California In the Running For Tesla Gigafactory 172
An anonymous reader writes Thanks to some clean-energy tax incentives approved late this spring, California appears to be in the running again for Tesla's "Gigafactory". From the article: "The decision should have been made by now, and ground broken, according to the company's timeline, but is on hold, allowing California, which was not in the race initially — CEO Elon Musk has called California an improbable choice, citing regulations — to throw its hat in the ring. 'In terms of viability, California has progressed. Now it's a four-plus-one race,' said Simon Sproule, Tesla's vice president of global communication and marketing, referring to the four named finalists — Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada — for the prize. That's heartening. Having the Gigafactory would be a vindication of Gov. Jerry Brown's drive to make California the home of advanced manufacturing, of which Tesla's battery technology is a prime example. With its technology, 'Tesla may be in position to disrupt industries well beyond the realm of traditional auto manufacturing. It's not just cars,' a Morgan Stanley analyst told Quartz, an online business publication last year.
Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the hell is Texas in the running? I mean, it makes perfect sense to reward a state that makes it as difficult as possible [teslamotors.com] to sell a vehicle with Tesla's sales model.
Re:Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes perfect (business) sense to locate it in a state with depressed wages, huge amounts of available land, little-to-no zoning restrictions, lax environmental regulations, and politicians that are at least a buy-able as the rest. Hell, if it's good enough for the oil and gas industry...
Texas! (Score:4, Insightful)
It makes perfect (business) sense to locate it in a state with reasonable wages not drive up by unreasonable taxes and regulations, huge amounts of available land, common sense zoning restrictions, reasonable environmental regulations, and politicians that are actually interested in your business becoming a success . It's what's made the oil/gas/information services/computer/auto/semiconductor/etc. industry successful so far.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Only one Texas Ranger can clean it up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The over regulation and high taxes in CA are the killer for any business possibilities there. Large companies are leaving California due the the bad fiscal management out there and overbearing govt restrictions on businesses out there.
You'd think at some point, sensible folks would see this and do something to curtail the problem, but when you let political philosophy outweigh what common sense should present to the current vision, you get much of what you see in CA, and more recently in the entire Fe
Re: (Score:2)
And besides, hasn't urban California decided that it now hates tech and the commuter buses it rides in on? As for rural California, just try to get past zoning approval for anything that isn't beige.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas! (Score:5, Insightful)
What made the oil industry successful is oil. Whatever regulations or non-regulations you want to give, if there's no oil, there's no oil industry.
It can be argued that silicon valley grew because of California University school system. A good chunk of which is publicly funded. Remember Sun stood for Stanford Univeristy Network. Google started at Stanford. A good chunk of Apple Mac OSX and iOS is BSD, developed at University of California, Berkeley. The Internet as we know it started at Berkeley - one of the first TCP/IP stacks was just known as Berkeley Sockets. The Internet was at first a DARPA project (government funded) for distributed command and control. The work then went to California universities, trying to share scarce computing resources.
Re: (Score:2)
California has lots of oil too.
It remains locked up by the Environmentalists and Bureaucrats. So you have oil, but no oil industry to speak of.
Re: (Score:2)
California did have lots of oil and to some extent does but there are reasons why they do not want the crap load of problems it caused
http://www.westernsun.us/wp-co... [westernsun.us]
Re: (Score:3)
Troll feeding time...
Why is it that government can never do anything right, well, unless it's the army, then it can do no wrong. Somehow if there's a bullet involved, government becomes perfect. Try to feed a kid, whoa, that can never work.
Oh, and if the government tries something and doesn't work, that's proof that government sucks. But if it does something, and can compete with private business, hey that's government being mean, and there's some law to prevent it. Government sucks by attrition - anythin
Re: (Score:2)
Second. The reason government does military is simply because we can not put that in the hands of private corps. I am sure until they use it to take over though we would have better equipment and better training for less money though.
