backtop


Print 22 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Sep 6 at 11:06 PM


Tesla Model S
The official announcement will be made tomorrow

Well it looks as though Tesla Motors has selected a site for its $5 billion Gigafactory. After scouting locations in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas, the electric car manufacturer has selected Nevada for the massive battery-making facility.
 
CNBC and Bloomberg both confirmed the news, with sources within Governor Brian Sandoval’s administration stating earlier today “[It’s] a go, but they are still negotiating the specifics of the contract.”
 
Governor Sandoval took to Twitter himself to announce a major event scheduled for tomorrow:
 
 
Tesla’s Gigafactory will span 500 to 1,000 acres and will employ roughly 6,500 employees (hence the tremendous interest from the southwestern states to earn Tesla’s business). Tesla hopes that its Gigafactory will be able to supply battery packs for around 500,000 vehicles per years by the year 2020.

 
The Gigafactory will be a joint effort between Tesla and Panasonic. Tesla is providing the land, buildings, and utilities for the plant, while Panasonic will be tasked with actually manufacturing the battery cells that will go into the EV battery packs. Panasonic is looking to provide an initial investment of $200 to $300 million and could foot upwards of $1 billion for the project.
 
Tesla is depending on the huge scales of its Gigafactory operations to help lower the costs of battery packs in its vehicles. Lowering costs will be a huge obstacle for Tesla’s third generation EV, the Model III. The Model III sedan will be priced below $40,000 and is expected to have a driving range of over 200 miles.
 
Tesla is expected to make the first deliveries of the Model III in 2017.

Sources: Governor Brian Sandoval [via Twitter], Bloomberg, CNBC



Comments     Threshold


Water
By Vertigo2000 on 9/4/2014 9:37:12 AM , Rating: 3
Does anyone know how much water this plant is expected to use on a yearly basis? I'm guessing the majority of it will come from Lake Mead. Maybe not a factor but I recently read this...
http://www.popsci.com/node/135123
quote:
Lake Mead’s water level has fluctuated since the reservoir first formed, but the current 14-year drought is unprecedented. At 1,075 feet, shortage conditions take effect, reducing allocations to southwestern states.

Just curious if this factory will tax an already straining water system or is it a non-factor?




RE: Water
By Disco Mania on 9/4/2014 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
None of the water would come from Lake Mead. Reno is in northern NV and Lake Mead is in southern NV. We are hundreds of miles away.
While we're experiencing mild drought conditions this factory wouldn't tax our water system noticeably as we are fed from a much larger lake than Mead.


RE: Water
By Disco Mania on 9/4/2014 2:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
I read that article. Why the hell would you build a reservoir and not design it so you could drain all the water out of it?! Waste of billions of dollars and it would be so much better to apply it to desalinization which is the only real solution to the problem
POPSci has gone a little eco nuts too so I question their "drought is unprecedented" comments. While the lake level is low, the main reason behind that is the population it has to feed now compared to what it was designed/built for originally.
I still subscribe and enjoy most of the articles but I'm kind of tired of global warming "sky is falling" crap and what we have to do to save the Earth articles.


RE: Water
By The Von Matrices on 9/4/2014 3:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason the dam has that flawed design is because it was designed based upon only a decade of climate data in the 1920's. Unforunately for the designers, that decade had above normal river flow, and they designed the dam assuming that was normal river flow. This is the same reason there is overdrawing of water from the reservior. It's not due to population, it's that the allocations of water resources were based upon that inaccurate 1920's climate data.

If the water allocations were based upon the correct climate data that we know now, then there would be lower allocations and no water crisis at the reservoir (states would still have crises as they reached their water caps). However, the water allocation will likely never be readjusted to the correct amounts because no state is willing to give up water resources.


RE: Water
By Disco Mania on 9/4/2014 3:39:38 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, Vegas is going to make out on that deal than. They'll just keep drawing their allotment out till the dang thing is dry and everyone down river will just be SOL.
Any actions to try to change it will be locked up in court for years and it will be well dry by the time anything is decided.


Too bad for New Mexico
By idiot77 on 9/3/2014 11:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
If he had built it in New Mexico he would have been crowned King. It would have beat the lousy politicians that survive off the drug trade easily.




RE: Too bad for New Mexico
By danjw1 on 9/4/2014 8:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
And? How does that cut the transit cost from the rare earth mines in California or the factory in California? This had more to do with location than anything else.


RE: Too bad for New Mexico
By Mint on 9/4/2014 9:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
Tesla doesn't use rare earths. Neither lithium-ion batteries nor AC induction motors need them. Toyota is the biggest automotive user with its NiMH batteries.

If you were thinking about lithium, yes there are mines in Nevada, but it's an irrelevant cost, as it's only a few percent of batteries. They're mainly composed of graphite, cobalt, nickel, and aluminum.

