Slashdot Mirror


Tesla's New York Gigafactory Kicks Off Solar Roof Production (bloomberg.com)

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.

103 comments

  1. About time. by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Musk has so many things going on. Amazing that he can track these.
    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).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:About time. by WindBourne · · Score: 2

      have to admit that when I first saw, my thought was that it could not hold up. Yet, they showed it being hit with major hail testing and holding up.
      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 lowered back to normal.

      And have to say, I do love that slate looking roof.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    3. Re:About time. by rmdingler · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    4. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends how you define "work" I suppose. They are popular, have had notable successes, and are worth a lot of money, even if they aren't yet mature businesses...

    5. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think his secret boils down to none of his schemes actually work

      I love my Tesla Model S. Am I just imagining it? It seems so real.

    6. Re:About time. by steveha · · Score: 1

      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

      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.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    7. Re:About time. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I don't want to be that poster, but it certainly appears that the middle hail stone is much softer than the other two, and fruit of the poisoned tree forces me to at least remain suspect of the hardness of the other two hail stones...

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    8. Re:About time. by bigwheel · · Score: 4, 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?... Now, That is impressive!

    9. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False equivalence. The cost of replacing shingle, metal or tile roofing is low compared to Tesla's roofing.

      Whatever you've saved in electricity will probably get eaten up in insurance premiums and maintenance costs.

      But the greenies will think they are doing something I suppose.

    10. Re: About time. by guruevi · · 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 any condition. Make sure they don't keep layering shingles on top of a damaged structure and such.

      If you want something like it, put a regular solar panel on your roof, all of the benefits, fewer of the drawbacks.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    11. Re:About time. by hipp5 · · Score: 4, 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?

    12. Re:About time. by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Tesla price right now, with no adjustments for eventual deflation versus premium metal after generations of use.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    13. Re:About time. by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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?

      Hell the windows I now have installed on my house will take quite a few blows from a hammer before even cracking.

    15. Re:About time. by GuB-42 · · Score: 4, 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.

    16. Re:About time. by ShanghaiBill · · 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.

    17. Re: About time. by steveha · · Score: 4, 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

      According to Tesla, the roof is "three times as strong as standard roofing tiles" and one-third the weight of a normal tile.
      [...]
      Musk said the strong tempered glass makes it easier to ship than conventional tiles. And because the product is one-third the weight, the cost of shipment is also much lower. "We save on logistics and breakage," he said.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
    18. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "insurance premiums will adjust to accommodate them."

      Insurance companies make more from reinsurance and other hedges in financial markets than they do from premiums. Premiums are an arbitrary markup, more about control than supply and demand or allocating resources efficiently.

      Insurance companies charge you premiums based on arbitrary pricing because they don't need premiums to pay out on claims, but they let you think they do. Meanwhile their investment profits rise faster than premium payments because r > g ...

    19. Re:About time. by mikael · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    20. Re: About time. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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

    21. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Tiles are not shingles.

    22. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of neighborhood do you live in?

      Or did you just forget your keys but remembered your hammer?

    23. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the argument about though? I mean if you have to use shingles why even bitch about the weight vs something that's obviously a tile replacement? And lets be real, your using shingles because its cheap and you can store a whole bunch of boxes in your garage.

    24. Re:About time. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      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 these tiles and the necessary Powerwall battery units (based on the automated estimate their site gave me a few months back), I should hope that it comes with a decent warranty.

    25. Re: About time. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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)

    26. Re:About time. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      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 of falling ice.

      Funny story: My house is a bit taller than the neighbour's house. During the epic hail storm in Brisbane in 2013 (cricketball sized hail with very sharp and irregular shapes) I decided to grab some popcorn and watch the neighbour's solar panels get damaged. While doing so their solar panels happily deflected a few hail stones and shattered my office window in the process. 2 days later I had a contractor replacing the window, and both of us had a roofing contractors fixing broken roof tiles. Everything was broken expect their smug glass solar panels.

    27. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever seen a house with shingles on the main roof structure?

    28. Re: About time. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      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.

    29. Re:About time. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Really? I live in my Mom's basement so I don't have a window. Thanks for the tip.

    30. Re:About time. by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Cool story bro. Like I said, I am sure the glass will do fine against golf and baseball sized hail.

