Tesla's New York Gigafactory Kicks Off Solar Roof Production (bloomberg.com) 103
In an email Tuesday, Tesla said that its manufacturing of the long-awaited electricity-producing shingles began last month at a factory in Buffalo built with backing from New York State. It comes more than a year after Tesla unveiled the shingles to a mix of fanfare and skepticism. Bloomberg reports: The appeal: a sleek, clean solar product, especially for homeowners seeking to replace aging roofs. The tiles -- from most angles -- look like ordinary shingles. They allow light to pass from above and onto a standard flat solar cell. Tesla, the biggest U.S. installer of rooftop-solar systems, piloted the product on the homes of several employees. The company expects to begin installing roofs for customers within the next few months.
Tesla started production of solar cells and panels about four months ago at its Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo. New York committed $750 million to help build the 1.2 million-square-foot factory, which currently employs about 500 people. The plant will eventually create nearly 3,000 jobs in Western New York and nearly 5,000 statewide, Governor Andrew Cuomo said in 2015.
Tesla started production of solar cells and panels about four months ago at its Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo. New York committed $750 million to help build the 1.2 million-square-foot factory, which currently employs about 500 people. The plant will eventually create nearly 3,000 jobs in Western New York and nearly 5,000 statewide, Governor Andrew Cuomo said in 2015.
About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Still, if he gets these off the ground and they have figured out the snow loads on them, we will be ordering these the next time that our roof is destroyed by hail (it will be the 3rd time).
These roofs are supposed to be more hail proof than concrete or slate tile, which hold up against all the hail on the front range (golf ball to baseball size).
Re: (Score:1)
Amazing that he can track these.
I read his autobiography, have been a close follower of his career, and have studied his methods for both engineering and leadership. I think his secret boils down to none of his schemes actually work, so there's nothing to track.
Re: About time. (Score:2)
Must be. I think I must have also imagined reusable rockets landing on autonomous barges. It's certainly hard to believe that it could be real.
Re:About time. (Score:5, Funny)
I read his autobiography
I started to read an article about Musk by his ex-wife, Justine. In the first paragraph she said that if you ever want to be like Elon, you need to understand that "he would never waste time reading an article like this."
So I stopped reading, and watched random video clips on Facebook instead.
Re: (Score:2)
that's an odd statement. as a Tesla owner, it is far and away the most amazing and easy to drive car i've ever owned. And I'm not just talking about acceleration. Anyone that rides with me is similarly jaw-droppingly impressed by a random half-dozen features, and they get out saying "why don't ALL cars do this...?" about various features.
Re: (Score:3)
I was shocked. That was the only reason I have gotten interested in that. Here in Colorado, in 10 years, we have replaced 2x, and our insurance is starting to go up.
So next time (and we will likely have another within 3 years), we will cut a deal with insurance to switch to this and have the money they owe applied towards it. Then we can get our insurance l
Re:About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
Tesla's hail demo is not that impressive for a modern solar panel, IMO. Check this video of the SolarWorld panels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Now, That is impressive!
Re: (Score:2)
Impressive indeed.
Re: About time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Your insurance won't pay for it. The roof is at least 3 times as expensive, twice as heavy as a regular roof, requires major engineering both due to weight and the electric and still won't hold up if the structure underneath it doesn't hold on.
Architectural shingles are likewise supposedly hail and wind proof, if your roof keeps getting damaged every few years, it may be time to get some better roofing materials or contractors with a good warranty, I just did my roof and it came with a 25y warranty against
Re: About time. (Score:5, Interesting)
twice as heavy as a regular roof
This article claims that the Tesla tiles are one-third the weight of typical roofing tiles.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/heres-how-much-a-tesla-solar-roof-will-cost-you [greentechmedia.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Tiles are not shingles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: About time. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
In the USA yes. Over in Europe we might use them on a garden shed or summerhouse and then moan that they are junk and constantly need replacing.
Then again house construction standards in the USA are basically entirely alien to Europeans who basically look upon US buildings as little more than glorified sheds.
Re: (Score:3)
Architectural shingles are likewise supposedly hail and wind proof
"Hail proof" often does not mean "Colorado hail proof". Along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, you get some weird weather patterns. Hailstones the size of grapefruits can literally kill people. Some big hailstorms have caused more than $1 Billion in damages.
List of costly and deadly hailstorms [wikipedia.org]
Re: About time. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The question is whether these things will hold up to that. They've demonstrated a single tile being resistant to a golf sized hail ball, once the tile is installed it will have significantly less "flex" and the energy has to be distributed some way. They have the same ratings that my roofing contractor showed me last year on a quality shingle, time will tell I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on what you compare them to. That garbage asphalt shingles that some Americans use, yeah heavier and more expensive. But the vast majority of the western world doesn't put such garbage over their heads, and the Tesla solar roofs are far lighter than many other roofing methods (e.g. terracotta tiles)
Re: (Score:1)
Most of the "facts" you have quoted for this product are demonstrably false.