But yeah, location was indeed the most important factor after build time. Nevada has good wind/solar resources and is close to the Fremont factory.


Whoohooo. Congrats to Nevada
By GotThumbs on 9/4/2014 11:28:33 AM , Rating: 3
I'm Sooooooo stoked it's NOT being built in California.




By MikeDiction on 9/5/2014 5:03:12 AM , Rating: 2
Why is that exactly?

Do you live in Nevada, or are you a anti-industry Californian?


Why do I smell
By FITCamaro on 9/4/2014 4:37:40 PM , Rating: 2
Harry Reid's rat hand in this.




The Absurdity
By Shadowmaster625 on 9/4/14, Rating: -1
RE: The Absurdity
By mdogs444 on 9/4/2014 9:34:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All these employees consuming massive amounts of fossil fuel resources to live in the middle of a desert.


They already live there. Or did you think they were going to build a factory where this is no population to sustain a workforce? With that being said - whether they are driving to work at Tesla, or some other factory/industry, what difference does it make?


RE: The Absurdity
By siconik on 9/4/2014 9:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
Was there a point in there somewhere?

Total Energy Consumed per Capita, 2012 (million Btu)

Rank State Consumption

5 Iowa 471
21 Tennessee 325
41 Nevada 232

That's without considering transportation costs to California (for finished product) and to the site (raw material).


RE: The Absurdity
By GotThumbs on 9/4/2014 11:31:49 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps this could be an indication that the manufacturing will NOT remain in California permanently.

Logistics and overall costs of operating in Cali, will diffidently be a factor in moving the manufacturing to a more business friendly location IMO.

Time will tell.


RE: The Absurdity
By GotThumbs on 9/4/2014 11:35:37 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to say... will definitely be a factor

Need an Edit function Please.


RE: The Absurdity
By Disco Mania on 9/4/2014 1:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
That thought occurred to me and I hope it is true. Reno is the best shipping hub for the west coast and frankly you would have to be a moron to run a business out of CA if you don’t have to.


RE: The Absurdity
By Mint on 9/4/2014 10:26:48 AM , Rating: 5
It's absurd to you because you're a complete dunce with numbers.

First of all, Tesla's plan is to build gobs of solar and wind. But I'll ignore that for now.

Assume, in the worse case, Tesla is responsible for 6500 new households which otherwise would have been living in cardboard boxes with no electricity consumption. The average Nevada household consumes 10,000 kWh/yr of electricity, so in total that's 65GWh/yr for all workers.

These 6500 workers produce battery packs for 500,000 EVs each year. Each of these packs will drive an EV at least 100,000 miles over its lifetime (probably twice that, as a Model S owner recently drove 100,000 miles on it with only 5% range loss), needing 30,000kWh of electricity to do so instead of 3000 gallons of gasoline (101MWh of energy).

So each year, those 6500 workers produce enough battery packs to replace 50,500 GWh of gasoline energy (100% fossil fuel) with 15,000 GWh of new electricity consumption. Note that 80% of new generation built this year was renewable.

To summarize, you're crying about workers wasting 0.2% of the energy savings their production enables.


RE: The Absurdity
By bbcdude on 9/6/2014 9:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just a nitpick, but your math doesn't account for any energy use in actually making the batteries or the resources used. It is not a straight energy savings since the batteries use energy to be refined and produced, so you need to take that out of the equation before you compare to the plant workers.........And You technically can't use the batteries life cycles to offset the employee conditions since they would be built anyway no matter where you built the factory.

It is possible to be absurd and a dunce even with good math skills.


RE: The Absurdity
By Mint on 9/6/2014 11:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but that's not what he's complaining about. His issue is with the workers' energy use from living in the desert.

The plan is for the gigafactory to use build enough renewable energy for all the factory's production needs. So net energy consumption from the rest of Nevada should be zero.

As for energy to extract resources, that gets complicated, but most life cycle analyses I've found show that it doesn't take long for batteries to pay for themselves.


RE: The Absurdity
By Disco Mania on 9/4/2014 1:39:36 PM , Rating: 2
Study your geography. This is not in the middle of the desert it is the edge of the desert.
I'm not sure where you live has to do with fossil fuel consumption but I don't see how ours would be any higher than anyone else's? In fact we have one of the highest percentage of renewable energy used in the nation thanks to our geothermal resources.
Add to the fact that Reno is the perfect shipping hub for the entire west coast makes the Iowa (which is the perfect shipping hub for nothing) suggestion ridiculous.


RE: The Absurdity
By Argon18 on 9/4/2014 3:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
"All these employees consuming massive amounts of fossil fuel resources to live in the middle of a desert. How does that mesh with the overarching goal of saving fossil fuels?"

If you think the 6500 factory workers commuting to work makes any kind of meaningful impact on global fossil fuel usage, you are indeed as stupid as you sound. Go shove some tofu up your clueless environazi ass.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki