Agreed, there was also the plans to increase the battery cell production in June by Panasonic.
Agreed. hopefully he knows it`s harder for him to sleep on the GF3 factory floor than in Fremont or at GF1.
And it won. As it deserved to.
2013 Tesla Model S Beats Chevy, Toyota, and Cadillac for Ultimate Car of the Year Honors - MotorTrend
That's my car... when do you think its value will start rising due to collector value?
Note that I can see four low capex methods to make space at Fremont for Model Y production:
A fourth, high capex method is to build new buildings at Fremont:
- Retool the Model S body line - this just got easier to do.
- Use the space of the 75D pack assembly lines - this too just got easier to do as well with the new Model S/X.
- Free up and shrink warehouse space at Fremont and re-purpose it as factory floor space. Guess what: Tesla is applying the finishing touches on their new giant warehouse just 55 miles away from Fremont: "Tesla’s massive distribution center in Northern California is coming to life".
- Reduce the complexity of the Model S/X interior, this would free up plastic molding lines at the molding shop. (See 'plastics' on the map below.) The rumored/leaked Model S/X interior refresh might enable this.
The blue areas are still available expansion areas I believe - but those would have longer lead time than the re-purposing of existing factory floor space, and would cost significantly more.
Anyway, I think the chances have now increased that Tesla might be able to build the Model Y at Fremont. The other option would be to do it at the Nevada Gigafactory.
(we have VAT and more expensive labour) I might be able to do cheaper than $2/tree from some of the Hveragerði supppliers, or in greater bulk. But buying ~300 a time in Reykjavík costs nearly $2 per tree for conifers. Also, the rate at which one can plant trees varies greatly on the tree size and ground type. In the degraded grassland when planting small seedling trees I have to clear grass around them so that they get sufficient light, which is time consuming. In some areas the soil is easy to work, while in others rocks make more work out of it. And in boggy areas when planting e.g. tamarack, or on steep slopes, getting around can be more difficult.
Context is everything. Example: I own land that's been degraded by a millennium of overgrazing; while in ancient times it surely was home to birch forest, today it's 50% poor grassland and 50% gravel barrens (well, and some iron bogs, but they're good and shall remain boggy). The canyon slopes are subject to landslides as a result of the degradation. Simple restoration of the soil by fertilizer (it's highly phosphorus and nitrogen deficient), manure, or seeding leguminous plants can increase the amount of carbon in the soil (and overland) dramatically in 5-10 years or so - about 10t/ha aboveground and ~120t/ha underground to the gravel barrens, somewhat less for the poor grasslands. Reforestation (taiga species) would add another ~80t/ha aboveground and ~50t/ha underground over several decades. So long as the biome remains "forest", the carbon sequestered will not decline, as new trees replace ones that die - indeed, mature trees would continue to seed the barrens around them, expanding their groves and continuing to lock up more carbon. So long as grasslands are not allowed to become overgrazed again, their carbon, too, will remain locked up.
I have 8ha. That's a lot of carbon sequestration potential just from restoration and reforestation - something like 2000t when all is said and done. Honestly, the only thing that stops me from doing more is how much money I have to sink into things like soil restoration or buying seedlings. Even the smallest conifer seedlings I can get are ~$2 each, which would mean tens of thousands of dollars in reforestation costs. If I want larger trees that get the job done sooner, they're even more expensive. I've already spent many hundreds of dollars on fertilizer, and probably need to spend thousands more to get phosphorus up to normal. And whether I do nitrogen from synthetic fertilizers, paying for dozens of manure spreader truckloads, or legume planting, that too will come with a significant price tag.
Or to put it another way... cash does sequester carbon.
(On that note, if anyone wants to sequester some carbon, you're more than welcome to support restoration or reforestation plans on my land - I'd do all the grunt work, and send photos of your plants
Context is everything. Example: I own land that's been degraded by a millennium of overgrazing; while in ancient times it surely was home to birch forest, today it's 50% poor grassland and 50% gravel barrens (well, and some iron bogs, but they're good and shall remain boggy). The canyon slopes are subject to landslides as a result of the degradation. Simple restoration of the soil by fertilizer (it's highly phosphorus and nitrogen deficient), manure, or seeding leguminous plants can increase the amount of carbon in the soil (and overland) dramatically in 5-10 years or so - about 10t/ha aboveground and ~120t/ha underground to the gravel barrens, somewhat less for the poor grasslands. Reforestation (taiga species) would add another ~80t/ha aboveground and ~50t/ha underground over several decades. So long as the biome remains "forest", the carbon sequestered will not decline, as new trees replace ones that die - indeed, mature trees would continue to seed the barrens around them, expanding their groves and continuing to lock up more carbon. So long as grasslands are not allowed to become overgrazed again, their carbon, too, will remain locked up.
I have 8ha. That's a lot of carbon sequestration potential just from restoration and reforestation - something like 2000t when all is said and done. Honestly, the only thing that stops me from doing more is how much money I have to sink into things like soil restoration or buying seedlings. Even the smallest conifer seedlings I can get are ~$2 each, which would mean tens of thousands of dollars in reforestation costs. If I want larger trees that get the job done sooner, they're even more expensive. I've already spent many hundreds of dollars on fertilizer, and probably need to spend thousands more to get phosphorus up to normal. And whether I do nitrogen from synthetic fertilizers, paying for dozens of manure spreader truckloads, or legume planting, that too will come with a significant price tag.
Or to put it another way... cash does sequester carbon.
(On that note, if anyone wants to sequester some carbon, you're more than welcome to support restoration or reforestation plans on my land - I'd do all the grunt work, and send photos of your plants