The tiles are stronger than conventional roofing materials and even if they aren't, they have a warranty to guarantee you aren't affected by this. [tesla.com]
According to steveha's link the tiles are lighter and cheaper than conventional roofing materials [greentechmedia.com]
So, basically what you are saying here is that you spread false information for someone who stands to loose out.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the glass solar roof will do great against golf and baseball size hail.
No roofing materials do. In the event electricity-generating shingles reach a reasonable price point, insurance premiums will adjust to accommodate them.
Insurance companies already reluctantly absorb the replacement cost of cedar shingles, metal roofing, and architectural shingles by premium adjustment... they are engineered not to lose money.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla claims it will do better than a less-expensive conventional non-solar roof.
This page has video showing tests where they hit a tile with a 2 inch hail pellet traveling 100 MPH. (That's 50 mm and traveling 160 kph.)
https://www.tesla.com/solarroof [tesla.com]
I notice that the Tesla tile is mounted differently than the other two, and I wonder if that's cheating a bit. But it really does shrug off the hail strike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that stands out to me is the two tiles that broke were mounted differently to the one that didn't break.
They also don't disclose what rating the "traditional tiles" had.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the "traditional roof tile" in the "movie" would be considered a joke in Germany (or most other parts of Europe I'm aware of).
Paper thin?
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla claim lots of things. Bear in mind that they struggle to make cars that don't leak water, and a recent update to the AI made the windscreen wipers spray water into your door, and that Telsa cars are famous for spending so much time in the shop, would you trust them with a roof over your home?
Re:About time. (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, the glass solar roof will do great against golf and baseball size hail.
You know "glass" is a very wide category that refers to any non-crystaline, amorphous solid, and that not all glass is same as the stuff your windows are made of, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you are so lucky! :(
My mom does not have a basement
Re:About time. (Score:5, Informative)
I have no problem imagining glass tiles resisting hail. Some windshields can resist these, and they are much larger and thinner than tiles. They also hold together after being broken.
It is not really an engineering problem. It's more about economics and aesthetics, as well as how much of a penalty there is compared to regular panels of the same size.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not really an engineering problem. It's more about economics and aesthetics, as well as how much of a penalty there is compared to regular panels of the same size.
If only someone at Tesla knew something about economics. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The nice thing about the solar roof is that you don’t actually need to trust that it can withstand hail. Why? Because they’ve put their money where their mouth is by offering a lifetime warranty on it. If it ever fails due to hail, they’ll foot the bill. And that’s the lifetime of the house, just to be clear, rather than the 30-year estimated useful life for the solar component itself.
Of course, given that it’d cost something like $80,000 to outfit my modestly-sized home with t
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
you should not check the size of your roof, but the amount of energy you use (and how to reduce that).
It makes no sense (even in gods on land) to cover the whole roof with such tiles for a single house hold building (and have the power wall sized accordingly).
Most likely one third or less of the roof is enough to power your house.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that you’re covering your whole roof in their tiles, regardless. Some will be solar, others will merely look the same from the street without having any power generating abilities, but either way, you’re eventually covering the whole roof with tiles that not only carry a price premium: they carry a HIGH premium. I knew that would be the case, but I didn’t expect that it wouldn’t be to the tune of $80,000. When I priced it out, it NEVER paid for itself, not even after 30 years
Re: (Score:2)
Well,
a typical solar roof (not tiles, just paneels on top of the tiles) in germany is around $12,000.
You can get that with batteries if you join a long term contract with a 'virtual power plant' company. That means your batterie is pooled with thousands of others into a 'virtual power plant' and is not only loaded from your own solar installation but also by surplus power from the grid.
And the batterie is ofc also used to provide extra power to the grid, as balancing power.
Ofc, there still is some subsidici
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I priced out ordinary panels, and they easily pay for themselves after a couple of years here (Texas, USA) at this point. Convincing my wife and my neighborhood HOA to let me put them up, however, is the problem with those.
I have no problem with PV technology in general, just with the pricing for Tesla's implementation of them. I haven't found anyone yet who is estimated to come out ahead financially after the first 30 years with Tesla's roof and associated parts, let alone earlier than that. From wha
Re: (Score:2)
What use is the warranty if they go out of business?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed it usually does. By the way what do you mean by glass? We have glass that you can drive over. We have glass that you can't sledge hammer through. We have glass that you can't shoot through with a gun. We have glass that is flexible that won't shatter when damaged.
