-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Tesla Gigafactory
- Thread starter domenick
- Start date
jeff_adams
Member
They are supposed to be much more efficient, so they should need less surface area to create the same amount of energy. I haven't checked into investing in the company, just like the design much more than the traditional blades. I do wonder how well they work if the wind shifts. Maybe the whole funnel structure on top can rotate.
Bird kills, high cost of structure and maintenance make the big turbines inefficient and the power generated is too expensive.
Crazy as I used to live right next to Hutto. There is a huge amount of land there and just off of I-35 and rail spurs.
Quite a long way to Freemont though.
Quite a long way to Freemont though.
I just moved from Austin. This is just what's needed there - even more people and traffic on limited infrastructure! I still think Nevada makes more sense, speaking as someone who knows nothing about anything.
It does from a transport standpoint, but the politics of the area will make it almost impossible for Nevada to not increase taxes to a ruinous number after a couple of years. There would only be about 10,000 or so votes to keep taxes low against two cities where the population is centred. Not a good situation. Just ask any Western Canadian.
Dodgy wind? Why "innovative" turbines are often anything but
Bird kills are not significant. Kill cats instead. Some places have significant bat kills though.
Funnels are claimed to be more efficient, but they aren't. It's just a guy with a track record of unvalidated claims bringing up a long-debunked method. Nothing can beat a tall turbine with big blades.
Bird kills are not significant. Kill cats instead. Some places have significant bat kills though.
Funnels are claimed to be more efficient, but they aren't. It's just a guy with a track record of unvalidated claims bringing up a long-debunked method. Nothing can beat a tall turbine with big blades.
Hutto's a fair way out from Austin–a plausible but long commute–and is right on SH130; Texas State Highway 130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Hutto's not marked, on this map the tip top of the "d" in Round Rock points at Hutto). I live a few miles away.
oh yeah, forgot about 130 that was starting construction right when I left. If Tesla chooses Hutto I might need to work there just to ensure success
Yeah, I lived in Austin central for about 20 years and used to cycle out to and around Hutto. I know that the outlying areas still bring people into Austin for many reasons. I knew plenty of people who commuted to work from Elgin, which is a similar distance. But agreed, if they work and live there it won't be a commute.
In another thread, a Buckeye, AZ resident noted that "a reporter" revealed that Buckeye is on the short list "of Arizona sites".
While I'd be thrilled if the GF comes to Arizona, I think the proper response is "move on - nothing to see here". Regardless: you read it here first.
While I'd be thrilled if the GF comes to Arizona, I think the proper response is "move on - nothing to see here". Regardless: you read it here first.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Informative Article Giga Factory (conflict) Minerals and Enviroment
Tesla, citing environment, to use North American materials for battery plant
March 29, 2014 - 12:49 am ET HOUSTON (Bloomberg) --
Tesla Motors Inc. plans to source all the raw materials for its proposed $5 billion U.S. battery factory in North America.
The Silicon Valley company won't look overseas for the graphite, cobalt and other materials needed for its so-called Gigafactory, said Liz Jarvis-Shean, a spokeswoman.
"It will enable us to establish a supply chain that is local and focused on minimizing environmental impact while significantly reducing battery cost," she said.
The move comes amid heightened interest in curbing graphite pollution and a widespread corporate sensitivity about avoiding the use of industrial minerals from troubled parts of the world.
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...t-to-use-north-american-materials-for-battery#
Tesla, citing environment, to use North American materials for battery plant
|
|
| A rendering of Tesla's planned gigafactory to be built in the Southwest. Photo credit: TESLA |
Tesla Motors Inc. plans to source all the raw materials for its proposed $5 billion U.S. battery factory in North America.
The Silicon Valley company won't look overseas for the graphite, cobalt and other materials needed for its so-called Gigafactory, said Liz Jarvis-Shean, a spokeswoman.
"It will enable us to establish a supply chain that is local and focused on minimizing environmental impact while significantly reducing battery cost," she said.
The move comes amid heightened interest in curbing graphite pollution and a widespread corporate sensitivity about avoiding the use of industrial minerals from troubled parts of the world.