Third. We can play the trace back game all you want. The truth is that prior to private enterprise the internet and the web sucked. I mean really sucked. Government has a role. Mi
Re: (Score:2)
First. Government waste is well known. Helping people via committee of bureaucrats is never good.
Yeah, and of course you'll deny all that nice SS checks in case of disability. Or government help if your house is smashed by a tornado.
Re: (Score:2)
Rebuilding New Orleans was stupid. A city built below a large lake and an Ocean will be destroyed again. We really need to relocate those people not help them build in the same place.
Government is stupid. Always has been, always will be.
Do you have any idea how bad of a retirement plan Social Security is?
Re: (Score:2)
And about natural disasters - pretty much all heavily-populated areas in the US are at risk. California has earthquakes, Eastern coast has hurricanes, then there are tornadoes, heat waves, wildfires and so on. Where do you think most of the US population can relocate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it is an option then you are doing it wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Protecting New Orleans against floods is a much better idea. We can do this, almost all of the Netherlands is under the sea level, for example. And it's NOT uber-expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you have to cut your losses and stop making stupid decisions. Also it is a free country. If they really wanted to rebuild then ok. No Federal funds for the re build and no future funds for disasters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They can move where ever in the country they want to.
But it was beyond stupid to re build there just to make people feel better,
Re: (Score:2)
New York is also at risk of hurricanes, should we move it somewhere else?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't live in the USA :) and the most things I'm learning/studying right now are either martial arts or sailing / navigation related.
Re:Texas? (Score:5, Interesting)
It makes perfect (business) sense to locate it in a state with depressed wages, huge amounts of available land, little-to-no zoning restrictions, lax environmental regulations, and politicians that are at least a buy-able as the rest. Hell, if it's good enough for the oil and gas industry...
Really? You really want to go there? True that huge chunks of employment in Texas is in the Walmart-like category for people with no specialized skills. But for manufacturing and up, wages are decent and the economy is booming. Go to Austin, Dallas or Houston for good paying jobs without the ridiculous hassles that you see in the Bay area: ageism, gentrification, and most important of all, absurd zoning laws that prevent creation of new housing/rental units to accommodate the growing population (and which causes housing/rental prices to be absurd to anyone except couples where both partners are in IT/STEM/Software.). The same is true in Seattle, Portland ,The Triangle and Denver (in particular Denver.) Texas is doing fine, more than fine. Just because there are a bunch of backwater NIMBY small towns full of folks who thing America's best years were 30-40 years ago, that doesn't mean the state is crap. People are moving there in droves for a reason, small businesses are booming, people in manufacturing are doing well. And most importantly, whether you work in STEM or in a factory plan, you can still afford an actual house that is not a hole in the wall (Sillycon Valleeey, I'm looking at you.)
Texas is doing well, and will be doing well for a long time. It is fair to criticize, but try to give some credit where credit is due every once in a while instead of blindly following the bash-your-favorite-dead-horse crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
5th highest rate of poverty in the country. I guess even being poor is bigger in Texas.
Sure, it's fine if you're a developer in Austin. But a lot of texas is... texas.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes a stronger business case for China and it looks like they want Teslas much, much more than Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Texas? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember the next round of Tesla cars will be SUVs and bog standard sedans. Not pick up truck territory, but certainly Texas soccer mom and Austin city car markets.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's a REALLY big gamble. While having a massive production plant may give you some extra leverage, once it's built it's not like Tesla will be able to just pack up and leave if they don't get what they want. I guess only time will tell which side wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Now of course there are lots of other factors at play about where the factory will be built, but I'm pointing out that revenge is an absolutely terrible metric to use when making busine
Re: (Score:2)
They can get a good factory with sane levels of regulation and market wages and sell their cars in Texas or just get the former. Either way they win over California.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you're not a CEO or politician. Building this factory in Texas would make it harder for politicians to fight "Texas Made" cars. Sure the mouth pieces and opposition will still be there, but the mouth pieces promoting the cars would get a lot louder. Once you get Texas on board, a lot of southern states are easier. They are looking how to move forward, not punish for history. Remember the next round of Tesla cars will be SUVs and bog standard sedans. Not pick up truck territory, but certainly Texas soccer mom and Austin city car markets.
