accept the power companies may have been slow. But still it isn't just Australia that was slow, its the US, Germany, Denmark, the world.
- singhrac 8y ago
  He's right. Unless this was a media stunt for Elon's benefit (and it really doesn't look that way), the decision was made in a few days and the turnaround was 100 days: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/840032197637685249?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/840032197637685249?s=20
- pixl97 8y ago
  >This would have been competitive at 4 times the price. Not exactly. Australia's high prices were not due to a technology failure, but a regulatory one. The power generators were manipulating the market causing extremely high peak prices, and essentially being allowed to get away with it. Most other countries don't allow the market to wildly fluctuate so much, so the payback is far longer. Think decades and not years.
  - benj111 8y ago
    4 * $66m = $264m / $40m = 6.5 ish years payback. Not many investments offer that rate of return. You may be right to suggest it may not be competitive in other locations though. I don't know.
ams6110 8y ago
And (B) is an issue. It's essentially deflationary economics. Why spend money now when it will be cheaper/more profitable next year? Once pricing on batteries stabilizes, you'll probably see more people willing to commit to big battery projects.
- bluGill 8y ago
  The old sunk cost fallacy strikes again. You invest today because by not investing you forego the savings in the mean time. That something would be cheaper next year is not a factor, only the current expected ROI.
  - benj111 8y ago
    The sunk cost fallacy is most often stated as, it isn't worth getting rid of something because you've already spent the money on it. Its unclear to me if this is an example of that. I agree with your general thrust though.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      Yeah, this is more of a reverse sunk-cost. If there is a term for that I don't know it.
- benj111 8y ago
  First off you don't know its going to fall next year. 2nd someone may sign a contract first.
frankietwenty9 8y ago
(a) didn't take that long https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-fulfills-australia-battery-bet-whats-that-mean-industry https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-fulfills-...

benj111 8y ago

By "that quickly" I was thinking orders of magnitude per year. This would have been competitive at 4 times the price. Depending on the details it might have been competitive at 10 times the (battery) price. Was the decision taken years ago? This is the 100 days or free battery. But yes I accept the power companies may have been slow. But still it isn't just Australia that was slow, its the US, Germany, Denmark, the world.

singhrac 8y ago
He's right. Unless this was a media stunt for Elon's benefit (and it really doesn't look that way), the decision was made in a few days and the turnaround was 100 days: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/840032197637685249?s=20 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/840032197637685249?s=20
pixl97 8y ago
>This would have been competitive at 4 times the price. Not exactly. Australia's high prices were not due to a technology failure, but a regulatory one. The power generators were manipulating the market causing extremely high peak prices, and essentially being allowed to get away with it. Most other countries don't allow the market to wildly fluctuate so much, so the payback is far longer. Think decades and not years.
- benj111 8y ago
  4 * $66m = $264m / $40m = 6.5 ish years payback. Not many investments offer that rate of return. You may be right to suggest it may not be competitive in other locations though. I don't know.

ams6110 8y ago

And (B) is an issue. It's essentially deflationary economics. Why spend money now when it will be cheaper/more profitable next year? Once pricing on batteries stabilizes, you'll probably see more people willing to commit to big battery projects.

bluGill 8y ago
The old sunk cost fallacy strikes again. You invest today because by not investing you forego the savings in the mean time. That something would be cheaper next year is not a factor, only the current expected ROI.
- benj111 8y ago
  The sunk cost fallacy is most often stated as, it isn't worth getting rid of something because you've already spent the money on it. Its unclear to me if this is an example of that. I agree with your general thrust though.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Yeah, this is more of a reverse sunk-cost. If there is a term for that I don't know it.
benj111 8y ago
First off you don't know its going to fall next year. 2nd someone may sign a contract first.

frankietwenty9 8y ago

(a) didn't take that long https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-fulfills-australia-battery-bet-whats-that-mean-industry https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-fulfills-...