Tesla Gigafactory Grand Opening

Because its preferable to other boards. Better question: why are you on Veeky Forums? Its pretty much established at this point that electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars, so why are you peddling a pseudoscientific snake oil salesman?

5 billion to build
1.6 billion from panasonic
1.4 billion Nevada ($200,000 per job), no taxes, 20 year deal

>electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars

Low IQ detected. Take thermodynamics again.

where'd he get the other 2 billion? or was that made in saved tax money?

i thought the danger of traditional cars was chemical pollution. I don't know what type of pollution the guy criticizing electric cars is talking about but how does thermal dynamics relate to chemical pollution?

efficiency of EV vs ICE

hurr durr, i have no concept of how much energy goes into mining, refining, transporting, and fabricating a 1,200 pound lithium battery

Pre-orders probably

Please provide sources for these claims.

It's you making the positive claim here pal, ie. "electric cars are better for the environment than standard cars". Others are arguing the negative of that, as we all know, you can't prove a negative. We'll be wait for those reliable sources.

I don't have sources, schlomo. I am ignorant about this topic. That's why I am asking you, not arguing for any side whatsoever. But I see that I've been baited, I hope.

Fine I'll play ball instead of shitpost as is my usual intention in Musk threads.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x/full

>We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km.... Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel v

Like I said electric cars are a meme. Also it's worth noting that if EV'S were used in Asia (where there's even more cars) the CO2 output is actually worse than conventional cars.

I don't get it. You just posted a study that claims the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove.

That is one sexy robot

You didn't read it did you. Allow me to do all the fucking work for you.
>The GWP from EV production is about twice that of conventional vehicles. Our results suggest a potentially greater gap between the two technologies for other impact categories, such as HTP and MDP. Environmental evaluations relying solely on fuel and powertrain efficiencies miss key differences associated with the production of different vehicle types and could lead to misguided comparisons across technologies.

>For example, performing the calculation assuming a lifetime of 200,000 km for the ICEV and assuming a battery replacement within the lifetime of the EV would result in lower GWP impact for the diesel ICEV with respect to the EV charged with European average electricity.

>Our results clearly indicate that it is counterproductive to promote EVs in areas where electricity is primarily produced from lignite, coal, or even heavy oil combustion. At best, with such electricity mixes, local pollution reductions may be achieved. Thus EVs are a means of moving emissions away from the road rather than reducing them globally

>In the absence of foreseeable improvements to electricity mixes, a more significant reduction in GWP could potentially be achieved by increasing fuel efficiency or shifting from gasoline to diesel ICEVs without significant problem-shifting (with the exception of smog).

>Our results point to some probable problem shifts, irrespective of the electricity mix. EVs appear to cause a higher potential for human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts.

Tldr: EV'S are no better than diesel hybrids, and are just a way of moving emissions away from the road, more fuel efficient diesel is potentially better than EV'S with current energy mixes. Moreover EV'S have fairly serious environmental impact in their own right that might not be possible to escape from.

cnbc.com/2016/07/31/teslas-entire-future-depends-on-the-gigafactory.html

>When the factory is complete, it will be the largest building in the world by footprint and, if all goes according to plan, will eventually churn out enough batteries to supply 150 gigawatt hours of batteries per year.

>Three years ago, when the Gigafactory was first proposed, "I thought it was crazy," said Yamada. "At that time, production capacity of this Gigafactory would exceed total production of the industry. Not Panasonic. Not Japanese companies. All Japanese, Korean, and Chinese companies combined. I thought it was a crazy idea.

>Raw materials go in the south end and assembled battery packs come out the north, all shepherded by close to 10,000 Tesla employees and a litany of Fanuc autonomous robots.

That's impressive. That's really impressive.

"The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a MEME" - Some internet retarded

Please read and first faggot. Electric cars apparently can't live up to their own goals.

Its a meme because the current battery technology is a meme. If you can unmeme the lifespan of vehicle electric batteries, u will unmeme teslas

>If you can unmeme the lifespan of vehicle electric batteries, u will unmeme teslas
This works both ways. The battery will improve with Tesla. The technology evolves concurrently with a reciprocal relationship.

You've given complete focus to the worst case scenario. Try reading the actual report and giving an unbiased view.

ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars#.V58iQfl96Hu

Aren't Tesla cars powered by SolarCity?

Some % of recharging stations are powered by solar. Most of the charging done over the lifetime of a car comes from plugging it in at home.

>Check out this website, you don't need any peer review.

Will musketeers ever stop lowering the collective IQ of this board.

>musketeers
Fucking lold.

To be fair the "peer-reviewed" article posted above was published in 2013 with research done in years prior. A lot has change since then.

>was published in 2013

That's a fair enough criticism, it does seem to be an area that undergoing fairly rapid development. But desu I'd still take the article over something published on the Union of Concerned Scientists website.