^^^ This. You can't win manufacturing lobbying wars without winning Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing, even the rural rednecks would love a Tesla pickup truck:
1: If they want to roll coal, a fake set of stacks and a fog machine can be added. Realistically, I live in Texas, and no rural farmer or rancher I know would ruin an expensive vehicle by detuning it and voiding the warranty, so why tempt fate?
2: A lot of rural work requires electricity. Being able to pull out tools, plug them into an inverter on the side of the truck, then get to work would make life a lot easier in the middle of nowh
Re: (Score:2)
> 3. Electric motors have lots of torque
This is why diesel railroad engines are used. In the words of Doc Brown, " No, no! This sucker's electrical!". The diesel motor powers a generator which drives the electric motor.
Re:Texas? (Score:4, Insightful)
what state is the largest producer of clean wind energy?
hint, it's not california
Texas is a big tech hub
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Factory for building batteries, owned by the person who owns the largest installer of solar panels in the US, only considering regions with a high percentage of clear sunny days. Somehow I think the power grid is not their primary concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I want to defend Texas, but based on the wiki-table, you posted:
Texas produces the most renewable electricity (w/o Hydro) at 37,784 GW.h of any state in the USA (California close 2nd). I just happens to be a small percentage of its total electricity usage.
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people would say that "clean energy" and "renewable energy" are synonymous with one another. Why would you exclude hydroelectric as a clean and/or renewable energy source? When considering ALL forms of clean energy combined, Texas is not first. Not first in total production. Not first in percentage of generation.
If you are going to exclude hydroelectricity generated energy because it's only available in certain parts of the country, shouldn't you also exclude wind generated power since it's o
Re: (Score:2)
Actually if you look at even GOV statistics they do not list Hydro as a renewable. I also find this dumb. I also think that Nuclear should be listed as "clean" but the greens would never stand for it.
Re: (Score:3)
You have waste, so it is not "clean".
Evers saw a mining site for Uranium? Does not really look nice either.
Re: (Score:2)
Ever seen a mining site for Aluminum?, Copper,? Ever see how much fuel a glass factory uses?
Everything has waste including Wind and Solar.
Re: (Score:2)
And? Perhaps you should put that into proportion?
A single wind mill or a wind farm of 1000 mills cost as much 'raw materials' as another power plant.
It has no running demand of mining materials.
No wind and solar has no waste ... everything can be recycled or if it is not economic feasable safely deposited somewhere.
Muclear waste can't or at least no one found a working way to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
As I said, "the greens will never stand for it". Well if you look at the amount of mining for Nuclear verses coal over the life of a power plant....
Yadda yadda. You can fight nuclear or climate change and win. You can not fight both.
Re: (Score:2)
DU is only a slightly radioactive heavy metal. It is pretty safe and easy to handle. Sort of like lead is.
That is until you shoot it at someone and it burns and fragments and does all sorts of nasty stuff to spread itself around. :P
(sorry I just had to add to your comment; in that is is mostly safe but as with most materials it depends on what you do with it)
Re: (Score:2)
Wenn Uranium is mined it is usually "dust".
Which is kinda poisonous.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, if you have enough wind and solar plants, you don't need nuclear, for what would you? Do you believe there is a magical reason for nuclear?
Re: (Score:2)
The sun does not shine at night. The wind does not blow all the time. Batteries suck. Anyone that makes that statement has never sat down and done the math. Solar is not base load, Wind can be base load if you have natural gas backing plants but Nuclear is great base load.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ideal solar or wind conditions are only available in certain states, so throw those out of the results too, yes?