Glass is incredibly strong when surface tension is high, and even stronger when applied against stiff substrate. We use glass surfaces for very rough manufacturing and for protection against things much sharper and more dangerous than a bit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The lighthouse of Alexandria was made from blocks/bricks of glass.
It was over 1000 years in more or less continuous operation. It lasted about 1200 years until it collapsed due to an earth-/seaquake.
Re: (Score:2)
On average there are 210 cloudy days a year in BuIffalo so I do not think that many people there will be using the shingles. I live on the east coast of Lake Michigan and there is little use for the shingles here too as there are not enough sunny days here. If they are a good bargain then the power providers would cover the cost of the shingles and recover that cost by keeping my electrical bill the same.
Re: (Score:3)
In Norway, they have special systems that use a small 12V electric current running through underground wires in order to heat pavements slightly. That's enough to make the snow melt. With solar panels, a similar system could be used to make sure the snow doesn't block out the light.
smart money (Score:3, Insightful)
You can choose between two investments:
Option 1: You pay $100.00 and you receive one share of the company. If the value of the company increases or decreases, the value of your own share increases or decreases proportionally. If the company fails, your stock will be worth nothing and you will have lost $100.00. If the company falls in value, your share could be worth $25.00 and you would have lost $75.00. If the company grows, you can re-sell your stock at higher price than you paid and keep the difference, less capital gains taxes. You could earn $0.01, $1.00, $10,000.00, or more. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Option 2: You pay $100.00 and you receive nothing. If the value of the company increases or decreases, then you will still have nothing. If the company fails, you will have nothing. If the company falls in value, you will have nothing. If the company grows, you will have nothing. Additionally, should you chose, you can can purchase whatever products the company manufactures.
Only an idiot would voluntarily choose Option 2, which is is why that choice is taken only when a politician holds a gun to people's heads and demands it.
Economists call that socializing the risk and privatizing the profits, but in common parlance it's called a ripoff. It's important to keep in mind here that the issue is not whether or not a solar panel factory should be built and whether the government should compel funding, instead it is who keeps the profits taxpayers are compelled to invest, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders. The government could, instead, either not fund Tesla or coercively fund Tesla and vest the tax payers. So don't dare say "But we need solar power to save the planet from global warming." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
There is not a shred of evidence that reducing the burden of government through targeted gifts to favored mega-corporations is any better than uniformly lowering tax rates for all payers. The former is inherently unjust; All men are created equal, except for those who own mega-corporations? Don't dare say "But business is good for the economy." That is a separate issue from who keeps the profits and a smokescreen for stealing from the public.
The Republican Foxxconn deal in Wisconsin is a taxpayer swindle just like this Democrat Tesla deal in New York.
Finally, I would not beat on Elon Musk and Tesla for this. Companies rationally seek capital at the lowest rate, it's not their fault if the lowest rate is obtained from some crooked politician giving away my tax dollars. The remedy is for the public, both Democrats and Republicans, to stop voting for crooks.
Re:smart money (Score:5, Interesting)
Hollywood found this trick 25 years ago, and extorted the Gold Coast in Australia, Toronto in Canada, and New Zealand (that I know of) with the "All those nice jobs will have to go overseas unless we get some subsidies" trick.
The Lord of the Rings movies cost my neighbours and I $50 million for instance.
They're all arseholes.
Re: (Score:2)
Vancouver more than Toronto, actually.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The Lord of the Rings movies cost my neighbours and I $50 million for instance.
And combined with a pittance of advertising from the tourism office the increase in tourism has injected several times that back into the New Zealand economy. But sure, focus only on the "cost" to the taxpayer without looking at what investment you bought.
Sure not everything works out as well as LOTR did for NZ but using that as an example of something bad is incredibly daft.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought not.
It's no different to the bullshit written about the "benefits" to NZ of the America's Cup which will cost taxpayers $100 million or more, with "returns" calculated by the beneficiaries and reported without any real analysis.
These things are just subsidies by taxpayers to big business.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought not.
No because the estimates are varied but almost universally positive. Google it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The production company also demanded (and received) specific labour law exemptions preventing their staff from taking industrial action, and preventing them from being allowed to collectively bargain.
Re: (Score:1)
You missed out the bit where the employees get paid, and pay taxes.
$750,000,000 investment. so far 500 new jobs. Let's assume they're average New York State jobs, $67,000 per year. That's 33 million per year in income tax. $1.7M back to the state in income tax alone per year.
Not the best returns, but I doubt those 500 workers are being paid the average wage, probably higher. It gets 10x better when the number of jobs goes up to 5000.
