Slashdot Mirror


If Tesla Can Run Its Gigafactory On 100% Renewables, Why Can't Others?

Lucas123 writes Tesla CEO Elon Musk has said his company's Gigafactory battery plant, the world's largest, will be "self contained" and run on solar, wind and geothermal energy. The obvious problem with renewable sources is that they're intermittent at any given location, but on a larger scale they're quite predictable and reliable, according to Tom Lombardo, a professor of engineering and technology. Lombardo points out that Tesla isn't necessarily going off-grid, but using a strategy of "net metering" where the factory will produce more renewable energy than it needs, and receive credits in return from its utility when renewables aren't available. So why can't other manufacturing facilities do the same? Is what Tesla is doing not necessarily transferable to other industries? Sam Jaffe, principal research analyst with Navigant Research, believes Tesla's choice of locations — Reno — and its product is optimal for using renewable and not something that can be reproduced by every industry.

34 of 444 comments (clear)

  1. Not just Reno by biodata · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Germany is well on the way to doing this on the scale of a whole country. It just takes some political will.

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:Not just Reno by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Germany is well on the way to doing this on the scale of a whole country. It just takes some political will.

      I guess they used up all their political will on solar subsidies for one of the cloudiest places on the planet, and they had none left to stand up to the anti-nuke lobby. Which is why Germany is now burning record amounts of lignite (brown coal), one of the dirtiest fuels.

    2. Re:Not just Reno by Dahamma · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, it's really not, and neither is the Tesla plant. Self contained != net metering positive. Especially for Germany, which has invested a crapload into solar power that does absolutely nothing for a "net average" of almost 1/2 of the year.

      Not saying it's not a good initiative, but it's definitely not 100% renewable energy without very "creative math".

    3. Re:Not just Reno by durrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In environmentalist lala-land neither the end nor the means matters as long as your ideology is sitting in the drivers seat.

    4. Re:Not just Reno by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Germany is well on the way to doing this on the scale of a whole country.

      Sure... if you squint hard enough and tilt your head at the right angle and ignore the 75% of their energy that doesn't come from renewables. Otherwise, not so much. It remains to be seen how far that number can be pushed.

    5. Re:Not just Reno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the smart thing would have been to replace the fossil with renewables and keep nuclear ... but I guess environmentalists know better than scientists, as usual (or maybe coal is less expensive than nuclear and it all makes sense economically ?)

    6. Re:Not just Reno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In other words, no progress has been made. At a huge cost, reasonably clean ways of generating power have displaced another reasonably clean way of generating power while the percentage of dirty power has remained equal.

    7. Re:Not just Reno by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In environmentalist lala-land neither the end nor the means matters as long as your ideology is sitting in the drivers seat.

      And how does that make them different from lala-landers of the politically incorrect christian conservative and occasionally coal rolling variety? There are two things that are almost always true about zealots no matter what their political or religious convictions, firstly they think they're always right and that that gives them the right to walk all over everybody else and secondly they are all stupid idiots.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    8. Re:Not just Reno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In environmentalist lala-land neither the end nor the means matters as long as your ideology is sitting in the drivers seat.

      And how does that make them different from lala-landers of the politically incorrect christian conservative and occasionally coal rolling variety?

      The environmentalists are incorrectly lauded for their beliefs while the other groups are dismissed off hand?

    9. Re:Not just Reno by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True we could burn babies and puppies... Those are renewable!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re: Not just Reno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chernobyl doesn't discredit nuclear energy. It discredits the Soviet system and the environmental recklessness that results from centrally controlled planned economies.

    11. Re:Not just Reno by flyneye · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I prefer to think of myself as sitting in cheapskate lala-land.
      I really don't buy all the global warming horseshit, but, I'm betting that it's driving research for better solar panels and batteries.
      I like the idea of producing my own electricity and I'd rather burn off the excess on a large Tesla Coil or Jacobs ladder display than to ever EVER deal with the Koch-owned electric company near me, again. Now, if I could just sink a well to some CLEAN water and operate my own still for a moonshine burnin' car, I'd be in lala-heaven. Fuck the utility company, along with the government, the cops, ex-spurts, doctors, lawyers and preachers, but mostly, that top heavy blonde down at the bar last Saturday night.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    12. Re:Not just Reno by jythie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That also goes both ways. People tend to laud people they agree with, dismiss those with whom they do not, and then use selection bias to claim that only the other side is doing it.

    13. Re:Not just Reno by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have to agree, actual coal burning trucks would be rather impressive in and of itself and be worthy of bragging about.