Re: (Score:2)
secondly, if they build the factory in texas, they might have more swing to get the law changed to allow them to sell direct. all in all its a win win for tesla going to texas.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
A good CEO will not let politics, revenge or reward guide the decision, but rather consider the total package/environment and how that supports the success model. But, regardless of which states are in the running, the trick is to always have several competitive states in the mix right up till the end, even if you've already decided internally, just to make sure you get the best deal possible.
Hahahahaha, that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard? Where are you been all this time? Under a rock on Endor? Selling cars directly to customers is highly politicized, and there is no way a good CEO will make decisions without taking that into account.
It would be nice if we had a true free market where companies can sell their products directly to customers (and let the best product win) without interest groups lobbying for their right to be "middle man". But this is 'Murika, land of the free (when
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, look what Tesla already accomplished - they complained about California's ground rules, and got an exemption written into law for themselves - without casting a vote or spending a dollar! From the article: "On the legislative front, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacram
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly I didn't mean to totally ignore politics. If you took my post that way then I understand your response. My point is that primary drivers for a state & location selection are much more 'what can you do for me" based wrt taxes, infrastructure, energy cost, etc. If they get political concessions in that mix, great, but without those other items covered, the political end becomes meaningless.
That is not true, not with some industries, in particular energy which you mention. Politics play a pivotal role, even a primary one. No, that's not what I advocate, nor what it should be. But reality is reality, and until politics gets out of moneyland, and money gets out of politics, if people want to run a business on energy, transportation or pharma (just to name a few), CEOs will have to be political savvy and make decisions based on politics.
Re: (Score:2)
If yo think political battling should take precedence over actual financial setup success, good luck. FWIW, If Tesla wants Texas to change, the best way is to startup in Texas.
That is not what I say ('Murika wtf, what happened to reading comprehension?), but hey, I am not one to judge you if are into building strawman arguments.
Re: Texas? (Score:2)
Texas has a seaport. The other states would require extensive trucking or rail infrastructure to move the batteries in bulk. But where will the next Tesla vehicle factory be built and does the gigafactory plan to have more capacity than Motors requires?
Re: (Score:2)
There's major rail lines that crisscross the nation. Anywhere there is an automotive plant they've figured out how to ship any number of large and/or heavy items that are needed in large quantities for the production of automobiles. While there is no doubt that convenient shipping would be advantageous, my guess is that Tesla's investment for transportation of supplies and vehicles would be similar whether it's in Texas, California, or any other place that has developed transportation infrastructure. It's
Re: (Score:2)
No state income tax for businesses.
Really, this plant is building components for the cars built in California. There is actually no relation from the manufacturing side to the selling side here.
This decision should be made puerilely on balance sheet issues that allow Tesla to make batteries and cars as cost effectively as they can.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll wave at you when I pass by in my Leaf in the carpool lane by myself.
I was worried for a minute (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot hadnt yet posted anything about Elon Musk today. My groupthink-o-meter was starting to dip back down below 'fellate'.
Which California? (Score:4, Funny)
Which California? I hear there are 6 now.
Plain business as usual. (Score:2, Insightful)
Or typical evil big business as usual.
As long as we coddle these "big" guys, they will take it all and come begging for more.
"An
Re: (Score:2)
Why California? (Score:2)
I'm surprised California would even be in the running. Land is expensive, taxes are high, and cost of living is among the highest in the country.
By contrast, Arizona and Nevada have cheap land, low taxes, and low cost of living plus low labor costs.
California's main asset is its technology population, plus access to sea ports.
Should be interesting to see who wins. I would have thought that Mr. Musk would prefer to place his plant in a low cost region like Malaysia or south China, but I guess there are logis
Sacremento? (Score:2)
"...vindication of Gov. Jerry Brown's..." (Score:2)
"...vindication of Gov. Jerry Brown's..."
Great reason right there to not pick California.
How's that high speed rail construction project that was voted down by Californians 3 times with a large enough margin that it's a pretty clear shout of "Hell No!" each of the times it was vote on, that Jerry Brown is going ahead with anyway, working out?