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...t-to-use-north-american-materials-for-battery#
jackbowers
Jack Bowers
Nevada taxes business payrolls at 2%, and derives substantial property tax revenue too. A plant like this would generate more than enough revenue to pay for any impact it creates. Plus, a large percentage of voters here are small business owners, many of whom relocated out of California, and as a result there is a very strong bias against raising taxes.
green1
Active Member
It's pretty much a guarantee that those 30% cost savings will spread to the S and X as well as the GenIII, the question is, what will be done with those savings? There are a few options:
- Decrease cost of MS and MX, I don't really see this happening, at least not significantly, these are the premium cars and will always be expensive
- Increase profit margin, They're already at about 30%, I can't really see them trying to raise this much more either
- Increase capacity of the battery packs (100Kwh pack for the price of an 85?) this seems likely only if they can reduce weight at the same time as cost, as some others have pointed out, making a bigger pack at this point may be counter productive as much of the range gain would be eaten up by the weight of the pack itself. lightening the cells would be required to make a big difference here in range.
- Add more toys to the MS and MX without upping the cost much. This, to me, seems the most likely, things like "auto-pilot", better seats, better materials, etc could become standard, and then the S could finally compete with the "toys" that other high end luxury cars have while still having the best drivetrain and not being any more expensive.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Probably option 3 and 4 on Green1's list.
In order to reduce cost they will have to also increase energy density. Elon has already alluded to this next generation battery for the Gigafactory. It will not increase density by 30% but a pretty good number never the less.
The Model S has significantly less standard features than a typical car in the Model S price class, as former S Class, 7 Series, and Lexus LS owners keep whining about. So the luxury chasm with power cool, heat and 12 way power adjustable memory seats needs to be closed.
In order to reduce cost they will have to also increase energy density. Elon has already alluded to this next generation battery for the Gigafactory. It will not increase density by 30% but a pretty good number never the less.
The Model S has significantly less standard features than a typical car in the Model S price class, as former S Class, 7 Series, and Lexus LS owners keep whining about. So the luxury chasm with power cool, heat and 12 way power adjustable memory seats needs to be closed.
That is an interesting Price Elasticity of Demand curve that green1 is hypothesizing and Rob concurring, in that you are suggesting that Point #1 is a non-starter: that "these are premium cars and will always be expensive".
You may be correct....or may not. What you are suggesting, to the extent TMC behaves like a normal profit-maximizing operation, which is a reasonable but not axiomatic assumption, is that the marginal revenue gained from the car being priced at Point X, sales volume at Y, is greater than it would be with price being X minus something and volume at Y plus something.
I will observe, however, that first, the Price Elasticity might be more normally shaped - so greater profits would occur at a lower price point, and, perhaps more tellingly, a strong point can be made for such a tactic as flying in the face of The Secret Master Plan.
We shall see!
You may be correct....or may not. What you are suggesting, to the extent TMC behaves like a normal profit-maximizing operation, which is a reasonable but not axiomatic assumption, is that the marginal revenue gained from the car being priced at Point X, sales volume at Y, is greater than it would be with price being X minus something and volume at Y plus something.
I will observe, however, that first, the Price Elasticity might be more normally shaped - so greater profits would occur at a lower price point, and, perhaps more tellingly, a strong point can be made for such a tactic as flying in the face of The Secret Master Plan.
We shall see!
RobStark
Well-Known Member
Tesla is a self proclaimed maker of "premium electric vehicles."
It would be just plain dumb to move a successful premium sedan down market. Leaving those 25% plus margins on the table is just plain dumb, even from a green lets save the world perspective. Because those funds fund projects at the lower end, expanding supercharger coverage etc.
What Tesla should and probably will do is flesh out the portfolio.
Model S = BMW 6&7 Series or MB S & CLS Class
3rd Gen Sedan = BMW 3 Series, MB C Class,and Audi A4.
It then makes sense to have a direct BMW 5 Series and E Class competitor at some point.
To me a sub $30k Tesla should get a different brand so as not to dilute the "Tesla" brand. Maybe different stores at lower end Malls but same service centers. And definitely same superchargers.
Maybe a Nikola $12k subcompact that competes with the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa etc.
At some point in the distant future a Tesla for every purse and purpose
Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
There is a huge market for electric urban busses and delivery vehicles. Tesla might be able to use extra capacity to provide those vehicles.
Similar threads
- Article