There's also tax savings to be had by having lower unemployment rates. More
Re:smart money (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure but let's look at some values here : 750M for 8000 jobs (3K+5K) over say 10 years (at 0%) that's a requirement of 9.3K/person/year in state taxes to recover. Just from income, that would require each person to be paid over 150K/year (with about 100K income after taxes).
If we include sales taxes at about 9% and we assume that each person spends half of his/her after-tax income, we get to down to a requirement of 101K/year salary per person.
There are certainly other indirect sources (you mentioned some) to consider to get to the complete picture here, but still... it seems far-fetched...
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming the factory is worthless after 10 years.
You forgot to take off the cost of welfare for 8000 people.
The state retains ownership of the factory and equiptment. SolarCity is paying 5 billion to use it for the next 10 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure but let's look at some values here....
That is irrelevant. Whatever the salary and tax revenue figures, they are the same regardless of whether the tax payers are vested or whether, instead, they are forced to give away money to Tesla without receiving a share of ownership in return.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazingly enough some people are able to count higher than 10.
Amortize that factory out over 20 or 25 years.
Don't forget to account for corporate taxes paid @ ~6.5%
And that is not counting the social and economic benefits of having many people employed in stable jobs, spending money to support local businesses, having families, buying houses, etc.
There is also the added bonus of indirect job creation. That factory will require power and water and garbage collection, all of which they will need to pay for.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not an argument, it's reality.
Why do people who work for the state pay state income tax? That's the dumbest thing ever. Paying someone money so you can get some back in taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed out the bit where the employees get paid, and pay taxes.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, employees get paid and pay taxes. So which is the better option for taxpayers?
By making that comparison, you can recognize that corporate welfare has no social benefit and that it is only a giveaway to the wealthy and politically well connected.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case the taxpayers pay for and own the factory and equipment. The company will be spending $5B over the next 10 years to use it.
The factory also has capacity for other companies to use it too.
FYI: The state retains ownership of the factory and equipment. It's in TFA
New York State will invest a total of $750 million through the Buffalo Billion and other state resources to establish infrastructure, construct the 1.2 million square foot facility and purchase required equipment. The state investment will replicate the model created in Albany at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering, in which rather than giving money directly to private companies, the State invests in core infrastructure and equipment and uses that equipment as the incentive to attract companies to establish themselves in these new high-tech facilities.
The model is basically "we'll invest the upfront capital and build a factory if you promise to use it for at least 10 years"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, this:
Should be changed to this:
Re: (Score:2)
there is also the economics of having 3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc. It's not just pay out the money, the factory is built and the public loses the money. Let's also remember there were millions put into the local economy building the factory and going out to all those families and businesses who built the facility.
You missed the point. That happens regardless of whether the taxpayers get ripped off to fund it.
With one option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory but do not then own and profit from what they pay for. With the other option, the taxpayers pay for part of the factory and do own and profit from what they pay for. With both options, you get "3,000 employees having money to spend, paying a bit of taxes and not being on welfare or having to leave the area etc." So which is the better option for taxpay
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
[stock shares] have to be issued, if Tesla is to get any new capital, not bought on the secondary market.
Of course. And the problem with Tesla issuing stock is what?
Re: (Score:2)
...NY OWNS THE FUCKING FACTORY.
Tesla clearly got a handout from taxpayers. The form of a handout, whether it be favorable rent terms on a factory which NY owns, assumption of risk, gold bricks, cash or Apple App store gift cards is irrelevant.
You are trying to justify corporate welfare by claiming that particular forms of wealth transfer from taxpayers to corporations legitimizes corporate welfare. That is nonsense, because regardless of the form of the transfer, the tax payers are made worse off and the corporate owners made better o
Re: (Score:1)
Utter nonsense. The factory is leased to Tesla, which means that the tax payer is being paid back in rents. This is a much lower risk proposition than investing tax payer money in a single stock. I own a bunch of REITs; that does not mean that the companies whose rent I receive are ripping me off.
As for new stock, that is unlikely to go over well with the shareholders, who would have to agree to reduce their ownership in the enterprise. It’s either favorable conditions or the project not happen
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what everyone's complaining about, America was built in government support for business. States are regularly played against each other to attract businesses via subsidy, it's a not a new phenomenon, it's why America is so successful. Europe has laws against 'state aid', member states are not allowed to attract businesses like this, which is why Europe's economy isn't as successful.
It should be stopped. (Score:2)
Solar Freakin' Roofs! (take it apaaaart) (Score:2)
Hope (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
$20-30k worth of roof pays for a lot of gas. Spend $5k on better windows and insulation and invest the rest. Especially if you don't have net metering in your jurisdiction.