I'm not really familiar with that website. It seems like it's a journal of someosort, so I assume it's peer-reviewed. Regardless, I would have liked to see recently new studies published in an accredited journal, from both camps.

Shithead low IQ monkey.

You have to look at directions and evolution as well as current levels.

>hurr LED for lighting is shit - t. retard monkey in 2000

You have to do a COMPLETE study of the subject and it's possible evolution.

How much more engineering time, infrastructure, and global markets have been adapted to ICE and fueling infrastructure?

You're a fucking moron if you can't grasp the huge advantage of EVs.

Just tell me, what is the projected value of solar power vs coal in 2030?

Do you understand anything? You fucking shitheaded brainlet.

...

>Being this mad

Holy shit user calm down, it's bad for your likely cholesterol encrusted heart.

>Musketeers so irrevocably BTFO they have to resort to childish insults.

It's just the same low IQ drivel

The same people would halt all current building of solar because it's not currently efficient.

They can't understand momentum and scaling up.

>because the only thing that matters is how much the fuel costs the moment in which i pay for it

>The same people would halt all current building of solar because it's not currently efficient.

Yes. Because it's not efficient and it's retarded. It's that last part that's really important.

Linear thinker / Low IQ brainlet

Not much more to say than that. You are too stupid to bother explaining things to.

Great argument bro. Please tell me how you'd overcome the following:
>Dependence
For solar to work you're asking many countries to be much more dependent on other countries for their power supply. And I'm not talking just raw materials, I mean literally depending on them.

>Guarantee
Solar can't guarantee a base load

>Scalability
Demand has to match supply, how are you going to scale generation so that it always matches supply (to within a certain tolerance)

>Distribution
The only way I can think to mitigate some of these problems requires a global grid, which is going to be impossibly complicated.

There's probably a load of other problems I'm not thinking of. Right now, and probably forever, solar is going to only be a "personal" thing, by which I mean it's only ever going to be something implemented on a personal level. Nuclear is pretty much the only viable power supply available right now for the future. Solar is a pipe dream and always will be.

low IQ thinking

Well it's been fun user.

>Musketeers once again proving they're the most obnoxious shitposters on Veeky Forums

I don't know. Your mind can't put 2 and 2 together.

Literally in a thread talking about Tesla and you are talking about solar's storage problem.

...

why u hatin on melonusk ?

Do you even know what the term ''meme'' stands for?

Say "something is a meme" Is the new meme, for what i have seeing here.

>Dependence
Same with pretty much any product in the world including fossil fuels.

>Guarantee
Nuclear, power storage, hydroelectric, geothermal mixing with wind-generated electricity.

>Scalability
Engineering a mix of the above to exceed expected demand by a safe margin.

>Distribution
General BS, you didn't even try with this one.

this is so cool
i love seeing humanity progressing

Everything on the internet is a meme, my friend.

> Its pretty much established at this point that electric cars are worse for the environment than regular cars

well that might not be a problem if we:
>Find a way to efficiently recycle the $10k+ battery pack full of concentrated lithium.
>Switch to renewable/nuclear energy when the price/kwh of electricity gets low enough.

To me, getting the rabid Musk fanboys to meme magic this into reality is not such a bad thing.

>>Guarantee
>Solar can't guarantee a base load
Uh... this is a thread about a huge new battery factory here. One factory which will more than double the global production of lithium-ion batteries.

One that has orders lined up around the block for overnight house batteries and grid batteries.

Solar is now cheap energy, which is still getting rapidly cheaper, with intermittency being the only problem. Since this is the case, there's now a market for fixing the intermittency problem with batteries, so industry is rapidly adapting to provide the massive supply of low-cost batteries needed.

Tesla's establishing a market with these adapted electric car batteries, which other, better-fitted technologies (which, for instance, don't require any expensive raw materials like lithium) will be able compete with.

hurr durr, I have no idea that ic engines are made out of stuff which must be put out of the ground.

That's not his problem. He knows that conventional cars also take energy to produce, and his claim is true that electric cars take considerably more.

What he won't acknowledge is that electric cars are part of a larger effort to replace fossil fuels. It's easier to charge batteries with solar and wind than it is to synthesize fuel with solar and wind.

Nah

>how is a sea creature ever going to work on land
>without water, how will you get around with your fins?

Great logic, therefore solar will never be useful and it's a meme because it has different usage environments than ancient dead shit being burned does.

How a low IQ monkey thinks:

>The energy required to build a shelter isn't worth it because one night under shelter isn't a big deal.

They can't see the long-term value of building a stable shelter.

Same with retards in this thread talking shit about EV or Solar.

They don't understand anything. Literally monkeys. They are doing the equivalent of arguing it is not worth building a house because their minds can't comprehend it might be used for more than 1 day.

