Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, report says

Re:Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, r... by ams6110 on Thursday December 06, 2018 @12:37PM (#18620203)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, r... by benj111 on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:10PM (#18620505)

First off you don't know its going to fall next year. 2nd someone may sign a contract first.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, r... by bluGill on Thursday December 06, 2018 @12:56PM (#18620376)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, r... by benj111 on Thursday December 06, 2018 @01:15PM (#18620547)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Tesla's giant battery saved $40M during its first year, r... by bluGill on Thursday December 06, 2018 @03:50PM (#18622087)

Yeah, this is more of a reverse sunk-cost. If there is a term for that I don't know it.

[ Parent | on HN ]