Is it still taking place in a corridor where land is cheap because there's no place to get on or off the damn thing that has any significant population that would const
Re: (Score:3)
..., not to mention that Texas has no income tax; what moron would build a factory in California? Elon was just being nice when he didn't categorically rule it out when asked.
You realize that both the Tesla factory and the SpaceX factory are in California, right? So I guess Elon Musk is a moron...
Re:What are the other 99% supposed to do? (Score:4, Interesting)
The plans for this factory have it automated to hell, employing a skeleton crew of human beings.
The plans include 6,500 employees.
https://www.greentechmedia.com... [greentechmedia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How many factory workers were middle class, during this heyday of which you speak?
In the 50's and 60's? Most of them.
Re: (Score:2)
No doubt it was a different time. In addition to few external competitors, the entire world was rebuilding due to WWII and recovering from a decade of pent up desire from the Great Depression.
Re:What are the other 99% supposed to do? (Score:5, Insightful)
A surprisingly large number. Going back to the early days of the model T, Ford (the person) recognized that if he paid his people better than the usual factory wages, he would 1) have lower employee turnover, 2) short-circuit squabbles with the nascent labor unions, 3) increased productivity and throughput (see 1 and 2), and most importantly 4) be creating a population that could actually buy the product he was trying to produce.
More recently, during the heyday that the GP spoke of (1940s through 1970s, then declining through the early 2000s), an auto worker could expect a modest, but stable, middle-class lifestyle from his (it was mostly men) factory job. It was blue-collar, didn't require a college degree, and could support a family on a single income. The large tracts of modest homes that made up Detroit are a testament to this fact. The decline in manufacturing around Detroit has directly led to the general poverty of the city, the depopulation, the urban blight (whole blocks of abandoned homes), and eventual bankruptcy of the city.
If you can get it, the same can be said for an automotive job today, or building airplanes for Boeing. Or, until their decline, the textile industries in the American southeast or the lumber industries in northern states. There are fewer guarantees with a manufacturing job today - it may not be lifelong employment, and your prospects during retirement look less secure. Still, they are decent jobs for decent people, and (right or wrong) the kinds of jobs that cities and states climb over each other to get.
Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
That is a tiny fraction of what US manufacturing used to employ
It's ONE COMPANY and a relatively small one at that. Do you expect them to single handedly employ everyone looking for work? 6500 jobs is a LOT of jobs but way to try to diminish a good thing there Debbie Downer.
During the heyday of the American middle class, GM employed hundreds of thousands of people.
They still do. GM presently directly employs roughly 219,000 people. Last I checked that qualifies as "hundreds of thousands of people". GMs suppliers employ about 6 times that many people for products made by GM. (look it up - there is roughly 6 manufacturing workers in the supply chain for every one at a major auto maker) And furthermore there is is a multiplier effect [slashdot.org] whereby every $1 spent in manufacturing results in approximately $1.35 in additional economic activity which means more jobs. The death of US manufacturing has been greatly exaggerated.
Re: (Score:2)
They should hire another 3,500 to stand around and get paid.
Re: (Score:2)
What are the masses of unemployed except for the lucky handful supposed to do to feed their families?
Get a job somewhere else other than Tesla. It's not the only employer in existence.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could have zero jobs. It's not Tesla's responsibility to provide you with a livelihood.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble in setting up there would be, what are you going to use for a workforce?
Likely as not, not locals, and how are you going to convince folks to me to Detroit, not much incentive to move to a barren, economically sparse, drug infested/violence infested area. I mean, Tesla can't possibly pay THAT high of wages
Clueless about Detroit (Score:3)
The trouble in setting up there would be, what are you going to use for a workforce?
You think there is a lack of a willing and capable workforce in Detroit Metro? You could not be more wrong. There are reasonable reasons to pick places other than Metro Detroit to build a factory but the blight in Detroit City and perceived lack of a workforce is not among them. Honestly I can't think of many better places to build a factory if you really look at the evidence. The opportunity is definitely there. You might find cheaper labor elsewhere but you aren't going to find a more capable labor
Re: (Score:3)
You think there is a lack of a willing and capable workforce in Detroit Metro?
