Jul 12, 2014
Jackl1956 http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/Average%20PV%20Price%20(ITC).png�
Jul 12, 2014
evme EIA chart does not agree:
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Source
I see plenty of renewable energy options cheaper than conventional energy.�
Jul 12, 2014
30seconds More expensive like as in "Free?"
Sun, wind combine to give Germany some free electricity - CSMonitor.com�
Jul 12, 2014
Cosmacelf Huh? I don't. The cheapest conventional is around $65/MW, and the cheapest renewable is $80 (wind, which can only be built in certain areas). Solar PV is around $130 before subsidies. And these are projected numbers for year 2019. Hydro is relatively cheap, of course, but we've built all the hydro plants that we can.�
Jul 12, 2014
Cosmacelf Don't be silly, no power plant is free. You have to take into account the cost of building the plant. Sure there are no fuel costs, but that doesn't make it free.�
Jul 12, 2014
evme Geothermal is not renewable? And scroll down at the minimum-maximum costs. California is located in some of the best sunlight in the US being on the west coast. Solar can be as low as
101.4. And this is for utility scale solar, localized solar would be cheaper.
I also disagree that we built all the hydro plants we can, we can build plenty more.
And using 2019 numbers is fair game since we are talking about a 2020 deadline.
These numbers also do not factor in social and environmental costs which do not favor fossil fuels.�
Jul 12, 2014
Cosmacelf Sheesh, calm down. Geothermal is renewable, but again, there are limited places where you can use it. Since it is so economical, and many states mandate renewable energy production, you can bet that all the geothermal plants that can be built are being built. But sure, if all renewable energy production mandates could be made with geothermal, energy costs would indeed go down. But it isn't the case.
My point still stands, our electric energy bills are going up due to renewable mandates, and your link shows why.
Utility scale solar is actually cheaper than residential solar on a per kWh produced basis, so I'm not sure how you came to the opposite conclusion.
All forms of energy generation have varying amounts of social and environmental costs (and benefits). I wasn't making a larger value judgement, just pointing out that renewable mandates cost us ratepayers extra money. In particular the renewal mandates do not reduce electricity costs which is the original assertion that I was refuting.�
Jul 13, 2014
evme
I am calm. Nothing to get worked up about. There is plenty of geothermal potential, especially in the west. The west can probably get most of its power from geothermal:
http://www.climatetechwiki.org/sites/climatetechwiki.org/files/images/extra/geothermal_resources_u.s.jpg
NREL puts US geothermal potential at 31,300twh per year: (or almost 10X the current energy production of the US)
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51946.pdf�
Jul 13, 2014
AlMc Cosma and EV: Great discussion and links. Thanks. Maybe a mod can move it to a thread with a Title about ....Do renewable energy sources cost ratepayers more....�
Jul 13, 2014
30seconds I agree - total costs including building plants, huge government subsidies and externality costs should be included in a calculation of total energy production costs. Of course if you do that renewables still come out ahead.
in terms of your contention that renewables will increase rates I have yet to see you post any data in support. The Germany example is a situation where renewables have led to rate decreases.
Overall solar and wind are quickly becoming cheaper than coal, which is one of the main reasons why utilities are investing. And hydro has been much lower for a long time - ask anyone in the Pacific Northwest why their electricity is cheaper than the rest of the country.�
Jul 13, 2014
Cosmacelf Thanks for the link. I didn't realize there was enhanced geothermal power production, I only knew about hydro geothermal, which, as your link shows, has limited capacity.
Enhanced geothermal basically creates two boreholes deep into tight rock formations, and pumps water (presumably not just water, but with some additives) up and down 5 kilometers or so to capture the heat within those rock formations. It isn't a true renewable energy source as each plant is only expected to work for 20-30 years before all the heat is extracted from that plant's area. So I'd call it a green technology, not renewable. It is also experimental. So there might be that much energy capacity, IF the current experimental power plants being built work out. At any rate, you can't build a lot of plants now as the economics are still being figured out.
BTW, Are those power numbers in the report per year? I couldn't find anywhere in the report something that actually defined what the potential and capacity numbers truly were.�
Jul 13, 2014
Cosmacelf No, German electricity rates have not been dropping. Read this:
Renewables and Costs in Germany | The Energy Collective
Germany may be unique in that they actually break out how much their renewable mandates cost them on their electric bills.
Germany is also going through another transition when they decided recently to abandon their green nuclear power plants, and are replacing that needed power production with ... Coal.
Wholesale electric costs have been dropping lately in Germany, but that is due to more coal coming on line. It certainly hasn't been reflected in German consumer electric rates.
Of course Hydro is why electric rates are so low in the Northwest. Hydro is great, but most economic and environmentally feasible hydro plant locations have already been built. I suppose you could theoretically dam up things like the Truckee river in Lake Tahoe to generate electricity, but good luck getting it approved!
As the previous links show, coal is a much cheaper way to generate electricity than solar and wind. The only way it becomes uneconomic is if you introduce artificial carbon caps. Which has the effect of increasing consumer electric bills. Which is my overall point. Have your electric bills gone down as renewable energy has gone up? I didn't think so.�
Jul 13, 2014
chickensevil The prices are coming down though and are getting to a pretty good level of starting to be cost competitive.�
Jul 13, 2014
Jackl1956 The better question is, what do the the utility companies charge vs their cost of generation.
Can homeowners generate power for less dollars than the utility will sell it for?
Can business owners generate power for less dollars than they are paying?