Basically they also wouldn't have invested any money in developing LED lighting after seeing the exponential advancement because "It's not worth it right now".

Basically literal monkey thinking is the only way to not realize Musk is right. You can go to markets right now where Solar is cheaper.

They don't even fucking do the simple thought process of comparing infrastructure and infrastructure investment in things like solar or wind.

The fucking LOW IQ monkey shitbrains even talked about how he couldn't imagine a GLOBAL energy grid that would make solar useful.

While at the same not having enough mental capacity to realize we fucking HAD to establish a worldwide fucking complex system for oil and coal. Which are harder to transport than fucking electricity and require far more total infrastructure.

This fucking monkey brained retard then talks about how solar has different characteristics than oil or coal. What a fucking genius to realize solar works when the sun is out. Fucking brilliant dude.

This graph is so complex, even a monkey brained brainlet can't see the trend!

Price history of coal and oil

Notice something genius monkey? Can your little brain see the comparative patterns?

Solar is dumb shit

I don't think electric cars will ever be more than a niche market. when its complete gigafactory 1 can produce enough batteries for 1.5 million cars/year and uses 50% of current lithium supply. For even 50% of all new cars to be electric we'd have to build 30 additional gigafactories...

jesus fuck Veeky Forums

Do you think there will be more cars needed in 2030 or less cars?

We are close to a maxima on needed vehicles thanks to autonomous driving. A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.

How convinient to cut of the graphs 2010/2012 clearly nothings has happend since then.
If Batterie capacity isn't incresed tenfolds this shit won't last long.

...

>could

Yeah sure and the global population is clearly declining hard right now

>For even 50% of all new cars to be electric we'd have to build 30 additional gigafactories...
If you watch the video, he's talking about building more of these, with integrated car factories.

Seriously, you think it's a problem that you'd need like one factory per state to meet demand for a product?

Anyway, they're not likely to all come from a single company.

lol Americans...

It's hard to decide whether to respond to your post. I'll just assume english is not your first language.

Basically, humanity will adapt to solar power over time. You can't base your assumptions using the immediate reality of things.

We can clearly see the trend in reduction of cost in Solar PV. The reason to invest in things now is to create catalysts for change.

Just get out a piece of paper and draw a line. Under your plan, we wait for perfected technology and solutions created without demand being sparked. So mark 2025 and start drawing a line for the rise of EV and Solar.

Now, I'll start EV and Solar pushing before it is perfected. Drawing my line for the rise of EV/Solar infrastructure and demand creation earlier, in 2010+.

Now, when solar/EV become cost effective, I'll have everything in place, the problems solved, and more infrastructure and systems in place ready to expand.

You'll start from scratch since you waited for perfection.

Now.

When solar is 1/2 the price of coal, you will just be beginning.

While mine is full steam ahead with huge production and already at cheaper prices due to the increased push for demand.

So say, 2030, I will have saved much more money and have a more efficient system than you. All because of rather minimal early investment to jump start the systems.

With your type of thinking, change is slower and ultimately leads to worse spending of resources.

Basically you are thinking linearly or with no change in mind. While others are correctly using intelligence to foresee that costs are dramatically reducing and that EV is more efficient overall and cleaner for large cities than ICE.

Also you don't even begin to account for the massive infrastructure and subsidies that already exists for oil, gas, and coal as compared to solar or EV.

The current subsidies are not giving EV or solar unfair advantages. They are still massively behind the subsidies oil, coal, and gas have.

youtube.com/watch?v=KkpxA5rXjmA

>A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.
5-10 current casual-use cars, maybe. 1 daily commute vehicle, delivery vehicle, or taxi.

Anyway, renting out your personal car to strangers is going to stay a niche thing because it's fucking disgusting, plus half the reason people want a personal car is constant availability.

Furthermore, I'm not at all convinced that self-driving cars will work properly (including being sufficiently secure against hacking) or be permitted.

there will be more cars on the road by 2030. and very few of them will be autonomous (for special purposes maybe).

>A single model 3 could replace 5-10 current cars.

lol, even if everyone adopted carsharing with autonomous technology (say by 2050) i doubt that one model 3 could replace more than 3 cars.

The Tesla taxi fleet will probably be primarily Tesla owned vehicles.

Autonomous fleets are constantly available.

You don't have to be convinced for it to work.

You haven't been redpilled at all on the coming tech

Do some thinking.

>renting out your personal car to strangers is going to stay a niche thing because it's fucking disgusting
>what is Uber

video is too long, whats the message? Gpus are going to be used for deep learning to drive cars? No road accidents anymore?

...

>No road accidents anymore?
>anymore
You say that as though they happen all the time. Even now they are almost flawless. They can only get better.