    31. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Mine. My neighbors. Every house in my neighborhood. Nearly every house in my city. Nearly every house in my state as far as I can tell.

    32. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to know where greentechmedia got their numbers. When I used Teslas tool to estimate the cost of a solar roof, after rebates it was going to cost me 60K out of pocket. There aren't many roofing materials that are going to cost you that kind of cash. And where I live, where asphalt shingles are the norm, yeah....

      I'm about to throw solar on to my house, I priced out the Tesla roof. When I calculated it out, it'd cost me 3x the cost of just redoing my roof and installing traditional solar.

    33. Re: About time. by Togden · · 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.

      According to steveha's link the tiles are lighter and cheaper than conventional roofing materials

      So, basically what you are saying here is that you spread false information for someone who stands to loose out.

    34. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How often? Risk vs cost.

    35. Re:About time. by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    36. Re:About time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      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?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:About time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Wow, you are so lucky!
      My mom does not have a basement :(

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:About time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    39. Re:About time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re: About time. by White+Yeti · · Score: 1

      Built around 1970, my parents' house has shingles nailed onto longerons, like a sort of lath. From inside the attic you can see the underside of the shingles. Raccoons easily can get in by tearing a hole through the shingles.

    41. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol. Now everyone can forever safely label this login a liar.

    42. Re: About time. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      In fact I don't think I've ever seen a house with shingles that didn't have them on the main roof. That's kind of the point of having them.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    43. Re:About time. by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      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.

    44. Re:About time. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      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 (assuming we kept the house that long), and not even after subtracting the amount it would have cost us to replace the roof with conventional, high-end tiles (which don’t fit in around here anyway, since everyone here (aside from the multi-million dollar homes in the country club across the street) uses asphalt shingles).

      And my energy consumption is already quite low for the region where I live (multi-paned windows with blinds and curtains that we keep closed when the sun is out, well insulated attic, an extremely wide range of acceptable temps on the thermostat, CFLs and LEDs throughout, natural gas for the house and all relevant appliances, no power-gulping electronics, no kids squandering power (yet), etc.), so our power consumption wasn’t the problem. I don’t recall the specifics, but I think your estimate for the amount we’d need wasn’t too far off, yet it was still going to cost us what I said. Perhaps our roof sloped in bad directions. Perhaps the tech is simply too new. But either way, with prices like that I’d only consider it in new construction, and even then I don’t see how it could ever make financial sense.

    45. Re: About time. by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yeah. What is weird is I was in 5 of those storms. 4 in Colorado, and one in Illinois. However, 1 of those storms was one that took out our hail resistant shingles, and then another storm that was actually worse did it again. While the 2nd storm was worse, it struck a very small area. Just the southern half of highlands ranch, but it lasted just shy of a half hour, with a great deal of the hail being golf ball size. When it stopped we had 2' of hail covering our yard. Even.though it was end of June, it stayed for nearly a week. A lot of expensive homes had extensive damage. Oddly, not a one of our solar panels were damaged which is why I want to switch to Tesla roof. Hate paying to fix. But when I asked about them, they said they were still working on the snow/cold rating.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    46. Re: About time. by guruevi · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    47. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like you are describing Wood Shakes, not shingles.

    48. Re:About time. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Impressive indeed.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    49. Re: About time. by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      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.

    50. Re:About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but the truck didn't jump!

    51. Re:About time. by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    52. Re:About time. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      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 subsidicing going on, but a system to power a house completely autonomous and even earn money, would not cost more than $20,000. After 7 - 8 years you would make money.
      However, that would not be solar tiles (no idea about their performance) but ordinary silicon based PV installations.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    53. Re:About time. by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      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 what I can tell, you're basically paying for something that looks good, is structurally sound, has the Tesla brand name, and gives you the feel-goods for saving energy, even though it makes no financial sense at all. I wish it was more cost-effective, since I'd really love to use it, but it simply isn't in the cards for me.

    54. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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)

      FWIW, I doubt terracotta tiles will hold up to major hailstorms...

      When my dad (who lives in colorado) built his house, he decided to go with concrete tiles instead of terracotta (which his neighbor chose). So far so good (his neighbor is considering downgrading to asphalt tiles to reduce the re-roofing cost)

    55. Re: About time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighter, yes. Cheaper, not initially... but they will pay for themselves over time by making electricity.