This competitive paradigm will improve costs across the board. If you are a business owner, how much are your demand charges? There is a reason Walmart is the number one user of solar power in the U.S.�
Jul 13, 2014
green1 Yes, easily. The problem is that we can't STORE that power cheaply, so the utility can still set up a situation where it makes very little sense to go solar due to paying a fraction for your excess electricity vs what you pay them to buy it back.�
Jul 13, 2014
evme
Yes, the numbers are per year. You can use the potential power capacity and do the math to realize that it is per year. Also, looking at the chart, California can generate 100% of their power from hydrothermal.
In the west, a lot of the hydro potential has been built (not all), but there is a lot of hydro potential in the east which would be fairly economic to build and no need to add new dams:
U.S. Hydropower Potential from Existing Non-powered Dams | Department of Energy
Also, if your comparing the chart I showed vs coal. Solar in the lower cost brackets is cheaper than coal in the higher brackets and wind is definitely cheaper than coal. The question just comes down to if you are aiming for 100% renewable energy or 33%. If you are aiming for 33% then you can build highly efficient natural gas power stations that supplement wind. Of course if your goal is 100% renewable, that would not work as the wind generation would be tried down the the natural gas.�
Jul 13, 2014
kenliles So the extracted heat returns after extraction, but over a very long time. That would make oil, coal, nat gas renewable albeit not green. under that definition, I don't think there is a non-renewable source given sufficient time. It's the rate that matters (not size)
�
Jul 13, 2014
Jackl1956 Tesla Motors Inc. (TSLA)'s New $5 Billion Giga Factory May go to Texas | Tech Insider�
Jul 16, 2014
sleepyhead More on Texas:
http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/news/2014/07/10/tesla-eyeing-700-acres-in-southern-dallas-for-5b.html?ana=twt�
Jul 16, 2014
Mitthrawnuruodo My friend considered buying some of this land awhile ago. He had this to say about it: (published with his blessing)
"it was supposed to be developed about 10 years ago as an "inland port." massive warehouses were built out there. essentially, it was going to be a hub for nearly all trucking in the US
it's off of I-35 and I-20
but the perot kids (who own a lot of warehousing in NW Ft. Worth) lobbied like crazy amongst the local politicians
and the company trying to build up that whole area filed for bankruptcy (to re-shuffle)
that area is still undeveloped and very poor
and the county commissioner (john wiley price)...the one that was using all of his might to shut it down....has been under investigation of the fbi for the last 3 years
he has little standing anymore to oppose the project
and southern dallas county needs the jobs. it's rural and poor down there"
Also, we just realized: SpaceX receives FAA approval for proposed spaceport in Texas | Fox News
Tesla is likley pushing to get the anti-sales legislature overturned. I don't doubt that will follow (edit: somewhat easily) easily after both spacex and Tesla developing in Texas to such a magnitude.�
Jul 16, 2014
Jackl1956 Tesla may build Gigafactory at home in California after all - Phoenix Business Journal
I like what Simon had to say.�
Jul 16, 2014
sleepyhead I think Texas should win, because it is the best state to do business in; or very close to the best. If none of the states gave any incentives to Tesla then Texas would win without a doubt and California would lose to 49 other states. There was an article today that ranked California as the worst state to do business in.
That said, even though I am from Texas, I really don't care if Texas wins or not; its not like we need the jobs here as much as the other states do. I just hope that Tesla does the right thing and makes the best decision for all stakeholders.
Also, since states are fighting over Tesla by trying to outdo one another with incentives, I think that China might threaten to slap anti-subsidy tariffs on all Tesla vehicles and battery packs for energy storage to show the US how hypocritical it is when it puts tariffs on Chinese products. Even the WTO sides with China.
Just some food for thought. Don't be surprised to see China looking to put tariffs on Tesla vehicles if these state incentives are indeed huge, and it sounds like they will be...�
Jul 16, 2014
apacheguy Sorry, but I fail to see why Tesla would want to benefit a state that has been a thorn in their side since the beginning. Not to mention higher shipping costs and longer delays because of the distance.
People think that California has a stifling regulatory environment but they fail to realize that there is a reason Tesla was founded right here in the Golden State. CA promotes EVs while Texas does not, in large part because of regulation.�
Jul 16, 2014
AlMc Serious question: Does the promotion of EVs cover a battery factory or the facility that only makes the vehicles? I see potential problems with environmental groups in Cali that I do not think you would see in Texas or Nevada. I have always felt Cali will eventually get a battery factory. They may even be in the group of 2-3 states that simultaneously break ground. I just believe they will not have the first functioning factory.�
Jul 16, 2014
sleepyhead Tesla is not making a decision to "benefit a state". They are making a decision to benefit themselves.
Texas is an extremely business friendly state, whereas California for example is not (and that is why it wasn't mentioned as a candidate initially).
If Texas wins it is because it is good business for Tesla and not because Elon wants Texas to benefit. Fortunately for us Elon is not short-sighted like some of the anti-Texas arguments that keep popping up.
Texas has very strong dealership laws in place and if you understand politics, then it isn't that easy to change these laws because lobbies fight hard. Elon is not going to hold a grudge over Texas for this reason. He is all about business and will do what is best for Tesla.�
Jul 16, 2014
apacheguy Thanks for implying my argument is short-sighted, which I can assure, it is not. I see no further point debating this with you.�
Jul 16, 2014
AlMc I am not a 'Sleepy apologist' but there have been several comments that Tesla (Elon) should punish Texas for their caving to dealership pressure/anti direct sales position. The wording of his comment does not appear to be directed at a single individual. I do believe IF Tesla is faced with two equal 'deals' that it would make sense to award the GFactory to the state that is/has been more tesla friendly. However, most of us here are stockholders as well as vehicle owners. From that perspective I want tesla to take the best deal so we can get the least expensive batteries. From a business sense it is best to have a short memory and not hold grudges.�
Jul 16, 2014
sleepyhead Exactly this. I was making a general observation.
