Connect with us

Investor's Corner

Bob Lutz Is Right about Tesla’s Home Battery Solution

Published

on

Last week on CNBC, maximum Bob Lutz took aim at Tesla Motors and, specifically, the Powerwall product offering. Lutz says, “I think [the battery] is greatly overvalued because having batteries as backup storage has been around for hundreds of years. I can’t understand the fascination with this.”

Maximum Bob is right on the mark, the Powerwall is overvalued by the media. The two home products, 10kWh (the backup battery) and the 7kWh daily cycle, will make up a small portion of the revenue mix for Tesla.

Musk even said so at the annual shareholder meeting. In response to a question about the powerwall, Musk said,“Actually it’s probably worth also elaborating on the Powerpack which we expect most of our activities to be with the Powerpack, not the Powerwall.”

“So, it’s probably 80%, maybe more than that of our total energy sales likely to be at the Powerpack level to utilities and to large industrial customers.”

However, the only problem for maximum Bob is that he keeps on speaking without mentioning the powerpack potential or he doesn’t understand it. Or maybe it’s a narrative for CNBC to milk, since Bob is a CNBC contributor. I enjoy Uncle Bob, but he’s a one-trick pony, Automotive guy.

Industrial and utilities are the big catch here and there’s no waiting for an energy market in this space. It’s here and Musk and JB Straubel are really smart, but how smart?

Advertisement
-

Musk on how the powerpack can assimilate in the utility space:

So, you can take our Powerpacks and they are compact enough to fit in an existing substation. This is a very big deal because it means that they do not have to create an new substation or expand the existing substation because in most neighborhoods in order for them to do that they would have to buy someone’s house and level it and put a new substation and then the neighbors do not like that.

I guess that’s why Tesla didn’t go for the bulky, lead acid batteries solution that Lutz advocated on the “Squawk Box” segment. To be fair, maximum Bob was talking about a home battery solution.

So, the utilities will have a plug-n-play product that will be able to put power on the grid quickly at the local level, without having to build out any new infrastructure. I wonder if the utilities will say thanks?

Plus, there will be a healthy supply of customers in the industrial manufacturing space, too. I’ve been writing for Automation World magazine since 2008 and energy management has been a growing issue for manufacturers and those companies love plug-n-play solutions.

For example Cummins Inc., a manufacturer of truck engines, could be a candidate for the Powerpack. They just installed 7,200 solar panels and 2-megawatts of solar power at its Pennsylvania plant. Currently, Cummins sells it back to the utilities but a Powerpack solution could help them avoid large demand charges for heavy use in the afternoon, say during large production times.

Sure, Tesla Energy has to execute and utilities have to come on board. However, it’s getting there. Listen to a couple Energy Gang podcasts and you hear about utility infrastructure buildout costs, and utilities bemoaning that it will be selling less energy to retailers.

Advertisement
-

It looks like Elon has worked all this out for the utilities, first, the infrastructure and, secondly, the energy demand component. If Tesla produces 500,000 electric cars annually in, say, five or six years, then you have a big demand for energy and for the utilities. That’s a lot of juice.

Then, maybe maximum Bob will see the “fascination” with battery storage.

"Grant Gerke wears his Model S on his sleeve and has been writing about Tesla for the last five years on numerous media sites. He has a bias towards plug-in vehicles and also writes about manufacturing software for Automation World magazine in Chicago. Find him at Teslarati

Advertisement
Comments

Elon Musk

Elon Musk breaks his silence on the Starlink impact to Ukraine drones

Musk says the US military and president set Starshield limits, not SpaceX, amid Ukraine complaints.

Published

on

By

Elon Musk says the speed limit cutting out Ukraine’s military Starlink terminals is not SpaceX’s decision. In a post on X Wednesday, Musk wrote that “Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the US government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the US military and ultimately POTUS.” He added that Starlink is a commercial service limited to civilian or defensive activities and “cannot be used for offensive military action, as doing so would be inappropriate for a commercial company.”

He was replying to Mykhailo Fedorov, Ukraine’s former defense minister, who had thanked Musk for restoring connectivity at speeds up to 160 km/h and said removing the Starshield limit entirely is “now critical for Ukraine’s defense.”

The complaint started Tuesday night, when Ukrainian officials said military terminals began losing service above roughly 100 mph. Presidential adviser Serhiy Beskrestnov said the defense forces got no warning and several missions were disrupted, as Teslarati reported earlier Wednesday. The 7th Rapid Reaction Corps told Reuters connections dropped for 10 to 20 seconds at speeds well below the limit, which made drones harder to control. Poland’s foreign minister, Radoslaw Sikorski, asked Musk on X whether he is “playing politics with your products again.”

Advertisement
-

That is why the Starlink and Starshield distinction matters. SpaceX introduced Starshield in 2022 as the government version of Starlink, with an initial focus on Earth observation, communications and hosted payloads. It won a Space Force contract in 2023 with a $70 million ceiling. In December 2024, the Pentagon moved Ukraine’s terminals onto Starshield, covering about 3,000 units across two contracts. Ukraine’s military connections therefore run through a service that Musk now says sits under Washington’s control.

