What state will the Giga plant be built?

What state will the Giga plant be built?

How about an Indian reservation.
You would only have to deal with federal laws not state laws

holidayday | 27. Februar 2014

Dunno yet.

Tesla is likely looking for state incentives, not just federal laws.

I wonder what would happen if all states said "sorry, no incentives, just build where you want to."

RanjitC | 27. Februar 2014

It will probably be in CA because we have the best incentives for renewables.

ian | 27. Februar 2014

Except for the fact that they've said the only states in the running are TX, NV, AZ, and NM.

paulfgoode | 27. Februar 2014

Including Texas signals an strategy to weaken opposition to Tesla's business model there. If successful raising the money Tesla will spend 1.6 Billion and create 6500 jobs where it builds the plant. Believe me the Texas politicians are drooling to get that cash and may back off of their resistance.

Bubba2000 | 28. Februar 2014

Texas auto dealers say no special treatment for Tesla. If the BEVs disrupt the ICE and oil industry in a few years, there will be increased political an public hostility against Tesla. Texas politics is like some Banana Republic in the old days.

Arizona is another politically backward state, even though the governor voted the latest anti-gay legislation. The state is also getting into the religious issues. NM?

CA may make the most sense after all. In the context of a $5B investment, it may make sense to get a piece of land close to the factory with railroad access, roads, etc. The climate is pleasant and more of an open society. There is a lot of talent that can hired from the universities in Northern California. Easier to manage. Governor Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown is very supportive of renewables. OK, he did Jane Fonda, but I would not hold that against him. He was not the only one back in those days.

jk2014 | 28. Februar 2014


I wish California could pull out a surprise win here with the gigafactory... Reno, NV area looking the overtly strongest candidate. Nevada has been very good to Tesla and Solarcity. Vegas has its own superchargers just for its fleet of 100 Ms's (maybe more in the future). Also Nevada just gave Solarcity business of the year award for customer satisfaction. Solarcity also has a major operations center in Vegas as well. Roots are already set.

Proximity to Nummi is about 192 miles as well to mines in the northern Nevada and Wyoming. Tax free state as well as very supportive of business.

Still hope California does something to get the gigafactory. Many many jobs and billions in state revenue for potentially decades is not something to leave on the table.

Homebrook | 28. Februar 2014

There is a lot of wishful thinking here regarding CA. Tesla has stated in no uncertain terms that the Gigafactory will not be built in CA, for good reason too. CA has among the worst business and political climates in the entire nation, which isn't going to change any time soon. I would imagine Tesla is avoiding CA like the plague. Tesla builds in CA because of the incredible deal it got in purchasing the NUMMI plant. If it weren't for that they wouldn't be building in CA either. BTW I live in CA.

Brian H | 01. März 2014

They had a deal with NM when the Gubernator trumped the deal. NM sued, and I think they settled.

PorfirioR | 01. März 2014

It will never be in Texas. They are only on the list so they can "lose it". Don't mess with Tesla. Bam!

It will most likely be Nevada, almost purely for geographical and geological reasons.

Bubba2000 | 01. März 2014

California must be doing something right. It has some of the best universities in the world like Stanford, UC Berkley, etc. All kinds on innovative companies started there like Tesla, FB, Google, Apple, Intel, PayPal, etc. I have told that tech talent makes the difference. Companies like Google, can relocate anywhere in the world, never pay any taxes. But the don't.

I do agree with you that Nevada seems to be the best location for the battery gigafactory.

dwfauber | 18. März 2014

As it appears that Tesla is looking for a new place for a factory. I live in New Mexico, and after reading the news as to which states allow the direct sale of the vehicle, why would Tesla even be looking as locating in Texas and Arizona, who won't even allow sales. The perspective of requiring a "stealer ship" has lived its day. Tesla, there is a lot of open spaces in New Mexico, plenty of room for expansion and acreage no farther than 50 miles from Albuquerque, plenty of qualified workers, clean air, and a state that loves new business. Give the US Gov a run for their money, since they are the largest employer in the state other than the state itself. Being located at the I-25 heading north and I-40 heading East and West, great for shipping. One may even go further in-depth as to which city/area, McIntosh sounds good, lots of room but still close to Albuquerque, and only 10 miles south of I-40 and 50 miles to the 25/40 interchange, rail-ways as well, consider looking. It is a relatively low income state, so jobs are needed, and the weather...well the best year round and it is dry.