There have been people suggesting the Elon should make Texas believe that they are in the running just to screw with them and then pull the plug last minute on Texas.�
Jul 16, 2014
kenliles Unless you do business selling cars without a dealership, then it sucks.
San Antonio option for the GF would be good. Elon could sell car shells (no battery) in Texas (no dealership needed); then add the GF battery with fast swap post sale, sold by the GF consortium - done
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah that's just dumb. Not thinking he's going there sleepy. He's got a lot invested in the SpaceX port there etc. Just not in his character it seems to me. He'll do the best thing for the company�
Jul 16, 2014
Jackl1956 California's Business Environment
Many criticize the business environment in California. Let's consider California's business history. In the interest of brevity we'll keep the list short.
Disney
Apple
Intel
McDonalds
Qualcomm
Hollywood (the entire movie industry)
Tesla
I tried to limit the list to firms that have absolutely "changed the world".�
Jul 16, 2014
bollar I think Musk is more strategic than that. Texas is already one of Tesla's largest markets, despite limited investment on Tesla's part and I t has the possibility to be much larger. I expect the state's offer will eventually offer a concession on dealerships, similar to what we've seen in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. But I don't think Texas will play that card until we're getting close to the end of the selection process.�
Jul 16, 2014
sleepyhead A special message for the guy who would break California into 6 states - LA Times
On his website, Six Californias, Draper writes, �California needs a reboot. Our public schools have gone from the top in the nation to 47th. We are ranked 50th out of 50 for the worst business climate in the United States �. Our state needs a massive investment in infrastructure and a streamlined process to help grow and keep business. Our state needs our help.�
I cannot disagree...
Even the LA Times writer can't disagree with that...�
Jul 16, 2014
30seconds you may have missed a few
Genentech
Oracle
Hewitt-Packard
Fairchild
Amgen
SpaceX
but hey, let's break it up so some asswipe can cut his tax bill�
Jul 17, 2014
ev-enthusiast BMW joins Tesla Motors in race for high grade automotive battery cell supply.
As BMW is currently a bit surprised about initial sales of their i3 beeing bigger than expected (i3 vehicles sold in H1 2014: 5400, i8 deliveries started in June), they signed a multi-billion dollar contract with their existing supplier Samsung SDI on Tuesday in Seoul.
Battery supply by Samsung SDI to be expanded about 25% for 2016 compared to prior plannings.
Samsung batteries to be used in all-electric vehicles as well as in hybrids.
BMW takes different approach compared to Tesla and partners with supplier Samsung SDI and does not build a facility on their own, but that was to be expected from BMW.
For a car currently build at BMW there is only about 20-25% of the work done at a BMW plant, most of the work is done by the suppliers.
Bottom line:
BMW is planning for a big battery cell demand in the next two years, thus Tesla's expensive Gigafactory plans no longer appear to be extraordinary.
Links (sorry, in German):
Neue Batterietechnik: BMW schließt Milliardendeal mit Samsung - Industrie - Unternehmen - Handelsblatt
BMW setzt bei Batteriezellen für E- und Hybridautos weiter auf Samsung
Link (google translate):
Google �bersetzer
Google �bersetzer�
Jul 17, 2014
techmaven
Assuming BMW builds 15,000 i3's and i8's in 2014, that's 360,000 kWh or 0.36 GWh. Let's add in another 40,000 kWh for plug in hybrids (way too high, but a nice round number) to 0.40 GWh. Let's assume BMW wants to increase buying Samsung SDI's batteries by 25% each year. So by the end of 2017, that's 0.78 GWh. Even at that point, it's not at even a 1 GWh capacity level.
In contrast, Nissan's battery plant in Smyrna, TN has a nameplate capacity of about 1.4 GWh, even though it isn't clear when it will hit that level. So to match Nissan's existing TN plant, BMW would have to increase battery purchases by about 50% each year. That's not even Nissan's only battery plant.
Tesla's current purchase level from Panasonic, before the increase coming this year, is roughly 2.8 GWh, or 7 X BMW's current purchase level from Samsung SDI. Tesla wants to hit 35 GWh in cell production in their first Gigafactory in 2020, or 88 X the current BMW purchase level, and 45+ X the announced expansion level. Even if by 2017, Tesla's Gigafactory #1 pumps out 1/3 nameplate capacity, it would be 15X BMW's announced expansion.
Bottom line: BMW's announced battery purchase plans are far from extraordinary and are not in the same league as Tesla's Gigafactory plans.�
Jul 17, 2014
Curt Renz An impressive list, Jack, however McDonald's as an earth shaker really needs to be credited to Illinois.
In 1955 Ray Kroc of Illinois bought the name and fast service system from the McDonald brothers who had opened a restaurant in California in 1940. The first McDonald's restaurant under Kroc's corporation was in Des Plaines, Illinois and is now a museum. He then began franchising like crazy, which was what really brought about the fast food revolution. The corporate headquarters is in Oak Brook, Illinois.�
Jul 17, 2014
ev-enthusiast Techmaven, thanks for your math.
It is difficult for me to estimate the future sales numbers of the BMW i brand vehicles for the next years. I do not know BMW ramp up plans. I have only the numbers of H1 2014.
What I know is that they can scale up easily in their plant in Leipzig and that a family sedan called i5 is already in the works.
