Tesla Chooses Nevada For Its First Gigafactory
Elon Musk, Chairman and CEO of California-based Tesla Motors, announced on Thursday that the company's Gigafactory will be constructed in Nevada. Governor Brian Sandoval said that this agreement will bring nearly 100 billion dollars to the state over the next 20 years. This will also be the world's largest, most advanced battery factory, he said.
The plant is expected to provide 6,500 jobs.
"I am grateful that Elon Musk and Tesla saw the promise in Nevada," Governor Sandoval said. "These 21st century pioneers, fueled with innovation and desire, are emboldened by the promise of Nevada to change the world. Nevada is ready to lead."
Although Tesla has reached a deal with Nevada, this won't be the only Gigafactory location. A Tesla representative said that discussions with other states are ongoing. "We've always said we anticipated breaking ground at more than one site for the Gigafactory," the rep told Tom's Hardware.
Tesla made the announcement that it was looking for places to build its Gigafactories back in February. That prompted Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Tesla's home state of California to compete for Tesla's business. All five have tax benefits and "other incentives," according to USA Today.
The Dallas Morning News, reporting that Tesla didn't choose the 700-acre site in southern Dallas County, said that Tesla plans to mass-market its $35,000 Model 3 electric car by 2017. The company is already manufacturing the Model S Sedan for a meaty $70,000. The main purpose of the Gigafactory is to create cheaper batteries so that the company can sell Tesla cars for a cheaper price.
According to the report, the Gigafactory will cost around $5 billion to build, and Tesla is expected to pay for half the cost. Panasonic will invest in equipment and build the Lithium-ion battery cells. Presumably, additional partners will cover the other half of the cost.
"I would like to recognize the leadership of Governor Sandoval and the Nevada Legislature for partnering with Tesla to bring the Gigafactory to the state," Musk said. "The Gigafactory is an important step in advancing the cause of sustainable transportation and will enable the mass production of compelling electric vehicles for decades to come. Together with Panasonic and other partners, we look forward to realizing the full potential of this project."
Follow Kevin Parrish @exfileme. Follow us @tomshardware, on Facebook and on Google+.
Buy a WRX with a blown motor and build an electric version. If John Wayland can make a Datsun 1200 go from 0-60 mph in 1.8 seconds, just think how quick an AWD might be off the line.
Working at Tesla would be the goal, not means to an end
Probably why they chose Nevada. The land's already been nuked to shit. Can't make it much worse.
You are buying a car that runs on 70% COAL. The highest polluting fossil fuel available.
Since about 70% of the electricity produced in the US made by burning Coal. Which a lot of the power plants are old enough that they do not have to meet EPA emission requirements.
Once you figure in the power needed to produce the batteries and their pollution. Then the pollution created to charge the vehicle, they produce more pollution than efficient gas or diesel engines.
But the power companies love them.
And the government is giving them billions of taxpayers dollars to produce and promote them.
I could add a laundry list of additional benefits to EV cars, but yeah, its not needed.
Ya mean, they don't capture lightning bugs in a jar?!!
AHN,
As for efficiencies, there's nothing efficient about running electricity thru cables. "Entropy" is one word for it.
If you watch the conference with the governor of Nevada and Elon Musk, the plant will be powered by solar panels and he hints that the plant will not harm the environment.
70% coal, that will be reduced in the future, so electric cars will automatically become better while aging gas cars are getting worse with worn catalytic converter(s).
I wasn't aware some coal powered plants were exempt from Obama's clean coal plan.
Up In Washington state, most of the energy comes from renewables so it's absolutely a 'no duh' decision about which is greener.
I have heard even if powered by dirty coal, and electric car is still as good as a Prius.
I could add a laundry list of additional benefits to EV cars, but yeah, its not needed.
I never stated anything about efficiency. Your reading comprehension skills need improving.
My rant was about the amount of pollution created.
Just like Ethanol ,it creates more pollution and CO2 emissions than burning gasoline.
At this time both create more pollution when figured as a whole. Their whole premise is to create less CO2 emissions and pollution ,which they both fail at.
So maybe you should do a little research on your own and quit watching Fox news and commercials.
Along with the lack of efficiencies in cabling, ever consider how much energy is used to MAKE steel, aluminum and all that cable rigging? Of course, we've all seen those cables being laid beside highways using horse & buggy, too, right? Yep... lotsa efficiences, lotsa energy savings going on everywhere.
If only those Tesla Towers had caught on... maybe we could have evolved into a Blade Runner city-scape by now! Wheee! Wouldn't that be great? Everyone's dream vision!
But the powering of the Tesla plants can be solar or wind. The by-products, the waste - they conveniently ignored all mention of that.
As was noted above, Nevada's long-standing nuked-glass "fields of sand" might be a great location for it. And since their above-ground water sources head for LA, yes indeed, I suspect that great "Los Angeles River" will hafta worry about something other than a few giant ants occasionally.
If you watch the conference with the governor of Nevada and Elon Musk, the plant will be powered by solar panels and he hints that the plant will not harm the environment.
70% coal, that will be reduced in the future, so electric cars will automatically become better while aging gas cars are getting worse with worn catalytic converter(s).
I wasn't aware some coal powered plants were exempt from Obama's clean coal plan.
Up In Washington state, most of the energy comes from renewables so it's absolutely a 'no duh' decision about which is greener.
I have heard even if powered by dirty coal, and electric car is still as good as a Prius.
As of right now they are exempt. The new plan deadline not take effect for another year and a half. As of right now it appears none have started the retrofit process, and none will be completed by the deadline. And the power company lobbyist are hard at work bribing congress for more exemptions and delays on implementing it.
Their stance is that it will be too costly to retrofit the older plants and they will shut them down causing a major energy crisis, while having to double or triple the cost of electricity for the consumer.
Bottom line is that it will cut into their profits and that is all that matters.
Ya mean, they don't capture lightning bugs in a jar?!!
AHN,
As for efficiencies, there's nothing efficient about running electricity thru cables. "Entropy" is one word for it.
thats why i de-rated the power station efficiency by a loss of 10% or so, which is actually higher than the average, but im rounding everything towards making gas engines more competitive. My whole argument is based on "entropy". (more specifically thermodynamic, electrical and mechanical principles)
bottom line is, large scale electrical generation, even with current transmission technology can be reasonably expected to be almost double the power delivered to the wheels per unit thermal input
apply that, (lets conservatively say 1.8 times, not double) to the 130 billion bbl the US used in gasoline alone last year.... do i really have to go on here? (57 billion bbl of gasoline magically stays in our tanks, which also can be used for plastics and chemical processing)