Bubba2000 | 18. März 2014

New Mexico has state income tax! Nevada does not have state income tax, is much closer to the Tesla factory, cheap electrical energy till Tesla deploys solar/wind electricity. Direct rail and highway access. They will probably pony up incentives, but the tax + logistics advantages are unbeatable. As it is management (Elon Musk) is stretched between N. CA, Hawthorne/SpaceX/Texas, Solar City... and where he has a house with 5 kids.

No peep from Panasonic and partners, so far. May be they can not come up with the $1B to sit at the table. Panasonic had financial difficulties in the past. I got a feeling that Panasonic participation in will be quite small. What Tesla needs is their technology and expertise to run the factory. It does not matter about the capital, because Tesla can get another $B from the shorts who have been pilling in. Rest can be borrowed to finance the equipment, etc. Capital outlays for solar/wind energy can be delayed and use hydro power from the utilities.

Brian H | 18. März 2014

↑ Flagged.

Timo | 18. März 2014

Quadruple post, so flagging as well.

Brian H | 19. März 2014

The content is reprehensible as well. And incomprehensible. If you're going to post in English, study it for a year or two first.

Homebrook | 19. März 2014

It looks like Tesla dangling the Gigafactory carrot in front of AZ and TX, both states banning direct sales, just might have obtained some results: "Meanwhile in Arizona, lawmakers are set to consider a bill that would allow Tesla to sell cars in the state without establishing a dealer network, reversing a ban that dates back to 2000. “This is a great opportunity for us to send a message that we welcome business and we welcome Tesla here to Arizona,” state Rep. Warren Petersen, the bill’s sponsor, said..."
Tesla’s War With the States Shifts Into Overdrive
If only Tesla can get TX to move on their ban it would be a real coup, given its size, cheap real estate, business climate, expert employee pool, and access to solar and wind power.

Bubba2000 | 20. März 2014

Texas is too big and rich to be sufficiently influenced by the Gigafactory. Their dealers are huge and they will buy political influence. Besides, Texas wants to protect their oil/gas industry, no matter what. $BBBs at stake here. Arizona has state income taxes

I think that Nevada would be better due to the logistics, taxes, etc. Wide open spaces. Minimal regulations.

sosmerc | 20. März 2014

Too bad State of Washington isn't being considered. There's lots of open land in the Columbia Gorge area and there's Wind, Solar and hydro for power. There's also access to railroad and Columbia River for transport of product.

Homebrook | 21. März 2014

Does anybody know if Tesla has announced a target date for making a decision on where it will build its Gigafactory?

Mike83 | 21. März 2014

My vote is Nevada near Reno. Lots of sun and great laws. Plus many people can afford 2 Teslas a Model S and X for the wife.
The other states limiting Tesla sales are a drop in the bucket. States I have no interest in visiting or running a business in any of these states that limit free capitalism.

Mike83 | 21. März 2014

First time I posted. But need to add that any state that ignores global warming is a place I don't want to go to.

holidayday | 21. März 2014

Homebrook "Does anybody know if Tesla has announced a target date for making a decision on where it will build its Gigafactory?"

I believe it needs to be made by the end of the year. They need to start building in 2015 to finish at least phase I by 2017 to get it rolling to hit the final 2020 deadline.

But, I like to add 1 year to any prediction within 2 years, and 2 years to any prediction 5 years away.

It seems to work that way with previous Tesla timelines.
Model S delivery date delayed about a year or so for Signature holders.
Model X delivery date delayed from end of 2013 to end of 2014 to "end of 2014 for first run, 2015 for production run"

Brian H | 21. März 2014

Since it has disappeared over the last 17 years, flatly falsifying all predictions, it's easy to ignore. It routinely scores in the lowest ranks of polled public priorities. With excellent reason. It was never anything but a kludged computer projection/fantasy anyway. Busted.