      So we have a more expensive product that is lighter and stronger than the less expensive product. And after a while the electricity can pay back the "more expensive" part. So overall these look like a win to me, at least for people in sunny climates.

      And as we must always remember in these discussions, people in areas that need air conditioning on hot days pretty much automatically get enough sun on those hot days for the roof. So they are guaranteed to be working when they are needed the most, in places like Arizona. They wouldn't work so good to run an electric heater during the winter in Montana. But there's lots of places these are pure win.

    56. Re:About time. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      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?

    57. Re:About time. by drsquare · · Score: 1

      What use is the warranty if they go out of business?

  2. S'ok Lexx will save us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go Stanley!

  3. smart money by Jodka · · Score: 2, 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.

       

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    1. Re:smart money by youngone · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Unfortunately it's not just Republicans and Democrats doing this.

      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.

    2. Re:smart money by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      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 sales tax collected by having more people with more disposable income.

    3. Re:smart money by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Sorry, this:

      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.

      Should be changed to this:

      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, those taxpayers footing the bill or Elon Musk and Tesla stockholders.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    4. Re:smart money by Arkh89 · · Score: 4, 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...

    5. Re:smart money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      If the factory stays in production for X number of years then the public wins, if it goes under in just a few years, the public doesn't win so much but again, the money went into building the facility so maybe it's not the best ending it's not like the money was burned.

      I would rather governments not get in this game but after seeing what some businesses do to protect their old ways of doing things, and with the lack of effort and difficulty stopping them, it's an acceptable evil sometimes.

    6. Re:smart money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fed is returning close to $100 billion in interest profit to the Treasury. That money is not taxpayer funded. The government does not need taxpayers.

    7. Re:smart money by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Vancouver more than Toronto, actually.

    8. Re:smart money by thegarbz · · Score: 1, 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.

    9. Re:smart money by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard: paying people money so you can get some of it back in taxes. Why not just give people money directly? It would "save" money.

    10. Re:smart money by inking · · Score: 1

      We have been doing this since civilization became a thing. The government always builds infrastructure to attract companies and receive tax revenue.

    11. Re:smart money by RobinH · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're counting the tourism increase to New Zealand. My wife and I were mostly unaware of New Zealand as a big tourist destination before the movies (all I knew about New Zealand was it's the land "where the men are men and sheep are nervous"). Now we're specifically making sure to go there and my wife wanted to do the LOTR tour as she's a big fan of the books/movies. The movies showed off the scenery - $50 million for advertising was probably easily worth it.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    12. Re:smart money by youngone · · Score: 1
      Care to quantify exactly how much tourism is directly because of Lord of the Rings?

      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.

    13. Re:smart money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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.

    14. Re:smart money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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.

    15. Re:smart money by youngone · · Score: 1
      Except it wasn't $50 million for advertising. It was $50 million subsidy to Warner Bros.

      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.

    16. Re:smart money by Jodka · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    17. Re:smart money by Jodka · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    18. Re:smart money by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      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"

    19. Re:smart money by Jodka · · Score: 1

      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 taxpayers?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    20. Re:smart money by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Thought not.

      No because the estimates are varied but almost universally positive. Google it yourself.

    21. Re:smart money by drsquare · · Score: 1

      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.

    22. Re:smart money by zentigger · · Score: 1

      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. The plant will require office supplies from paper clips to toilet paper that will all need to be purchased somewhere, likely a local retailer.

      Of course, several thousand people need to eat and shop locally, so they will support local grocery stores, restaurants, movie theatres... All of the amenities that might attract other businesses to an area with an available pool of infrastructure and employable people.

      get the point yet?

      --

      the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

    23. Re:smart money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was product placement, which is indeed a form of advertising. The product was the NZ scenery.

    24. Re:smart money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe was largely destroyed by WWII, the USA was largely untouched by it. That gave the USA a huge boost relative to Europe and helped build up some US industries. And don't forget that a significant portion of Europe was controlled by the USSR until that collapsed.

      And even considering the history of it, the difference between the EU and USA isn't that great economically.

      What the subsidies do is take taxpayer money and give it to private companies. It can turn out well and be a net win for everyone, but often it just fucks over the average taxpayer and benefits the already rich owners of the private companies increasing wealth disparity between the rich and poor.