      But yeah, people who build their identity around something which has as its core appeal that it upsets people, pretty douchy. Esp since many of the most popular videos involve blowing fumes on 'wrong' people like prius drivers or women who dare to not be impressed with catcalls.

    14. Re:Not just Reno by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, paying big business for your energy is obviously better than paying home owners who took the plunge and put solar panels on their roofs. Nevermind that by far the biggest cost driver in the energy market is heating and traffic, not electricity. Nevermind that without a concerted effort, you would not have invested in cheaper energy sources either. We're talking about Germany, after all, where many people would gladly buy "heat balls" (relabeled incandescent bulbs) to get around the ban of inefficient lighting, because fuck you, that's why. They can't understand that CFLs or LEDs save energy and money. The concept of investing a couple of Euros to save in the long run is alien to them. THAT is why they are poor. Solar panels have nothing to do with it.

    15. Re:Not just Reno by bigpat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Climate change and the benefits of using renewables in place of fossil fuels are observable, measurable and given the volume of data we now have it is an irrefutable fact that renewables are preferable to fossil fuels.

      Totally agree, but when people cite Germany as being well on their way to using 100% renewables they are missing the facts that Germany has increased its CO2 emissions in the last several years with its shift away from nuclear and they are increasing use of cheap dirty coal to balance the higher costs of renewables.

      Renewables alone are going to be insufficient for the world's energy needs. And industrial scale renewables have their own very negative effects on habitats and the environment. Just as shifting food production to biofuels caused food shortages and food riots, there are going to be negative effects if we have to blanket large areas of the planet with solar panels and wind "farms". Just as we found that the downstream effects of hydro-electric dams are often very negative to fisheries, estuaries and sometimes to agriculture.

      And I've said it once and I will say it a million times, nuclear is a far better option with far less negative consequences and with even far less risk than even renewables.

    16. Re:Not just Reno by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't blame the fallout of Germany's reduction in nuclear energy on an increase in renewable energy.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Not just Reno by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The parent claimed german brown coal plants would burn freshly cut trees.

      Neither is true. Burning freshly cut wood does not make sense anyway.

      Both links you gave are about the USA, not Germany.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Expense by perryizgr8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tesla is selling $100k cars, while other battery factories make batteries for $100 phones and $500 laptops. Maybe it is too expensive for them to set up a fully renewable process.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    1. Re:Expense by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tesla is selling $100k cars

      Tesla is selling a luxury product to environmentalists. Most people buy their cars because they want to help the environment, and they want to drive a status symbol showing their green cred. Tesla's customer base is likely to be influenced by their "fully renewable process". So it is good marketing. Other companies are selling to different customers that are buying their products for reasons other than ostentatious environmentalism.

    2. Re: Expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Let's let them get the plant built before we start comparing other companies to Tesla.

      Their next car will be far less expensive. Si it's not just a luxury play.

      Still, they haven't turned a single shovel of dirt yet, and claims of 100% renewable energy use has yet to be seen.

    3. Re:Expense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exec bonuses for most companies are a pittance when stacked against the major costs of doing business. People like to whinge about exec salaries, but at the end of the day you get what you pay for. Don't pay what the market demands, and those people jump ship to somewhere else. And as much as the typical slashdotter would like to think that any muppet can run a multi billion dollar company, truth is, there aren't many competent people out there that can.

    4. Re:Expense by Inconexo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What if someone really just wants a car that polutes less, made by an industry that polutes less? That automatically make him an ostentatious environmentalist? Is it only possible to want this car only as a status symbol?

    5. Re:Expense by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Where would they run to, if no one was handing out multimillion dollar salaries & bonuses, especially when it's not tied to company performance?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  3. Look in the mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's because people like you want a $600 smartphone device every 2 years made by a Chinese worker getting $1 an hour using 100s of toxic, cancerous materials, all processed by coal power.

    In the race to the top in the present it's the future generations that come in last.

  4. The fiction of net metering... by tlambert · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fiction of net metering is that you will not be paid the same amount for the electricity you generate as for the electricity you consume.

    On of the purposes of "Smart Meters" is to permit differential pricing on electricity produced vs. consumed; it's not just to provide a temporal demand market. There are already tariffs in place in California where PG&E only has to buy as much electricity as you consume for a net 0 energy usage, rather than being required to purchase everything you generate over what you consume.

    The idea of a large grid only works if someone pays to maintain that grid, and that pricing comes in as a differential.

    Everyone can't do what Tesla is doing because not everyone is going to have the storage capacity to make it economical; Tesla can just rota the batteries it manufactures in service to the manufacturing plant itself, as part of "burn in testing", so that it'll get local off-grid storage as a side effect of the manufacturing process itself.