So far I agree on your math for this year:
BMW: 0.40 GWh
Tesla: 2.8 GWh
Sure, factor 7 is a big difference, but I expected the difference to be even bigger. It is less than factor 10, same magnitude.
To my opinion the multi-billion dollar deal between BMW and Samsung SDI shows BMW's growing confidence in the electric vehicle market and corresponding battery cell demand.�
Jul 17, 2014
evme A new development:
Can the world Quartz
It seems that NMC will not get the promise of improvement they thought it will. This is a pretty big blow to GM(with LG chem) and BMW(with Samsung)�
Jul 17, 2014
dhanson865 McDonalds?
Anything you want to attribute to McDonals as it is today has nothing to do with the guys in California it was the dude in Illinois that pushed McD all around...�
Jul 17, 2014
Jackl1956 The seminal "Golden Arches" were first built in San Bernardino, California.
I will always consider Ray Kroc a favorite son of San Diego. A Padres thing.�
Jul 17, 2014
ItsNotAboutTheMoney Without knowing the terms of the deal we can't really read the meaning. Is it just fixing the price of the next nkWh of capacity or is BMW promising to buy that amount?�
Jul 17, 2014
AlMc I have always felt that the BMWs and MBs of the world would not try to compete with TM. The question is will the public be satisfied with hybrids? BMW and MB would as it will allow their dealers to still have the ICE part of the vehicle to service so they will be very willing to sell hybrids versus EVs. Many in the public will be happy with 40-80 mile battery ranges for short trips and having the convenience of being able to gas up anywhere for long trips. No range anxiety.
TM, and other EVs will 'win' when they can charge a battery to give it 200+ miles of range in the time it takes to fill a gas tank.�
Jul 17, 2014
RubberToe
GM == Epic Fail
RT
Sounds more like the battery researchers weren't able to deliver the required performance. A better battery would be great news, just as long as it doesn't give GM an advantage over Tesla :wink:�
Jul 17, 2014
JRP3 Nah, they'll win long before that.�
Jul 17, 2014
kenliles a total win perhaps- but I think the might win the war on a different mantra: 'plug in at home- always a full tank' even better -
couple that with the SC free for long trips- done deal, 'we're home free' (all puns intended)�
Jul 17, 2014
techmaven Great find. Thanks for posting this.
I corresponded with the author a little bit, asking for some clarity about various NMC chemistries and the like, because he seems to put the Nissan Leaf chemistry with the Samsung SDI/BMW chemistry into the same category. Paraphrasing, he's saying that the NMC issue with fade has to do with trying to increase the operating voltage above 4.2 volts which is what they were hoping to achieve to gain the specific energy levels above NCA and hopefully not suffer from the relative instability of NCA. He also said that the price levels he quoted are from "Burrell's presentation at the Annual Merit Review in Washington last month." Does anyone have access to that? It looks like energy.gov will publish it in October.
The implications of this are pretty startling. That means that there is little hope that the improvements in NMC chemistry that various non-Tesla automakers are banking on will pan out. Which means that Tesla's approach by using relatively volatile NCA chemistry but designing a battery pack to mitigate the issues with the volatility is going to be, in the short term, the winning solution. The existing NMC based cells as shipped by BMW and others have had far lower specific energy than Tesla's cells, and even given the cooling jackets and spacing, the overall specific energy at the pack level Tesla's solution is still superior.
That means that the next generation of BEVs will be locked behind Tesla's battery solution due to the inability to achieve higher specific energy density at the cell and pack levels.
�
Jul 17, 2014
JRP3 Professor Dahn still thinks the chemistry has some life in it:
�
Jul 17, 2014
techmaven The issue is what specific energy do you get when you do that. There is a big gap to jump - they were originally hoping for 280 Wh/kg, which is only slightly better than Tesla's 250-260 Wh/kg NCA cells. Using a different cathode with lower specific energy and using NMC as a shell is likely to make them miss the 280 Wh/kg target.�
Jul 17, 2014
JRP3 Agree, but if it still turns out to be cheaper, safer, and needs less pack support structure it could still be viable.�
Jul 17, 2014
MikeC Gotta keep the grant money rolling in.
I guess this is one of those "good for my portfolio, bad for the future of mankind" news stories.�
Jul 17, 2014
evme I wonder if the recent announcements from GM and BMW have something to do with all this. A lot of the manufacturers were hesitant to invest in batteries because they were waiting for their technology to breakthrough. Since they were most likely aware of these recent findings, could it be they decided to invest in it and focus on bringing down the cost on mass production? It might also explain why BMW had that meeting with Tesla.
I mean the timing can't all be a coincidence.
As for Nissan Leaf, I thought they used LMO then transitioned to LMO-NMC, didn't they?�
Jul 18, 2014
GreggThurman A little off topic, but I got into a discussion about the future of BEVs vs FCEVs on Green Car Report. The FCEV proponents were over the top defending FCEVs, making claims there were more charging stations, etc.
So I contacted DoE about that. I was directed to their alternative fueling station lists.
The list includes both public and private refueling/recharging sites. It doesn't differentiate, but was told it included employer refueling/recharging stations as well.
FCEV ALL OPEN (nationally): 53
FCEV ALL PROPOSED (nationally): 49
BEV ALL OPEN (nationally): 1192
BEV ALL PROPOSED (nationally): about 9000
It would seem, ignoring which was the better technology, that BEVs have public mind share, and investor interest for recharging systems.�
Jul 18, 2014
Benz Wow, 9000 really is a lot. But in how many years?�
Jul 18, 2014
GreggThurman For homeowners the answer is NO. For business owners the answer is in their current power consumption, the reason being the amortized cost of the generating equipment.
