Tesla Picks Nevada for New Battery Factory (dangerous, move)

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by oldtrader

The plant will be up and running within a year to 18 months.

To be accurate, Elon Musk said they are expecting it to be in production by early 2017, possibly late 2016. IOW, 2 years at the earliest, probably a bit longer.

In California, it would take at least 2 1/2 years to get the permits to build, and a year and a half to 18 months to get into operation. In other words, 18 months maximum in Nevada, and 4 years in California to get up and running. Time is money when you want to open a factory, and California just takes too long to get open.

It's more than just a "Time is money" consideration. In this specific case, battery supply is the #1 constraint on Tesla auto production. They can't build the cars faster than they can get the batteries. That's why Musk said repeatedly that the time to completion of the new plant was the #1 factor in the selection criteria. I'm not too sure a lot of people heard that the way he meant it, but Nevada apparently did. All the earthmoving necessary to prep the pad for pouring concrete in the Reno-Tahoe Industrial Park was completed in June.

Watch when they put in the new auto facility.

That might be a while. They still have a lot of room for expansion in the Fremont facility.

California will probably not be the choice, due to the lag time to start production.

It also might fall elsewhere due to other considerations. China is known to be a market that could be as big or bigger for Tesla than the US market within the next year or two.

They want the battery factory to be open in less than 18 months, so will need the auto factory ready to produce cars without the extra 2 years plus California takes.

You have the right idea, but your numbers are a bit off, according to what Musk has talked about.

[DriveNotCommute]

Originally Posted by sacite

Tesla wanted a bunch of FREE money from CA Mr. Republican. And Brown wouldn't give it to him. If he had, I am sure you'd be complaining about that instead. Just another example of a corporation trying to do the very thing that Republicans rail about; asking for a handout. Cannot have it both ways.

Edit: meant to reply to the OP.

Actually, Think4Yourself and eccotecc [posts #24 and #25 respectively] already posted links to articles that explicitly state that the factory's final Time to Completion took priority.

OpenD [post #26] highlighted Musk's specific quote, explaining that the permitting process is likely what made the difference.

[Ruth4Truth]

Here's a potential snag. How does Tesla propose to transport shipments of highly flammable lithium-ion batteries from Nevada to Fremont without incident? They're highly combustible. Some Tesla cars caught fire in mid-drive, before the company added a flame-proof undercarriage.

Is this a disaster waiting to happen? I can see now why Tesla might want to move the factory to Nevada.

[DriveNotCommute]

Tesla's shipping team already has experience with safely moving batteries great distances so I doubt that there is going to be any special hazard with the NV plant. Besides, large quantities of various types of other lithium and lithium-ion batteries are already being transported every day for common household goods like phones, laptops and power tools.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by DriveNotCommute

Tesla's shipping team already has experience with safely moving batteries great distances so I doubt that there is going to be any special hazard with the NV plant. Besides, large quantities of various types of other lithium and lithium-ion batteries are already being transported every day for common household goods like phones, laptops and power tools.

Yes, but the lith-ion battery cargo on the Malaysian mystery plane were blamed for the supposed on-board fire some witnesses reported. There was discussion about how tricky they are to transport safely.

I guess Tesla has it figured out, though.

[Think4Yourself]

The batteries, which are no more flamable than your cellphone or laptop batteries, will likely be shipped by rail since the location selected has a rail link between the CA factory and the NV factory.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Think4Yourself

The batteries, which are no more flamable than your cellphone or laptop batteries, will likely be shipped by rail since the location selected has a rail link between the CA factory and the NV factory.

Obviously. But the question was: is this a trainwreck waiting to happen? When packed together en masse, apparently there's serious fire danger. Tesla had to modify their cars because of that danger. Some of their cars burst into flames during routine drives.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Obviously. But the question was: is this a trainwreck waiting to happen? When packed together en masse, apparently there's serious fire danger. Tesla had to modify their cars because of that danger. Some of their cars burst into flames during routine drives.

As I answered your same question in another thread... not only is there little danger in shipping those uncharged battery packs, nor will they run any risk of accidental puncture by sharp metal debris, like those cars experienced, but I find it highly likely that the output of the new battery plant will be non-flammable.

The technology for non-flammable electrolyte has already been developed, and is being refined and tested, and the rumors are out that the new plant will be using a new chemistry, so it seems highly unlikely to me that they'll build a new $5 Billion plant around old technology.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by OpenD

As I answered your same question in another thread... not only is there little danger in shipping those uncharged battery packs, nor will they run any risk of accidental puncture by sharp metal debris, like those cars experienced, but I find it highly likely that the output of the new battery plant will be non-flammable.

The technology for non-flammable electrolyte has already been developed, and is being refined and tested, and the rumors are out that the new plant will be using a new chemistry, so it seems highly unlikely to me that they'll build a new $5 Billion plant around old technology.

Right, that's an intriguing and encouraging possibility. So the question at this point is moot, until we see what kind of batteries they'll be producing.

Got it. Thanks.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Right, that's an intriguing and encouraging possibility. So the question at this point is moot, until we see what kind of batteries they'll be producing.

Got it. Thanks.

It seems to me that the core issue is not what they're going to produce but that they won't be producing it/them in California, aka: no jobs!