    I suppose that "every rechargeable battery manufacturer can do what Tesla does" would be a fair statement, but that's a tiny subset of "everyone"

  5. same junk as last time by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You cannot base any real analysis on figures take by looking at an artists rendering of the site.

    The article says that they will have 85 windmills because there are 85 windmills in the picture. This is garbage. It is an artists rendering!

    If you want to have a serious discussion, you have to wait until there is some actual real info to discuss.

    Note that net metering is not running your plant completely off renewables. It's running it off renewables some of the time.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  6. It's just not in the plans by RR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When I go to a high point in this city and look down, I see countless flat roofs that could easily host solar panels. Even with all the fog this city gets, that would make a significant impact on our use of non-renewable energy. But it is not to be. Homeowners tend not to like the upfront expense, they tend not to know about SolarCity, and a bunch of the homes are rented. Absent some regulation, they aren't going to install renewable energy.

    I think the neatest time to add renewable energy to a building is during construction. Absent that regulation, unless the owner makes it a priority, then the architects are not going to add it to the plan. For example, my work place recently commissioned and moved into a new building. It has an unobstructed, south-facing, 2-story-high, 10-foot-wide window that we have to cover up on the inside to maintain the climate. My immediate thought was: Solar energy. But I had no authority; the people in charge just put a poorly designed curtain on it. It just doesn't occur to them that we could put renewables in this building.

    Actually, in the current political climate, I think renewable energy gets negative publicity from these deployments. Conservatives under the thrall of Koch money see renewables as an admission of AGW, and reject it. No! That reason is stupid! And regardless of AGW, renewables will help us survive the depletion of the oil reserves! The Koch-funded people claim that there is no depletion. I live in a state of extreme pessimism.

    --
    Have a nice time.
  7. Cart FIRMLY in front of horse! CHECK! by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tesla is doing this

    Uhm. They haven't even broken ground yet. So no, they're NOT.

    Until the site is up and 100% operational, this is all smoke being blown out someone's ass.

    Why don't others do this?

    Because this sort of solution isn't suitable everywhere.

    Reno sees about 250 sunny or partly sunny days a year, with roughly 60% of those being totally sunny.

    A place like Chicago sees 189 sunny or partly sunny days a year with roughly 40% of those being totally sunny.

    Places like Reno don't have to deal with long stretches of extreme low temperatures and snow measured in feet.

    Also, there's the land use to consider. Farmland is a LOT more valuable for what it can produce than a big stretch of desert land. So converting it to a wind/solar farm from food production is idiotic.

    There's also issues of space availability. If you have a factory in someplace like Los Angeles, you simply aren't going to have the land area to build a totally renewable setup.

    On top of this, what other environmental impacts does building in this manner, on a wide-scale basis (not just one factory, but dozens/hundreds/thousands of businesses and their facilities) have?

    There's also the issue that the local utility needs to be set up to accept power back into the system.

    And finally, if everyone's doing this, how do you maintain a stable power production industry? And how does the industry finance maintenance, expansion and construction of new facilities to replace old/obsoleted facilities that have met/exceeded their productive lifetimes?

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  8. Let's Wait And See by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Right now Tesla's Gigafactory does nothing, because it's just some hype that's been used to get funding.

    We need to wait for it to be built and see some results. Otherwise, we might as well be discussing the environmental soundness of the warp drive on the starship Enterprise, or the predicted efficiencies from the dreams any other capitalist has spun up.

    Show us results before saying more.

  9. Re:Fukushima too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fukushima discredits Tokyo Electric Power Company, and their half-assed management of what was a completely containable and manageable problem.

  10. Re:Fukushima too by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That is kinda the problem. There will always be poorly maintained and half-ass managed facilities, it is simply the nature of humans. If a solution can not cope with this class of problem then it is not a good solution, human nature is one of the variables you have to take into account.

  11. Re:Fukushima too by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lackadaisical safety management is dangerous.

  12. It's not horseshit. It's happening. by DoctorNathaniel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I teach physics. The most depressing part of my job is teaching a general-education class where I have to explain global warming.

    Scientists don't have a private agenda. We would LOVE to be wrong about this, but:
    - Temperatures are going up worldwide
    - Global temperatures are historically very well correlated to CO2 concentrations
    - CO2 concentrations have a straightforward and well-understood effect on infrared light produced by
    earth's blackbody radiation
    - Even small changes to global temperature will create big changes to local climates
    - We can stop this, but only if radical action is taken right now
    so
    - We're all fucked.

    This is not the time for the debate about whether the effect is real. This is the time for debate about just how MUCH we should be panicking. We're in the deep shit here. We're talking about large proportions of humanity not having enough food to eat. The resulting warfare and hardship will be devastating.