- - - Updated - - -
With the exception of Tesla and Qualcom, your list is of firms founded before the insanity ensued. I relocated my communications equipment business from San Bernardino, CA to Coeur d'Alene, ID in 1991. The change in governmental attitude was immediate, as was the growth of my firm. The exodus of California firms around that time resulted in several changes in California business work rules/taxes (that have all regressed to starting point).
- - - Updated - - -
The first "McDonald's" was located at 13th and "E" Street in San Bernardino, CA. In 1949, my father, an airman at nearby Norton Air Force Base was an evening manager.�
Jul 18, 2014
evme
Those numbers seem outdated as I am pretty sure there are over 5000 public charging sites, that said maybe you meant to post this under:
Competing technologies to BEV
Because I don't see what this has to do with the gigafactory or batteries is specific.�
Jul 18, 2014
dmckinstry Agreed. After all. They waste their time standing at the pump. Then they go in to the restroom, buy a snack, or eat dinner,etc. We can do the rest while we're charging.�
Jul 18, 2014
GreggThurman Tesla has developed a 'quick change' system whereby the battery is swapped in less time than it takes to gas up. Re-charging is not the issue any longer, it is the availability of recharging stations away from home or work. There are over 9000 stations BEV recharging stations planned (nationally) at this time. Tesla is spearheading the development of these sites with its Supercharger stations. One of these is co-located with a motel. I see motel co-locating as a mutually beneficial development for the BEV industry and the lodging industry.
- - - Updated - - -
The "download" was to another tab in my browser. From there had to I copy it to Excel. Yuck. Everything showed up in the first column (it ignored comma delimitation). The info may be there, but I was not going to try to break it out.
I would suspect in the next 3 - 5 years.
- - - Updated - - -
Thanks, as you can see I am new here, and not that familiar with all the subjects. The email I received
Shannon Brescher Shea
Clean Cities Communications Manager
Vehicle Technologies Office, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
(202) 586-8161
[email�protected]
said this about timeliness of date�
Jul 18, 2014
Gwgan Alternative Fuels Data Center: Alternative Fueling Station Locator
9,739 electric stations
22,757 charging outlets
including private stations, excluding Level 1 stations
vs
2,976 propane stations
1,399 CNG stations
Including Planned:
1,558 CNG stations
3,007 propane stations
9,789 electric stations
22,914 charging outlets
The site will also separate out Hydrogen, bio-diesel, LNG, and ethanol, for what that�s worth.�
Jul 18, 2014
AlMc Gregg, I am aware that technology exists. How many has TM actually opened? It is my opinion that instead of those stations, over time they will upgrade the software/hardware on the cars and the SCs to allow for very fast charging of the battery (ex: 80% in 10 minutes=close to time it takes to fill a gas tank). When that happens there will be no range anxiety. Until then, many people (not early adopters like we have on this forum) will not embrace EVs. In addition, even if they would adopt them TM will need to bring the Model E out at $35K to open up another market.
This will all happen but it is difficult to predict when that will be.�
Jul 20, 2014
Jackl1956 California very much in running for Tesla Gigafactory - SFGate
Seems as though Governor Brown is going "all in". I can only imagine Governor Perry is doing the same. Man, what I would have given to be a fly on the wall. I cannot think of another business endeavor where a businessman has leveraged an opportunity to this degree.�
Jul 20, 2014
AlMc TM is playing this very well. Probably has Sandoval of Nevada involved as well.�
Jul 20, 2014
Cosmacelf You know, Elon isn't actually trying to play states against each other. He is just trying to get a damn factory built. The reality is that a greenfield factory must go through tons of regulatory red tape, and Elon has a very real time deadline he is trying to meet. Hence his latest strategy of trying to build more than one factory. Whichever one gets the green light (and through enough red tape) fastest will be the location. The other locations won't be abandoned, they'll just be put on the back burner until they need gigafactory #2 and #3. Great strategy once again.�
Jul 20, 2014
chickensevil Which means really each of these states will be getting 6500 new jobs.�
Jul 21, 2014
austinEV And depending on what source you use, each new such job creates 1.6 local service industry jobs.�
Jul 21, 2014
Jackl1956 I've been mulling over the personnel requirements for the prospective 6,500 Gigafactory employees. In my mind the ability of a community to supply this talent pool will become a deciding factor in choosing a location. Obviously Silicon Valley is the Mecca of innovation, invention, and creativity. Texas, Nevada, Arizona, and new Mexico seem less capable of supplying the caliber of people available in California. (Yes, I'm deliberating trying to stir debate.)
The opportunity traffic jam created by the last TM Fremont job fair is a metaphor for Tesla's greatest strength. The brightest, most innovative, inventive and creative people in the world want to work for Elon Musk.
California is hands down the best choice for Tesla's Gigafactory.�
Jul 21, 2014
AlMc I posted this over on the TM forum yesterday:
AlMc | July 20, 2014 According to Elon the criteria that TM will use is the speed at which it can be built as it needs to be operational within 2-3 years and fully ramped up in 3-4 years as TM starts ramping up the Model 3 to 500K/year.
Say that all 5 states can get it up and running just as fast (Elon's #1 criteria). What are the other important criteria?