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
I think it'd be far cheaper to move whatever fragment of that workforce which is still "capable" out of Michigan to California or Texas than it would be to build anything there.
Unions are not a big problem in Michigan anymore (Score:2)
Yes. There's also the matter of the labor unions and the screwed up politics of both Detroit and the state.
Neither of which are the problem you think they are. Michigan is now a Right To Work state. Whatever your feelings regarding that politically, it is clear evidence that unions are not the power they once were in Michigan. Both legislative houses and the governor are Republican at the moment and (like him or hate him) governor Rick Snyder (former CEO of Gateway Computer BTW) has been pretty business friendly. Frankly I don't run into anyone on a regular basis that is a member of any union.
Furthermore the
Re: (Score:3)
California is a fine place to start a business (Score:3)
frankly I dont know why anyone would want to open a business in cali right now.
Depends on the business. For certain types of businesses, California is where the talent is located. Not to say you can't locate a successful company elsewhere (you can!) but there is a reason you find a lot of tech companies in California just like there is a reason you find a lot of manufacturing companies in Michigan, a lot of finance companies in New York, etc. Despite the problems California didn't become the economic powerhouse it did by random chance. It got there because it has the right combina
Re: California is a fine place to start a business (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are going to get considerably more specific about what type of business you are planning to open then you are not making any sort of reasonable point.
a very valid argument and you are correct. I suppose it all depends on the type of business and a blanket statement like mine is a little off, If i were opening a hydroponics store or a solar panel manufacturing plant. or anything "green" I guess i would probably go to cali, if i wanted to open up pretty much anything else i would find other locations. Manufacturing i might go to detroit with the low cost of buildings, tech? Im going to austin tx or Raleigh NC.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make it a law (Score:4, Funny)
If you want to sell a Tesla in Calistan then it has to be built in Calistan by illegal aliens.
Rush Limbaugh called. He wanted us to tell you that you're a little over the top.
Re: (Score:3)
Now if only trucks or trains could be used to transport lithium...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because moving lithium ore by rail from Nevada to California, or Texas, or any other candidate location would totally kill the economics of the endeavor. Nothing precludes Tesla from importing the lithium by sea, for that matter. They'll probably need to, in order to have enough for full production. The price of lithium is just one cost, and for a sophisticated manufactured product like a battery pac
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium is probably under 4% of the total mass of the battery. Tesla's battery is primarily composed of lithium, nickel, aluminum, cobalt, and graphite. Nickel and aluminum are the big constituents by mass of the battery. Total lithium mass per battery is probably around 20kg. For 1,000,000 cars, that's about 22,000 tons. That might be enough to start production in the U.S., but more likely, Canada will supply most of the initial amounts of raw materials including the nickel and lithium.
Re: (Score:2)
There is zero nickle in a Li-ion cell. Nickel, on the other hand exists in some variants.
Anyway, it looks like the model S uses lithium nickel cobalt aluminium oxide "NCA" LiNiCoAlO2. Aluminium is almost free. lithium compounds are cheap (looks like 5-7k per ton, depending on grade or compound) in comparison to the other metals. Nickel is 18k a ton, and cobalt double that yet.
Both nickel and cobalt weigh around 60g per mole, with lithium a tenth of that, so they also need roughly ten times the mass of nicke
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the compound mustn't be 1:1 Ni:Co as written, as some site shows Co and Li being 10% of mass, and Ni 50%, for reasons I don't entirely understand.
In that case Ni is by far the biggest cost, and Cobalt is still a bigger share of the cost than lithium.
It must actually be a mixture of LiNiAlO2 and LiCoAlO2 or something like this? my distant highschool chemistry is failing me.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the irony that my post joking about Tesla's flamability is now modded Flamebait. Thank you modders, you have made my day :-D