backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by sorry dog.. on Mar 3 at 12:22 PM

The giant Gigafactory will span 500-1000 acres of land

Tesla Motors' all-electric auto business heavily relies on batteries, so it makes sense that the company has placed a lot of emphasis on that area with Supercharger stations, replaceable battery tech and road trips to relieve range anxiety for customers. Now, Tesla is finally revealing some details on its huge, upcoming battery plant.

According to Tesla, its new factory -- dubbed "Tesla Gigafactory" -- will be located in either Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas. Tesla is likely choosing among these Southwestern states because the factory will be largely powered by solar and wind power, and the Southwest has plenty of sunshine to feed the plant.

The giant Gigafactory will span 500-1000 acres of land and have a space requirement of 10 million square feet. It'll employ around 6,500 people and aims to produce 35 GWh of cells and 50 GWh of battery packs a year. 

Tesla added that it's getting ready to produce 500,000 EVs a year in 2020, and the Gigafactory will supply those battery packs. What's more is that Tesla expects the per-kWh cost of a Tesla battery pack to be lowered by more than 30 percent once the factory is up and running for the first year. 

This is huge for Tesla, since the cost of batteries is a large fear of potential EV customers. Tesla has been working hard to ease such fears, since this will lead to more sales in the future.


The automaker recently addressed range anxiety associated with road trips by placing Supercharger stations from Los Angeles to New York, allowing for a coast-to-coast trip free of worry. 

Tesla will invest around $2 billion in the plant through 2020 while investors will pay another $2-3 billion for a total $4-5 billion investment. 

This year will be a busy one in the Gigafactory's timeline, as Tesla plans to select a location, start intial project design, engage in partner discussions, begin zoning and design, and finally start construction. 

Construction will continue through 2015, and in 2016, equipment installation is set to begin. The year 2017 will finally see production launch, and will gun for the half million EVs produced in 2020. 

Tesla has proven time and time again that being the small guy in the auto race doesn't mean coming in last. In May 2013, Tesla repaid its $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nine years earlier than expected from the original 2022 due date. 
 
Tesla is currently rocking the auto world by fighting auto dealers around the U.S. in order to sell its Model S on its own without any middlemen. Tesla CEO Elon Musk said he'd make the fight a federal case if he had to.

For Q4 2013, Tesla reported a profit of $46 million and saw its loss decrease to $16.2 million, which is much slimmer than the $90 million loss a year earlier. 

Tesla shares rose $34.65 to close at $252.30 Tuesday, and kept rising in premarket trading early Wednesday hitting $258.60. 

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Not in California
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/2014 3:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
How in the hell is this a Constitutional issue? Unless all. collective bargaining is. Which is fine with me, kill every union as far as I'm concerned.

I'm NOT defending the NDA though, and you know it.

Sometimes the fight just isn't worth it. I think for Musk thus is one of them. He can't win, they're too powerful, too entrenched.


RE: Not in California
By Mint on 2/27/2014 4:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know a lot about the constitution (I didn't grow up here), but isn't this kind of trade restriction against its spirit? Online I see trade and constitution in the same discussion all the time.

I don't see how this is like collective bargaining. If dealers want to strike to stop GM or Ford from selling direct or buying dealerships to run themselves, they'd be free to do that. A law preventing them from doing so is another matter.

I think in Musk's mind, this fight is indeed worth it. The public overwhelmingly wants to cut out the dealer, and the big automakers want him to win as well (though maybe secretly). I never expected direct corn subsidies to get cut, but it happened.


RE: Not in California
By Spuke on 2/27/2014 5:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The public overwhelmingly wants to cut out the dealer
Do you have some numbers on this? I'd be interested in knowing. It's not a subject that comes up so I don't even have anecdotal stuff on this.


RE: Not in California
By flyingpants1 on 2/27/2014 6:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Not in California
By Reclaimer77 on 2/27/14, Rating: 0
RE: Not in California
By Mint on 2/28/2014 3:32:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's a press release about an independent poll:
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/poll/results/114...

I never said that the public is "against dealerships". I said that they support the option of manufacturer-owned dealerships, i.e. allowing direct sales.