Remnant | 21. März 2014

@ Bubba2000 (February 28, 2014)

<< Texas politics is like some Banana Republic in the old days. ... Arizona is another politically backward state, even though the governor voted the latest anti-gay legislation. The state is also getting into the religious issues. ... CA may make the most sense after all. ... The climate is pleasant and more of an open society. >>

If you pay attention to the news, you learn that CA is losing a massive amount of business to TX, where the State is much less likely to burden with taxes and regulations.

Timo | 21. März 2014

@Brian H, what has disappeared?

Brian H | 22. März 2014

Rising temps/global warming.

Timo | 22. März 2014

That has not gone anywhere. It's just not quite so fashionable topic as it used to be.

Nicoletta | 22. März 2014

@Timo, I live in Europe, and believe me, the topic is very 'fashionable' here, as it is among scientists in the US and everywhere else.

@Brian H, are you a scientist? Because IMO, the only people qualified to talk about this topic with any credibility are scientists.

Iowa92x | 22. März 2014

Nicoletta, you mean global climate change scientists like Peter Gleick that was busted for faking data? Agenda.

ghillair | 22. März 2014

@Iowa +100

Brian H | 22. März 2014

Appeal to authority, one of the most childish of logical fallacies. In any case, weather satellite scientists are reporting the flatlining.

Iowa92x | 22. März 2014

Scientists at one time said the earth is flat and the sun revolves around the globe.

Everyone has a certain worldview, scientists included. Especially when their paycheck is affected by what they preach. To blindly accept as gospel something a scientist says is unwise. Be independent, creative, use your brain and critically evaluate everything, including "facts" spouted by "experts."

Antarctica used to be a desert. Throughout time, Earth's climate has fluctuated wildly, and it had nothing to do with man. There is much money to be made by taxing corporations for greenhouse gases. Follow the money backwards...

Back on topic, the battery factory will need high wind, rail and ideally close to CA to minimize transport costs. Nevada? Average yearly wind there isn't as strong for wind turbines compared to Texas, so who knows how it will shake out.

Iowa92x | 22. März 2014

Correction above, Antarctica technically is considered a desert today based on annual precipitation. What I should have said is at one time, it was warm and lush.

scrobacca | 22. März 2014

It will most likely be in Northern Nevada. The thing most people don't realize, is that it possesses one of (if not the) world's largest lithium deposits. So aside from a lot of solar power, no state tax, close to the factory in Northern Cali, super low property taxes, low electrical power costs, etc, etc.

Timo | 22. März 2014

@Nicoletta, what I mean is that you don't gain fame anymore by touting that "we should reduce greenhouse gases". Scientist do their job without much noise, because saying this or that you get one group wanting to lynch you. People making most noise currently are climate change denialists that cherry-pick their sources like Brian H here, but I think that will fade quite soon too.

Mel. | 22. März 2014

Nicoletta, this is a forum for Tesla enthusiasts,and you do not have to be a scientist to know which way the wind blows or th have an opinion.

If someone is pro Tesla they are smart and I enjoy their opinions. You have made wonderful contributions.

Mike83 | 22. März 2014

CO2 is approaching 400 ppm as measured recently. People that ignore the scientific numbers and cannot fathom the thin layer of the earths atmosphere as limited are in denial and usually bring in superfluous information. Not worth having any discussion with those using fantasy facts since its like telling an alcoholic he has a drinking problem. NASA, Union of Concerned Scientists and 99% of climate scientists know that humans cause global warming which if not addressed soon can mean the extinction of homo sapiens in 100 or 200 years. One even bigger immediate worry is ocean acidification which could speed up human food and oxygen issues. Yet self destruction is a strange human activity explained by deep psychological defects. Unfortunate for those who like living.

Nicoletta | 22. März 2014

Thanks Mel, point taken.