Mine, not in order of importance:
1. Cost to build (land, labor)
2. Infrastructure to support (railways/highways)
3. Cost to operate (tax incentives, labor costs)
4. Availability of skilled labor
5. Proximity to Freemont
6. Proximity to raw materials
7. Prior history with the state (do they support Tesla sales model?)
Anyone have additional criteria?�
Jul 22, 2014
Cattledog Perhaps it falls under #3, cost to operate, but I'd say another high (top three) criteria is partnerships. I know I have offed previously that a place like San Antonio, with an inventive municipal utility, could create some interesting channels for GigaFactory output. If part of the GigaFactory's future is supplying fixed storage for renewables like solar and wind, then someone like CPS, San Antonio's utility, could offer guaranteed purchase and implementation of the concept to prove the market viability. I'd imagine if structured at a large enough scale, Tesla would be quite interested in that.�
Jul 22, 2014
Causalien Anybody remember WLC and RBI.TO as a side investment play to provide Lithium to the gigafactory. What happened to them with the recent big drop? Has Tsla confirmed they are not using them as suppliers?�
Jul 22, 2014
AlMc I have a position in Western Lithium. It has been trading in the .45-.50 range for quite some time now. I averaged in over a three month period last year: Average: .34; It had spiked to over .80 at one point but quickly dropped back to the '40-50' again. That quick pop and drop was a couple months ago.�
Jul 22, 2014
Causalien I have positions in both. RBI has seen a huge drop recently and I thought it'd be the more stable of the two as it actually has mining operation going in instead of exploration. Ah well. Live and learn.�
Jul 22, 2014
evme There seems to be some earth being moved in Reno but it might not be related who knows if it is related: (it might be a pizza factory)
Is This the Site of the Tesla Giga Factory in Nevada? : Greentech Media�
Jul 22, 2014
Lump Is this the area?
2641 Portofino Drive sparks Nevada Portofino Dr, Sparks, NV 89434 - Google Maps�
Jul 22, 2014
MikeC I think that's gotta be it. What's a pizza factory, anyway? I thought pizza was made in restaurants.�
Jul 22, 2014
TSLAROX Gig(i's Pizz)a factory?�
Jul 22, 2014
AudubonB Glenn Williams's article in today's (22 July) The Street - http://www.thestreet.com/story/12781526/1/williams-shorting-teslas-batteries.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO - is horrifically misleading. His entire premise is wrong: that Tesla is building a "Li-ion" battery factory, one that could be made instantly obsolete by different technologies.
It is (they are) a battery factory, Mr. Williams and, while I certainly am not privy to its makeup, we have learned enough about it to be certain it easily could be re-structured to incorporate other chemistries. Shame on you - I did not see any way to respond to such grossly misleading writing.�
Jul 22, 2014
AlMc To boot, it is a reprint of an article out over a month ago I believe.�
Jul 22, 2014
AudubonB Or...it could be one and the same. I've heard of autos with pizzazz before, but never batteries....but what do I know? Or maybe they'll build cars there, as well.
The Tesla Pizzazz. It delivers!
�
Jul 22, 2014
AlMc Has a lot more cache than 'model 3'........I think you are on to something.�
Jul 22, 2014
30seconds I think it may be a factory for the world's largest pizza - the GigaZa�
Jul 22, 2014
ecarfan Looking on Google Earth there is a rail line near that location but a spur would have to be built to that address.
The article offers no evidence that the site could be the Gigafactory. It references "Tesla own blogs" which links to a Tesla forum page which of course is not official information from Tesla.
So maybe, maybe not.
The "pizza factory" line is a weak attempt at humor.�
Jul 22, 2014
AudubonB I hereby relinquish to Tesla Motors, Inc.or now to the end of eternity, for me, my heirs and assigns, all rights and claims of any kind whatsoever to "Tesla Pizzazz". This relinquishment specifically does not apply to any entity other than Tesla Motors, Inc. or its assigns.�
Jul 22, 2014
Curt Renz Indeed, there is an editor's note at the top stating that the article was originally published on June 21. The article reappeared shortly after today's current high. There is no allowance for comments to today's posting of he article. Why does TheStreet feel it needs to perform the service of regurgitating old FUD? Why won't it allow rebuttals to the article?�
Jul 22, 2014
AlMc Curt.....We are debating whether the ER dates for TM and Panasonic being the same is coincidence or by design.....your thoughts? Thanks�
Jul 22, 2014
Curt Renz Coincidence, of course, is quite possible. However if there were to be a major announcement involving both companies, then scheduling nearly simultaneous earnings reports would seem rather appropriate.�
Jul 22, 2014
eepic I think given the different market hours, this wouldn't be the best way to do a major announcement. Panasonic's earnings would come out in the morning (a full trading day) before Tesla. Tesla's earnings call would be early in the morning and brush up right against the open of the Japanese market, not ideal for letting the market digest a material announcement.
A joint press release is a much more appropriate mechanism for a big TM/Panasonic announcement. I think earnings are most likely on the same calendar day by coincidence. (Who knows though, they may press release a day ahead then both talk about it during earnings)�
Jul 22, 2014
Curt Renz Indeed, if there were to be a major joint announcement, that would be the sensible way to handle it.�
Jul 22, 2014
Muskol Neat info graphic:
Inside Teslas $5 Billion Gigafactory | Visual Capitalist
�
Jul 22, 2014
Causalien Interesting implication in Cobalt and Graphite mining�
Jul 22, 2014
chickensevil As long as they can get the graphite in a minimal polluting process, I can see them shifting away from synthetic. And while most combat comes from the Congo, aren't there other, closer options? And finally no mention of Nickel?�
Jul 22, 2014
Robertj Graphite : recently I have picked up some of this Aussie company mining in Africa which has struck high grade graphite
Triton Minerals asx.TON
DYOR�
Jul 22, 2014
Cosmacelf FWIW, Elon recently said that the synthetic graphite they currently use is better than natural as it results in a more reliable battery.�
Jul 23, 2014
Causalien So, for the chemists out there. If battery chemistry changes in the future, will synthetic graphite still be part of the mixture? Or is the usage of graphite right now just a one shot thing specifically for this chemistry?�
Jul 23, 2014
chickensevil Not a chemist, but my basic understanding is that Carbon is needed as part of the reaction. I would guess that you could use some other kind of carbon bond for it, but I assume there is good reason that graphite is the carbon of choice.