If a middleman is useful, then he will find his place in society, but I guarantee you that Americans despise being forced to use a mandatory middleman.


RE: Not in California
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2014 7:13:19 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Most Americans don't know they are "forced" into dealerships. Most Americans don't know the NDA exists, and that dealerships were made mandatory by law.

Most Americans aren't aware of the issues, or worst, don't care. Holy crap, look at the country today, you think if we had an informed electorate we would be dealing with all this?

That's my point. So you coming here saying most Americans are "overwhelmingly against" dealerships just reeked of bias and pro-Tesla agenda.

Hardly ANYONE even talked about this at all until Musk started this fight. Come on, can we just be honest here?


RE: Not in California
By Mint on 2/28/2014 8:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
I agree they aren't aware, but when made aware of it by a pollster, they overwhelmingly don't like it. Even on the most anti-liberal sites you see unanimous support:
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1...

It makes no sense to anyone, including me, because virtually every product is allowed to be sold directly. Tesla is applying for a dealership license and being denied because they make cars.

I'll admit I mispoke when I said "the public overwhelmingly wants to cut out the dealer". What I meant was that they want the option to cut out the middleman.

Free enterprise is deeply ingrained into American culture. I use the word "overwhelmingly" because it's true everywhere you look: polls, forums, articles, academic papers, etc.
Imagine if Apple stores weren't allowed to sell iPads/iPhones, display/discuss prices, or let people try out running devices. Don't you think Americans would be overwhelmingly against that?


RE: Not in California
By Reclaimer77 on 2/28/2014 7:54:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know a lot about the constitution (I didn't grow up here), but isn't this kind of trade restriction against its spirit?


Sigh, if only everything that violated the spirit of the Constitution was made illegal. I would love to live in that world, my friend.

Fun fact, the NADA was originally formed to stop the Government from gouging Americans with extreme "luxury tax" rates. Something I'm sure nobody had a problem with at the time.

After they won that fight, they went on to Unionize the countries 15,000 some odd dealerships.

So in the eyes of the Constitution, there's nothing wrong or illegal in what the NADA is doing. People have the freedom and right here to willingly unionize, make alliances, etc etc.

I guess by your logic we shouldn't have grocery stores either. Why am I "forced" to buy my food through a third party?

I don't think this issue is nearly as, conveniently, cut and dry as you make it out to be.

But besides that, it's going to take a LONG time for Musk to make headway here. If any is to be made. In the meantime, I maintain the opinion that it's costing him sales. Without his cars being in dealerships, nation wide, he's losing visibility and public access to his vehicles.

Imagine a Tesla dealership being built right next to, oh, lets say a BMW dealership. How many sales could he pull from BMW then? I wager quite a few!


RE: Not in California
By Mint on 2/28/2014 9:17:09 AM , Rating: 2
Unions negotiate deals with companies. They don't literally outlaw non-union companies from doing business in the state.

This has nothing to do with unions, and everything to do with protectionism.

If Ford dealers want to stop Ford from selling direct, they can make an alliance and tell Ford that they will stop buying cars unless they have exclusive rights to sell Ford vehicles. Ford will then weigh that option against the cost of opening its own network of thousands of stores from scratch, and would likely choose the dealers. There is no legislation needed, and this would all arise from the same freedom to form alliances that you speak of.

quote:
I guess by your logic we shouldn't have grocery stores either. Why am I "forced" to buy my food through a third party?

Is there a law that I'm unaware of? Is it illegal for a farm to own and operate a store that carries its crops? If I drive to a farm, am I forbidden from buying a bushel of tomatoes?

AFAIK, you aren't forced to buy from a third party.

quote:
In the meantime, I maintain the opinion that it's costing him sales. Without his cars being in dealerships, nation wide, he's losing visibility and public access to his vehicles.

How can you lose sales if you have battery supply issues for a while and are selling every one you can make?

I don't understand why we have to keep repeating things to you. Tesla DOES have dealers nationwide: http://www.teslamotors.com/findus
They don't have enough production volume at this point to justify the same number of locations BMW, obviously.

Some states, however, have laws PREVENTING these showrooms from selling, discussing pricing, or giving test drives. The reason is that Tesla owns these showrooms.


"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














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