>we have this new thing with A BRAND NEW VIDEOCARD
>we are trying to improve driving with THIS AWESOME NEW VIDEO CARD
>cars will be so fast with OUR BRAND NEW GORILLION FLOPS CARD
>holy shit BUY OUR NEW VIDEO CARD
I mean I get it, marketing and all, etc., It's highly annoying, though.

>>what is Uber
A niche thing? Most people are not Uber drivers.

>That's impressive. That's really impressive.

It's not, given how Tesla was gifted their original factory.

Remember: Tesla Fremont used to be NUMMI which was closed in 2008. Tesla bought it at auction. This is a factory capable of making over 1,000 cars a day, complete with a railhead for distribution.

Of course they won't all come from a single company. tesla wants to be a catalyst, as elon musk says.
I'm not saying it's impossible. I don't know maybe it is, maybe it isn't. They could probably be constructed in the next 20 years, given enought investment. But can we also mine enough raw materials (increase by 3000%)? How long does that take? Environmental costs?
And does it make sense (since electric cars will hardly reduce the energy needed and the co2 emissions etc.) Only benefit is that electric vehicles are locally emission free (no smog).

I wish Veeky Forums was more intelligent.

Just do your own thinking. Extrapolate out what autonomous driving means. Taxis/transport/bus systems, their change in costs, car insurances, etc.

Just think about it long enough or find someone intelligent who thought about it long enough. You guys all seem to be at the early stages of contemplation.

Seriously, use your fucking brains.

the "coming tech" came too late. The market for fully automated vehicles (assuming they're even made road legal) is primarly suburban commuters. A group which is a very small minority now due to urbanization.

businessofapps.com/uber-usage-statistics-and-revenue/

I think you're really underestimating Uber, all of these people, and this is not all, more companies will probably follow suit. Once autonomous cars kick in, you can lend out your car to someone, you don't even have to drive it. It will drive to the person, and drop him off somewhere else.

Amazing post.

Just a quick question. How many billions are currently spent on automated vehicles R&D worldwide? How much has just been allocated in the past 2 years?

Tell me how niche it is.

If Veeky Forums actually thought it out, they'd realize that autocars aren't so hot given land use changes of the past 20 years (which is now slowly starting to creep into government policy). Car-dominant planning is over, and this will directly hurt the spread of full auto cars.

Here comes the spoon, open up.

Avg on car around 9000
avg on insurance around 1800

per year

Yeah, how do you fit 10 people in one model 3? What if they all want to drive at the same time (commuting...). Don't want to wait half an hour for the other people to be picked up?

Also, autonomous cars don't work well enough under all conditions, and most people don't want them.

They are complimentary

Car transport becomes more efficient as well. Less time to travel any distance due to optimizations in flow.

>How many billions are currently spent on automated vehicles R&D worldwide? How much has just been allocated in the past 2 years?

Probably over $20 billion. But remember that it's mostly meant as a driver aid, not as a driver replacement. Getting to the latter requires a total overhaul of the road network. Think about why cars became so physically large in the first place: roads were improved for them. The entire Interstate network (which took 50 years and trillions to complete) was built to allow a safe place for faster vehicles.

Fully automated cars require larger and faster roads. This goes against most modern planning, which supports the opposite.

>Tell me how niche it is.

At least in the US, the biggest potential market for full auto cars are suburban commuters with 90+ minute car commutes. However as transit systems expand and individual home ownership declines, the demand for new cars will level off. High end autocar systems will remain mostly a thing for older people (like RVs, boats or timeshares).

Do the experiment.

Chip every car in a city.

Find which ones are actually on the road driving at any one time. Detract ones that are looking for a parking space from the calculation.

>autonomous cars don't work well enough under all conditions

Of course they don't, you twit. The technology is still in it's infancy.

>and most people don't want them.
You know this for a fact? I would assume that the fact that road accidents which number millions could be reduced to a near zero would catch everyone's ear. Besides people are always afraid of new technologies. Once we actually start using it, most everyone will get on board.

Everything you wrote shows a low IQ and bad brain.

Sorry mate. I'm not going to bother explaining why you are so wrong.

wired.com/2016/01/the-clever-way-fords-self-driving-cars-navigate-in-snow/
popsci.com/watch-nvidias-autonomous-car-drive-through-snow-and-winding-roads

Optimization requires money.

An optimal road is an Interstate or multi-lane expressway, both of which require a lot of money to construct (at least compared to a traditional road or avenue). Optimizing roads for autocars will cost money, and this is not a thing DoTs are interested in when their existing infrastructure is crumbling away (mostly because freeways built in the 1950s and 60s have only 40-60 year lifespans, and require extensive refurbishing).

And, as there is only a finite pool of money, other options (such as rail transit or bus lanes) become viable. Throughput is what matters, and this is where the physical size of a car works against itself.

You can ignore reality all you want friendo

I take that back. The technology is developing fast.