Thank you for that question. It's a really nice one.
The moderate-range, lower-cost vehicle will have a battery chemistry based on lithium iron phosphate. This is really quite good, because iron and phosphorus are highly abundant and very sustainable.
Another good thing about that technology is that it supports many charge/discharge cycles and many years of life. Those batteries and those vehicles could be used for things like vehicle-to-grid. The vehicle, when parked, could be storing energy from the grid when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and then at night or when the wind is not blowing, deliver it back. This, I think, is a really good move. Those vehicles still get a pretty decent range, probably 400 kilometres.
The other side of the coin is the extremely long-range vehicle, 600 kilometres or so, which uses more nickel-based positive electrode materials and has higher costs. People are actually worried—in the longer term, beyond 2035—about the availability of nickel. This is a concern. Tesla is going to be around for who knows how much longer—maybe a century, I don't know—but they're concerned about the availability of nickel as electrification just goes up on a giant hockey-stick curve.
I think it's really good to see the two streams of the technologies coming along and that each has a place. I think many consumers are going to vote with their wallet and go for the lower-range, lower-cost vehicle that's going to last a really long time.