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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
...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.
[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.
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.