- - - Updated - - -
Makes sense. I was just thinking about it from a cost stance since I believe synthetic graphite is about 2x the price. But synthetic would ensure no impurities in the chemical.�
Jul 23, 2014
Zzzz... Graphite is used by 95+% of all li-ion cells currently in production. Virtually all chemistries used in Leafs, Volts, Sparks, Teslas and tablets/smartphones have very similar anode formulations, essentially a graphite.
But going forward it probably would not be the case. First smartphones with silicon based anode entered production this year. Silicon is an emerging and very promising tech that potentially could provide more kWh per kg. But currently it got it share of problems, biggest of which is fast degradation as cell cycles.
Another very promising tech is lithium sulfur cells. They also are entering limited commercialization. Again, no place for graphite. Samer promise - more energy per mass plus they potentially could be produced much cheaper. And very similar bag of problems... Interestingly Elon was asked about Li-S chemistry(last shareholder meeting IIRC), his reply was along the lines of low volumetric density of lithium sulfur cells. IMO it is not the biggest problem of Li-S as a tech, may be problem of specific cells that hit Tesla testing lab. But!
There are a good reasons as to why silicon based anodes and Li-S are not in mass production yet. But I hope situation will change in next three to four years from now. With Li-S starting to replace conventional li-ion at least in high end applications like in smartphones.
- - - Updated - - -
Well I'm not a chemist, but I'm reading li-ion related peer reviewed papers for fun of it, from time to time, and some of those papers are not even covered by popsci medias�
Jul 23, 2014
chickensevil See that's pretty much the same boat I find myself in with regards to this. I would love to read over some of the various articles and journals you might have come across on the subject, and certainly the better ones you have found.
In either case, as long as batteries continue to be able to be made in a round cylindrical shape, I am not worried about whatever Tesla seems to put in the car. I am sure it is the best battery for their purposes. Keep in mind that their two critical things that they care most about is cell life and energy density. Most everything else seems to be secondary to their cause.�
Jul 23, 2014
evme Didn't they fix this issue by using Sand?�
Jul 23, 2014
Zzzz... Mine favorite paper so far: http://homepages.rpi.edu/~koratn/resources/publications/ncomm2.pdf
1) Only carbon for anode and cathode, plus lithium for cathode of course. No nickel, no cobalt, no aluminum.
2) No need for current collectors, so no aluminium and copper there.
3) Extremely stable electrodes, no degradation. Provided stable enough electrolyte 20+ years without degradation seems possible. Well more testing needed but this is what I see.
4) Fully compatible with all widely used commercially available electrolyte systems and separators.
5) Should have no temperature related degradations(we are speaking about electrodes again).
6) High enough coulombic ef?ciency, so no usual crap that potentially cripple other "breakthrough" batteries. And I do not see why proposed cells will get problems with self discharge.
7) No extreme or semi-extreme temperatures required to operate(like >70[SUP]0[/SUP]C requirement to operate efficiently, no such crap).
8) Seems it is possible to fully discharge cell without bricking it(they cycled cells down to 0.03V...)
9) Potentially electrodes are capable of 150C(recharge in 24 sec anyone?). High C rates confirme low or no degradation. But who needs more than 10C anyway?
10) Last but not least, I would estimate around ~340Wh/Kg specific energy on a cell level(please do not pay too much attention to Wh/Kg numbers in the paper). Not a record, but coupled with above points make this chemistry very interesting for EV applications, especially if you take into account possibility that thermal management would not be needed for the battery pack(stable electrodes).
Interestingly, just one month AFTER this paper got published news media started to cry out about "revolutionary" carbon-carbon battery from some Japanese startup. Which coincidentally decided to came out of stealth mode right after above paper saw light of the day. While providing virtually no data about performance of their carbon-carbon cells...
And sure there were other interesting papers.
Price is also a crucial one.
- - - Updated - - -
There many dozens of startups that develop silicon anode tech. Some of them in stealth mode. Many hundreds papers are published by academy. The big players are also developing. Last year big japanese firm announced commercial availability of silicon based anode material. But such development is a very complicated process. Usually there are catches/fine prints/tradeoffs. Price vs performance vs longevity vs gravimetric density vs power density vs temperature envelope etc. One could optimize for some parameters at expense of others. There is no easy fixes that improve everything. Here is "the real" thing, something that consumers could actually buy: At long last, new lithium battery tech actually arrives on the market (and might already be in your smartphone) | ExtremeTech�
Jul 23, 2014
chickensevil My understanding of the carbon/carbon cells is that they are not dense enough which would hurt the range of the Tesla. And sure you could potentially fit more cells in one space but that just means more overall weight on the vehicle. And how much of a theoretical cost savings are we talking about here. Because unless it is enough that you could add another 1000 or so cells to the car and come under the current cost of the battery then my understanding is that it wouldnt pan out.
I sawa energy density graph on these cells and it didn't look so great when compared to other cells. The rest of it does seem interesting, and I am not saying that they shouldnt research it further, but as of right now, I don't see it being the fix that Tesla is primarily interested in which is density.