Brian H | 22. März 2014

Timo, that is such BS, you clearly don't follow the literature or real news. The only thing "denialists" deny is that Believers have made even a smidgeon of an empirical case for their assertions, much less their hopeless solutions. The Believer grandaddy, James Hansen, who ran and comprehensively corrupted the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (a division of NASA) "climate unit" for decades, projected 3 scenarios in 1988, and our CO2 emissions exceed his wildest "high", but the temperatures are tracking further and further below his lowest (zero emissions, the shutdown of the global economy) low. Bogus squared.

Timo | 23. März 2014

Wasn't it you who said Appeal to authority, one of the most childish of logical fallacies. Don't cherry-pick your studies. There are literally thousands of studies showing increase in global temperature.

northsarona | 23. März 2014

Nevada gets my vote Tesla wants to get the battery costs down, it only makes sense to build where the US has it's largest lithium supply. Cutting the transportation costs on the lithium would have a large impact on accomplishing that goal. Plus there's lots of sun for the solar power.

772 | 23. März 2014

New Mexico

Homebrook | 24. März 2014

It appears that BrianH is the only one who is applying logic, reason, and the actual facts to the 'global warming' farce.

A couple questions:
1. Who is to say what temperature is normal? Now? Is it the temperature during the ice ages or when the antarctic was a tropical paradise? And who decides? I like it warm.
2. Why would not global warming, if it were to occur, be a good thing? It was during a particularly warm period that Greenland was colonized and the Vikings discovered North America. Why not welcome the possibility of global warming?
3. Why is increased carbon dioxide a bad thing? More CO2 vastly improves the process of photosynthesis and crop production. Have you seen the fossils of wild tropical vegetation with enormous insects, etc? Those grew during eras when CO2 levels were up to thirteen times higher than today. CO2 is not a poison, it is necessary for life!
4. Since when did consensus trump science? Consensus is never science. There was a time when one scientist was right and the whole 'scientific consensus' was wrong. Remember Galileo? And regarding a 'consensus', none exists. A great many highly qualified climate scientists dispute anthropogenic global warming. You cannot simply dismiss them.

The assertion that only 'scientists' can speak of global warming is patently absurd. First of all each scientist has normally only received formal training in one narrow aspect of science. Most 'scientists' who speak of global warming know no more about it than anybody else. Then even the so-called experts cannot escape the biases of their own worldviews. No one can.

It is logic and facts that decide a question, not one's 'qualifications'. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time were not made by 'scientists'. I guess those don't count? One can gain significant expertise in science without getting a degree. Witness Alvan Clark, astronomer and builder of some of the greatest optical telescopes made, yet had no formal education in astronomy.

BrianH is entirely correct, the world has not experienced any significant warming for 17 years.

Those with truly 'open minds' will allow the facts to speak for themselves and not twist the facts to fit their own political agenda.

Brian H | 24. März 2014

Altered weather history. Outrageous.

holidayday | 25. März 2014

"the world has not experienced any significant warming for 17 years

From my understanding, that claim is from land readings.

one claim.

Check the last 40 years of "record highs" vs. "record lows" in your area. If there is no climate change, there should be about a 50-50 distribution of record highs and record lows.
But if you see about 90% record highs and 10% record lows, then you can tell that a trend is occurring.

Sure, there is just one year with more record lows than highs in 2013, which has not happened since 1993.

holidayday | 25. März 2014

Oh, and I think Nevada will get the Gigafactory :)

Brian H | 25. März 2014

Actually, it is from satellite readings, the widest based, most objective, and best distributed, statistically speaking.

The land record is broadly corrupt. The most pristine record sites show no trend, but are routinely treated as "outliers" (freak errors) and "homogenized" with Urban Heat Island (UHI)-affected neighboring stations. Incompetence or fraud are the only explanations possible for this. Pick one.

johnwladd | 25. März 2014

I will place my bet on Las Vegas Nevada.

Brian H | 25. März 2014

What odds are the Vegas oddsmakers making on themselves?

Mike83 | 25. März 2014
The above lists real data on Climate Change, scientists are in agreement, its the special interests funded by the Koch's that have created the argument since they stand to lose billions if fracking is inhibited. Too bad the less informed are so easily influenced.