  4. It should be stopped. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    We should give a subsidy to powerplants to help them store enough fuel to make electricity for six months. Any fuel, absolutely no discrimination. But it should keep the plant going for six months to handle unforeseen emergencies.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re: It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Rick, what's up?

    2. Re: It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banana-fanna-fo-free-frick? Me-my-mo-meek-mick? Riiick??

    3. Re:It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh cool, using the government pick and choose which technologies are allowed to be successful. Hey, this is unrelated, but why don't we ask Venezuela how their planned economy is working out?

    4. Re: It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rick. Riiiiiick. Riiiiiiiiiiiiickkkkkk. Rick rick rick rick. Lick lick mick rick sick sick lick nick rick!

    5. Re:It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A six-month supply of fuel is anywhere from tiny (for a nuke plant) to huge (for a coal or hydro plant).

      A simple rule of thumb is that a 1GW coal plant uses 500t per hour and there are about 4000 hours in a half-year, so a large coal plant burns about 2Mt of fuel in half-year. A ton of coal is about 1 cubic meter, so that's an 8m tall pile of coal 500m per side, or 60 acres piled to 25ft.

      It would take 20,000 rail cars, or about 150 trains to deliver it all.

      dom

    6. Re:It should be stopped. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound like you are trying to help the coal industry, but then I realized:

      A large coal train called a "unit train" may be two kilometers (over a mile) long, containing 130-140 cars with 100 short tons of coal in each one, for a total load of over 15,000 tons. A large plant under full load requires at least one coal delivery this size every day. Plants may get as many as three to five trains a day, especially in "peak season" during the hottest summer or coldest winter months (depending on local climate) when power consumption is high. A large thermal power plant such as the now decommissioned Nanticoke, Ontario stores several million metric tons of coal for winter use when the lakes are frozen.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_station#Coal

      Most coal plants don't have that kind of room!

  5. Never forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    )
      ( \
        X
    8====D

  6. Solar Freakin' Roofs! (take it apaaaart) by thygate · · Score: 1

    Dave Jones' (EEVblog) analysis : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (bonus points if you read the subject in his voice, let's hear your favorite dave quotes/one liners)

  7. Retard, NY owns the factory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Option 3, you are fucking retarded and don't even know that NY OWNS THE FUCKING FACTORY.

    1. Re:Retard, NY owns the factory by inking · · Score: 1

      Which they are literally leasing to Solarwhatsitsface. I wonder if Jodka actually understands what “buying Tesla’s shares” would mean. These have to be issued, if Tesla is to get any new capital, not bought on the secondary market.

    2. Re:Retard, NY owns the factory by Jodka · · Score: 1

      ...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 off. There are clearly better deals for the tax payers, either that they purchase stock or that they not be forced to pay for a Tesla factory at all.

           

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    3. Re:Retard, NY owns the factory by Jodka · · Score: 1

      [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?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    4. Re:Retard, NY owns the factory by inking · · 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 happening anytime soon.

      You are literally ranting about muh corporations, whereas if this is indeed a bad deal—something you’ve concluded based on one article and not understanding what a lease is—it is much more likely the case of catering to the voters than the ominous shareholders.

  8. Hope by pjv936 · · Score: 2

    the price of the tiles comes down quickly. I would love to do my entire roof so I can replace my gas furnace and water heater with heat pump units. My winter heating bill is my highest bill.

    1. Re:Hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to me that Musk's solar roof is one of those "for the rich" technologies, same as his electric cars. If you have a 1500 sq ft roof, then the cost to install it will be 1500 x $21.85 = $32,775, or about 2x or even 3x a conventional roof installation. Maybe it will last forever and you will never have to replace it, but taking a loan to repair a roof, when the cost of a house is already sky-high? Even if you can pay cash for it, your insurance bill will rise high enough that you'll be howling. So how high are your winter heating bills that you can't lower them by installing better insulation at a much lower overall price ?

    2. Re:Hope by ahodgson · · Score: 1

      $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.

  9. Can you walk on the shingles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not very useful if you need to clean debris off your roof in order to make your shingles work more efficiently, only your weight is enough to damage them...unless they're so slippery that you're likely to fall off the roof. Also, would you trust your average roofer to install them, and if not, how much does it cost for a new roof?