SpaceX pitches subscription model for Trump’s Golden Dome

While Musk’s post describes who holds authority, it does not infer that anyone ordered the limit, and neither SpaceX nor the US government has confirmed who set it. Ukrainian officials have pointed to the timing, which follows President Trump’s push for an energy ceasefire and Musk’s Saturday post that “Zelensky has gone too far.” The BBC noted Trump denied threatening to restrict intelligence sharing with Kyiv, and no evidence has been presented that Washington requested the cap.

The episode also revives a promise from 2025. After Poland accused him of threatening Ukraine’s access, Musk said Starlink “will never turn off its terminals” and would not be used as a bargaining chip. Poland has since supplied more than 29,000 terminals to Ukraine. Teslarati also covered Kyiv’s search for Starlink alternatives in 2025, and the latest dispute gives that search new urgency.

Continue Reading

Investor's Corner

Tesla opens the Q&A for its biggest earnings call yet

Tesla opens its Q3 earnings Q&A, and Cybercab, Robotaxi, Optimus and regulators loom over October 21.

Published

on

By

Tesla has opened its shareholder question portal for the Q3 2026 earnings call, with the Say Q&A page already listing questions. Investors have until 4:00 p.m. EDT on October 20 to submit and vote on what management should answer.

The call is set for Wednesday, October 21. Tesla will post results after the market closes, with a live webcast at 4:30 p.m. CT, or 5:30 p.m. ET, through its investor relations site.

Say ranks questions by the number of shares behind the votes, which gives institutional holders extra weight over the retail crowd.

Ahead of Q2, retail investors asked why Robotaxi growth had stalled, when Cybercab would start customer rides, and where the Optimus Gen 3 ramp stood, while an institutional holder asked how Tesla and SpaceX would split Terafab duties. Cybercab has since answered one of those. Tesla said last week it has 300 plus Cybercabs serving Austin, up eightfold in 30 days, with Dallas named as the next city. The questions now are likely to move from when to how fast.

There is also a regulatory question hanging over the call. NHTSA has demanded sworn answers on how the pedal free Cybercab was certified against federal safety standards, with responses due October 30, nine days after the call. Whether an analyst raises it live is unknown, but it is the kind of exposure that tends to find its way into a Q&A.

The numbers will not be the main draw. Tesla already reported 486,532 deliveries and 13.7 GWh of storage for the quarter. Consensus sits around 43 to 45 cents per share on roughly $27.8 billion in revenue, according to Zacks, after a Q2 report that missed on EPS. Goldman Sachs, which holds a Neutral rating and a $360 target, argues the outlook for Robotaxi, FSD and Optimus will matter more to the stock than the quarter itself.

Advertisement
-

The call also lands six days after the rescheduled Roadster event, which Tesla will stream on X on Thursday, October 15, at 7:55 p.m. CT. If the Roadster shows up with a production date or a SpaceX thruster package, expect it to climb the voting list before the deadline.

Continue Reading

Elon Musk

FAA kicks off review of SpaceX’s bid to fly Starship nearly every day

FAA is reviewing SpaceX’s plan for 456 Starship launches a year, up from 25 today.

Published

on

By

Rendering of Elon Musk overlooking a Starship fleet (Credit: Grok)

The FAA said Tuesday that it will prepare an environmental impact statement on SpaceX’s proposal to run as many as 456 Starship launches and 912 landings a year from Starbase, Texas. SpaceX is currently authorized for 25 launches and 50 landings annually, which makes the request roughly 18 times the existing ceiling. The notice of intent is set to publish in the Federal Register on Wednesday.

The plan comes in two phases. Phase 1 would allow up to 100 launches and 200 landings a year, on any day and at any hour. Phase 2, which the FAA says could arrive within several years, would raise the limit to the full 456 launches, still at any hour but only on weekdays. The agency noted that 912 landings is the upper limit for the Texas facility no matter where a given mission begins, and that Starship and Super Heavy could come down at the launch site or in the Gulf and open ocean.

A draft statement will be released for public comment at a later date, and the FAA has not said when. According to the Federal Registar, written comments are due November 30 on regulations.gov under docket FAA-2026-12808, with in person scoping meetings on November 17 in Brownsville and November 19 in Port Isabel, plus a virtual session on November 18. The review will weigh air quality, wildlife, coastal resources, water, noise, and aviation, and the FAA said any increase beyond this proposal would need its own separate review.

The numbers look large next to what Starbase has actually done. Starship has flown three times from Texas this year, including Flight 14 on September 28, the first orbital flight, which deployed 26 Starlink V3 satellites. Bloomberg reported that Starbase has never launched more than five times in a calendar year. The current cap of 25 comes from an FAA approval in May 2025. In February, the agency also approved up to 44 Starship launches a year from Launch Complex 39A in Florida, so Phase 1 in Texas alone would more than double that allowance.

Musk has said Starship could eventually fly more than once per hour within less than a decade, per Bloomberg. The nearer term target is Flight 15. Musk said on October 10 that it is hopefully four to six weeks away and will try to catch the ship with the tower, as Teslarati covered. That flight still runs under the existing 25 launch limit, and so would every Starbase launch for as long as the new review takes.

Advertisement
-

As of mid morning Pacific time on Tuesday, SpaceX had not posted about the filing on its own account.

Continue Reading