In fairness I haven't read the linked paper, and I will do so tomorrow sometime, so maybe I will be singing a different tune at that point. It is interesting tech and I do love the rest of the properties it has. It is true that there doesn't seem to be that magic bullet of a battery where you get everything you could want in a cell... There is always a trade off it seems�
Jul 24, 2014
Lump More details on the Sparks\Reno site Guest Post: Top-Secret Groundworks Outside Reno, NV Mark First Tesla Gigafactory Site�
Jul 24, 2014
Mitthrawnuruodo
Anybody watching this stock ticker react to every news article referencing gigafactory Reno?
WESTERN LITHIUM USA: OTCMKTS:WLCDF quotes & news - Google Finance�
Jul 24, 2014
ckessel Pretty darn compelling. Lots of background info, he talked to a bunch of folks, tons of pictures. A lot of work and time went into this article.�
Jul 24, 2014
Lump The site is over 6 miles away from the Union Pacific rail line so connected won't be difficult.�
Jul 24, 2014
AlMc Thanks for the Link LUPM.....Compelling.....�
Jul 24, 2014
santana338 Why is it the best journalism is done by non-journalists? The only issue I saw with the article is where he use 2/3 of the people he talked to 3 times. I think he meant 1/3, not 2/3.
I have personally talked to over a dozen people out there now. About two-thirds of them didn�t know what I was asking about or only had a vague notion that a large �special� project was underway at the Industrial Center. Another two-thirds said the project was top secret and could say no more even when pressed. And the final two-thirds�unequivocally said�it was some sort of big battery factory, for electric cars they had heard.�
Jul 24, 2014
palmer_md I chuckled when I read that as well.�
Jul 24, 2014
Muskol Great work by the author. Would be fantastic to confirm this on the 31st.�
Jul 24, 2014
DaveT It definitely sounds like it's one of Tesla's GF sites. I think they've probably pulled initial ground clearing/moving permits but that's it. So they're moving ground while they work on other site selection in other states. It's also possible they haven't finalized the NV site as a final choice, but they wanted to get started with moving dirt as to not delay things. But my guess is that the NV site will be one of the site choices.�
Jul 24, 2014
iadbound Is Tesla a frequent rail shipper? I got the impression that it wasn't (notwithstanding the rail facilities in Fremont), but with a factory of this size a rail connection is a obviously a must.
How did you figure the six miles? I can see the rail line on Google Earth, but I'm not really sure the exact spot of the factory. I would add that six miles is actually pretty long for a rail spur, and with the hills, etc., the routing might need to be more circuitous. Of course, I'm saying that without actually knowing the exact location.�
Jul 24, 2014
c041v 6 miles is nothing across that sort of terrain. I recently reviewed a bid package for a 23 mile spur for a project in the neighbourhood of this dollar value (Potash Mine) the cuts/fills are likely to be minor compared to having to hack through a mountain to get the alignment flat enough for the strict grade requirements of rail.
I really like the digging this guy did, and was hoping somebody would investigate Project Tiger further. Now I'm realyl wondering if I should pick up more LEAPS pre-ER. The pieces seem to be falling into place. Any one else considering putting more chips into the game?�
Jul 24, 2014
RubberToe I wonder if they will announce this during the next earning release in August? Maybe even show a time lapse video. A nice flat site would be awfully impressive...
RT�
Jul 24, 2014
iadbound Building rail lines in the US is has only gotten more difficult (although I agree the terrain looks ideal other than the hills). Many of our clients struggle with simple turnouts and loop tracks, but I doubt Tesla would let that stand in its way (hyperloop? :biggrin�
Jul 24, 2014
Lump Below map is taken from Guest Post: Top-Secret Groundworks Outside Reno, NV Mark First Tesla Gigafactory Site
Just guessing obviously, straight white lines are 4 miles then added 2 more...wild guess on my part.
�
Jul 24, 2014
Lump Assuming this is the site there are a few warehouse distribution centers located near by to justify opening business now on the road to the GF, the intersection of USA Pkwy & [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Tahoma, sans-serif]Portofino Drive currently has a "Golden Gate Auto Truck Plaza" with gas, food, bar & slots....boy did he luck out. I was looking around using Google maps & if I lived close I would gobble up that intersection & start planning for a Subway, Dunkin Donuts, Dominos Pizza & a Buffalo wing & Beer type of joint with plenty of slot machines.[/FONT]�
Jul 24, 2014
AlMc
Probably already bought up by someone with a little inside knowledge on the site. :wink:�
Jul 24, 2014
Lump Impossible, we live in a perfect world.�
Jul 24, 2014
iadbound Thanks. That's helpful.�
Jul 24, 2014
AlMc It was bought up by the T.I.G.E.R. corporation, owned by unknown individuals.
On a serious note: LUMP, thanks for all the info. Really great that you picked up that article. Al�
Jul 24, 2014
Jackl1956 What a hoot! I absolutely love Tesla. Can't wait to see what happens next.
Elon Musk has been conspicuously quiet. My prediction, very soon Elon will begin making the rounds selling the Gigafactory. Bear attack, no doubt. Followed up with Elon brilliantly articulately the cost benefit analysis of the Gigafactory.
A Solar Electric Future makes great sense.�
Jul 24, 2014
StapleGun Yea, a great article but a couple of pretty obvious math errors.
sqrt(140000) = 374. So this would actually be a 1 yards tall square with sides of 374 yards, or around 0.16 miles on each side.�
Jul 24, 2014
Cosmacelf Hmmm, that blog/article linked above has a recent comment saying that the construction activity has been shut down as of today...�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét